"Doug Weller" <dweller@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:3aepo3lfmiumb011dls0o3vtmj573ljumi@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 07:08:34 -0600, in sci.archaeology, Lars Wilson
wrote:
>
>>
>>"Peter Alaca" <p.alaca@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>news:478ca085$0$96117$dbd4d001@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> "Lars Wilson" <siaxares@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote
>>>
>>>> Thanks, this is great Matt!!!
>>>>
>>>> Lars Wilson
>>>
>>> What an idiot you are!
>>
>>ROFL! Yes, an idiot. An idiot with a mission!!!
>
> An idiot who thinks Giwer posted something useful. You've been conned.
>
>>I'm trying my dangdest to get people to understand that
>>more than likely Plato couldn't have been consulted on a math
>>problem 3 years before he was born, but I'm having difficulty
>>getting that message across for some reason.
>>
> Maybe because you're begging the question?
>
> Doug
Face it, Doug. A contradiction like this is what happens when history has
been
revised. We already know that Xenophon removed the last 7 chapters of
Thucydides
who wrote about the Peloponnesian War and inserted his own history. He
inserted
30 years to the 20-year interval between the Peloponnesian and Persian
Wars
(originally 424-403 BCE), which made it 50 on the books. But then that
got
reduced
by two years because the Olympics must occur during the year of Xerxes
invasion.
(Wars 431-482, adjusted to 431-480).
The "Delian Problem" is just one in a series of "loose ends" that
occurred,
that
survive in folklore reflecting the original timeline when Plato was an
adult
at the
time of the Peloponnesian War.
Does it seem "strange" that both Plato and Xenophon are key perservers or
the
history of Socrates? Since Socrates' history was adjusted in line with
the
PPW all his writings would have clearly dated him to a later time. So
they
simply
saved his famous dialogues and chucked the rest of his history. But you
can
still see discrepancies.
And guess what? Socrates' boy-lover, "Phaedo" who came to him around 10
years
of age and was around 18 when he died, was then turned over to Plato as a
student.
Aristotle was likewise orphaned, raised by foster parents until about 18
and
then
turned over to Plato.
When the PPW is adjusted by means of eclipse matching to begin in 403,
then
Socrates is born in 435 BCE and dies in 466 BCE. Aristotle was born in
384
BCE
which means Aristotle was age 18 when Socrates died. Aristotle mentions
and
quotes from Socrates over 80 times in his works. A man he allegedly never
knew.
Get my drift? It's over!
You show me a post about the Delian Problem issues and I find out it was a
well-known
folkloric event and all they are debating about is that it seems the
problem
was
introduced for the first time in connection with Plato being challenged
with
it,
but the problem had already been around. But NOBODY is saying that
it didn't happen because Plato wasn't born yet! That adds to the proof
that Plato was already an adult when the war broke out.
The VAT4956 was DESIGNED as a DIARY to cleverly hide some
original astronomy dated to year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar. There is NO OTHER
EXPLANATION for the double dating. Copyists didn't invent things and
certainly couldn't GUESS the precise lunar location twice for a specific
year
that had no other meaning. But if you needed to hide a secret astro
reference to a revised chronology, the diary is an ingenius idea, if you
can take advantage of a combined historical and astronomical
coincidence between the revised and original history, which you
can during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, which is a 57-year period
of distortion, which is a multiple of 19. 19 years the luni-solar
pattern repeats. Therefore lunar phase-position during the time of
Nebuchadnezzar were similar, within less than 36 hours, which rounds
off to the same day. But lunar posistions are observed as close as
1/2 cubit (2 hours) but certainly more by a cubit (4 hours). That's
why "an error for the 8th[previous day]" was noted by Sachs Hunger
for the reference in Line 3. It was a mismatch! Line 14 the same
way, a mismatch of 1 day noted by P.V. Neugebauer. But when
the "errors" were compared they were precise to 511 BCE.
NOT a coincidence. That proves the original dating for year 37 of
Nebuchadnezzar was, indeed, 511 BCE? Is that problematic?
NO! It means ****shak's invasion gets down dated c. 871 BCE
which is precisely where the archaeology is pointing. Remember,
even without the RC14 dating from Rehov, archaeologists clearly have
dated "Solomonic" Megiddo to the "early 9th century BC" anyway.
That's what all the fuss is about. Solomon appears 54-60 years
earlier than his own obviously built works! Once you correct
the timeline, using adjusted eclipses, or astro references you can't
avoid, like the VAT4956, then Solomon alignes perfectly with his
own buldings, where he should have been dated alternatively
anywise based on the dating for the fall of Jericho between
1350-1325 BCE.
So do you see what is going on here?
LOOK AT THE IMPACT!!!
If you redate Neb2 year 37 to 511 BCE, guess what happens?
Suddenly Plato is 25 years old at the time of the Peloponnesian
War when he allegedly gets asked to solve a math problem
instead of not being born yet. Isn't that BETTER?
Suddenly, Solomon matches his buildings in the early 9th century
instead of being a "myth" 60 years earlier. Isn't that BETTER?
Suddenly the fall of Jericho 1350-1325 BCE, dating the Exodus
to 1390-1365 BCE fits Solomon's rule not begining prior to
914 BCE, which in turn fits the archaeology of "Solomonic"
Megiddo and other cities (Hazor, Gezer, etc.)
Sunddely, the eclipse dating the Assyrian Period occurs in the
customary 3rd month instead of starting the year earlier than
the equinox which was not the custom during this specific
period of time. Further the 709 BCE eclipse was predictable,
but could not be until the "pattern" was established based on
two other eclipses occurring in that region, 817 and 763 BCE.
So 709 BCE was the original eclipse in the first place.
Do you see? The CORRECTED TIMELINE, of course, makes
sense in every single era.
But so many indoctrinated people, like yourself, are so afraid of
the C-words ("conspiracy" and "chronology") they close their eyes
to the facts and make excuses.
But now that game is old and dead. FACT is, now you can
ALTERNATIVELY redate Solomon down to 910-870 BCE
without or without the Bible's blessings and there is not a thing
any archaeologist can say about it because the RC14 dating from
Rehov confirms ****shak's invasion in 871 BCE anyway. It
is difficult to rebut dating Solomon to that period when it
is in perfect alignment with the RC14 dating.
Zero archaeological rebuttal. But once the archeologists start
to try to validate the Assyrian Period dating as a preemptive
reference, they loose immediately, because then they have to become
Greek historical experts and have to explain why nobody noticed
before that Plato wasn't born yet when he was asked to solve
the Delian Problem. They can't. Nor do they have the expertise
to dismiss the legend. As SCIENTISTS they have to consider
historical revisionism -- which they do when the Bible doesn't
work -- and the corrections have already been worked out,
completely.
They have to explain why 511 BCE references are in a 568-BCE
astronomical text. At some point they must presume this was
intentional because of the difficulty of guessing precise lunar
locations, in which case it is obvious 511 BCE is the original
dating for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar. Also no biggee because
Martin Anstey combined with Josephus gives you the precise same
dating.
And finally Akhenatens 90-degree turn to becoming a monotheist
suddenly makes perfect sense if he is the pharaoh that followed the
Exodus and the Ten Plagues. What choice did he have?
So BY ALL MEANS, Doug, hang onto the fake timeline and try
to make it seem legit as long as you can. You can only LOSE this
debate at this point. And the more you balk the more you show
that it is YOU who is a "kook fundie secularist" and not truly
a scientist. For once I'm the scientist with the open mind to the
facts, and you're the one running from the facts with a closed mind.
Lars Wilson
|
