Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Larsguy47 · 03-27-2007, 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Watch closely: your dating has already been invalidated, due to the references to the cities of Raamses and Pithom. The former was named after Ramses II who was born circa 1305BCE. Worse is Pithom, whose foundations -- Redford (loc. cit. p.451) tells us -- "date from the early years of Necho II". Your dating ain't nowhere.

Maybe you have another astronomical event to redate the founding of those cities with.

spin

Per the Bible, Goshen was known as the "Land of RAMESES" during the time of Joseph and thus during the time of Apophis. Therefore, the family of Rameses owned this land. Every city is not named after the pharoah. Instead when they built Pi-Rameses ("House of Rameses") it was just named after the landlord. This was a prominent family who married into the Amenhotep family and later became the ruling pharoahs. It did not mean that this city was named after him because he was pharoah.

Furthermore, this position is dismissed generally because it causes too many problems archaeologically.

For instance dating the Exodus to around 1260 BCE means the 4th of Solomon falls in 780BCE, his reign now dated from 784-744BCE. Shishak's invasion would occur around 743BCE, year 39 of Solomon/year 5 of Rehoboam. 72 years after that would be the battle of Karkar in 671 BCE. The normal dating for Shishak's invasion is 925BCE, 72 years before the Battle of Karkar dated to 853BCE. 671 BCE is some 182 years off from the traditional dating which is linked to the eclipse of 763BCE. Normally there is 266 years from Karkar in 853 to the fall of Jerusalem in 587BCE.

If you move the entire timeline down by 182 years then Persia which usually falls in 333 BCE doesn't fall until 151 years before Christ, and Christ instead of being born in 2 BCE ends up being born in 180 AD.

So unless you plan on revising the timeline drastically the Exodus dating after the rule of Rameses is out!

That's why that theory, just based upon the naming of Pi-Rameses after Rameses became pharoah is dismissed. Even Kathleen Kenyon says that dating doesn't work out with the archaeology:

Quote:

Kathleen Kenyon: Digging Up Jericho, Jericho and the Coming of the Israelites, page 262:

"As concerns the date of the destruction of Jericho by the Israelites, all that can be said is that the latest Bronze Age occupation should, in my view, be dated to the third quarter of the fourteenth century B.C. This is a date which suits neither the school of scholars which would date the entry of the Israelites into Palestine to c. 1400 B.C. nor the school which prefers a date of c. 1260 B.C."

So 1260 is out, archaeologically speaking.

Sorry.

I hope this doesn't mess up your chronology too much elsewhere for Biblical events. :huh:

Larsguy47

spin · 03-27-2007, 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larsguy47

Per the Bible, Goshen was known as the "Land of RAMESES" during the time of Joseph and thus during the time of Apophis. Therefore, the family of Rameses owned this land. Every city is not named after the pharoah. Instead when they built Pi-Rameses ("House of Rameses") it was just named after the landlord. This was a prominent family who married into the Amenhotep family and later became the ruling pharoahs. It did not mean that this city was named after him because he was pharoah.

Please cite your references. I cannot read your mind.

Ex 1:11 talks of the "treasure" cities of Pithom and Raamses.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larsguy47

Furthermore, this position is dismissed generally because it causes too many problems archaeologically.

Please cite your references. I cannot read your mind.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larsguy47

For instance dating the Exodus to around 1260 BCE means the 4th of Solomon falls in 780BCE, his reign now dated from 784-744BCE. Shishak's invasion would occur around 743BCE, year 39 of Solomon/year 5 of Rehoboam. 72 years after that would be the battle of Karkar in 671 BCE. The normal dating for Shishak's invasion is 925BCE, 72 years before the Battle of Karkar dated to 853BCE. 671 BCE is some 182 years off from the traditional dating which is linked to the eclipse of 763BCE. Normally there is 266 years from Karkar in 853 to the fall of Jerusalem in 587BCE.

This has almost nothing to do with archaeology. It's about problems of coherence of Hebrew literature.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larsguy47

If you move the entire timeline down by 182 years then Persia which usually falls in 333 BCE doesn't fall until 151 years before Christ, and Christ instead of being born in 2 BCE ends up being born in 180 AD.

The obvious conclusion should be that the biblical data is simply erroneous. These things happened in ancient literature. There are many such errors in the Hebrew literature.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larsguy47

So unless you plan on revising the timeline drastically the Exodus dating after the rule of Rameses is out!

People have told you often enough, the exodus is bogus. So you keep babbling around in circles not listening.

The simplest explanation is that you are dealing with errors. You don't trump up crap to stave off the inevitable. There was no mass exodus, because the Hebrews didn't emerge as an ethnos until they had a language to unite them and separate them from the other Canaanites.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larsguy47

That's why that theory, just based upon the naming of Pi-Rameses after Rameses became pharoah is dismissed. Even Kathleen Kenyon says that dating doesn't work out with the archaeology:

Your logic once again is based on poor foundations. We start with what we know, such as when Pithom was founded, and work from there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larsguy47

So 1260 is out, archaeologically speaking.

I must agree. There is no chance of an exodus before the time of Necho II. Right?

Someone said:

"I hope this doesn't mess up your chronology too much elsewhere for Biblical events."

spin

RED DAVE · 03-27-2007, 10:25 PM

From RED DAVE:

Quote:

Still waiting, here, Larsguy47. You made some pretty wild statements so, one more time:

1) Let's see some evidence, that's evidence, as in sources, that Socrates did not die ca 399 BC.

Socrates: ca 470 BCE - 399 BCE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socrates

2) Let's see some evidence, that's evidence, as in sources, that the Peloponnesian War began in 403 BCE.

Peloponnesian War: 431 BCE - 404 BCE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peloponnesian_War

3) Let's see some evidence, that's evidence, as in sources, Xerxes and Artaxerxes were the same person.

Xerxes I: reigned 485 BCE - 465 BCE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xerxes_I_of_Persia

Artaxerxes I: reigned 465 BCE - 424 BCE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artaxerxes_I_of_Persia

From Larsguy47:

Quote:

You can't simply quote from the Encylopedia. That only reflects what the revised history is.

It’s up to you to refute the standard sources. The revisions are yours.

From Larsguy47:

Quote:

For instance, "The Delian Problem" claims Plato was consulted in 430 BCE to help stop the plague. He wasn't born until 428BCE. That suggests REVISIONISM.

That suggests that Theon of Smyrna, a second-century Platonist, got his story wrong.

http://books.google.com/books?id=nMl...3YaEILGdO2mlkI

From Larsguy47:

Quote:

If we presume he had to be an adult at least 20-25 years old to fit this scenario, we'd automatically look to redating the Peloponnesian War 20-25 years after the birth of Plato in 428BCE.

So on the basis of a second century BC legend, you want to redate the Peloponnesian War. Don’t try this in Ancient History 101

From Larsguy47:

Quote:

But since an eclipse event occurs in the 1st Olympic year cycle in relation to the war, you have to match an eclipse that occurs over Athens, a total eclipse that fits the description given in historical sources and also align it so that it also dates the war in the 1st year of the Olympic cycle, but also when Plato is at least 20-25 years old. The 402 BCE eclipse does precisely that.

So does the eclipse of 431, an annular (not partial) eclipse.

From Larsguy47:

Quote:

But, after that is established

But you haven’t established it at all. All you’ve done is quote a legend and express your revisionist preference for an eclipse that matches your system but no one else’s.

From Larsguy47:

Quote:

you have to coordinate Persian history with this. There are two references:

1) The end of a 30-year peace agreement ends in year 10 of the War.

What peace agreement? What war?

From Larsguy47:

Quote:

That would be 394. That means the agreement was struck in 424BCE, that would be the original dating for the year of Xerxes' invasion.

Sources.

From Larsguy47:

Quote:

Ten years earlier would be the Battle of Marathon. The Bible records that Darius died in his sixth year and that "Artaxerxes" completed the temple that same year.

I assume that the quotes around Artaxerxes mean that your are indulging in your notion that, for some reason, Xerxes, the father, named himself Artaxerxes, the son.

From Larsguy47:

Quote:

The Battle of Marathon was in the fall so that gave Artaxerxes some hands-on time to complete the temple. Herodotus confirms that Darius died at Marathon by this cryptic reference:

Let’s just go on.

Quote:

There fell in this battle of Marathon, on the side of the barbarians, about six thousand and four hundred men; on that of the Athenians, one hundred and ninety-two. Such was the number of the slain on the one side and the other. A strange prodigy likewise happened at this fight. Epizelus, the son of Cuphagoras, an Athenian, was in the thick of the fray, and behaving himself as a brave man should, when suddenly he was stricken with blindness, without blow of sword or dart; and this blindness continued thenceforth during the whole of his after life. The following is the account which he himself, as I have heard, gave of the matter: he said that a gigantic warrior, with a huge beard, which shaded all his shield, stood over against him, but the ghostly semblance passed him by, and slew the man at his side. Such, as I understand, was the tale which Epizelus told.

Darius was known for his famous long beard:

And uniquely so, others were not permitted to grow their beards this long. Darius' death at Marathon is the whole reason Xerxes specifically wanted to destroy the Athenians. He was not interested in conquering Greece, just punishing Athens. At any rate, we can now introduce the Biblical timeline here since the temple was completed that following spring, 22 years after it began in the 1st of Cyrus. That dates the 1st of Cyrus to 455BCE.

Let's get this straight: you are making the assertion that Darius died at the Battle of Marathon on the basis of your interpretation of Herodotus's report of a soldier's hallucination? Hint: Don’t use this proof for your final paper in Ancient History 101. You’ll be repeating the course.

From Larsguy47:

Quote:

2) Likewise, Artaxerxes dies after 41 years of rule in the 8th year of the war, now dated to 396BCE. Now previously he had claimed to be Xerxes, who ruled for 21 years and so all might have been well if he only claimed a 20-year rule as "Artaxerxes" and a 21-year rule as Xerxes, but he didn't. Thus with this dating Artaxerxes begins his rule the same as Xerxes all the way back to 437BCE, as co-ruler with Darius, which he was.

Gobbledygook. You still have not explained, among other things, why Xerxes masqueraded as Artaxerxes.

From Larsguy47:

Quote:

Here Xerxes is seen with Darius at Persepolis, already co-ruler. Persepolis began to be built in the 4th year of Darius but he only had time to barely finish his palace, usually only taking 2 years. This proves he died shortly after he began the city. Xerxes was forced to finish all the buildings himself, even though one of then he finished as "Artaxerxes".

Xerxes while co-ruler with Darius

Anyway, if Xerxes and Artaxerxes was the same king, one legend says that he was born the same year his father became king. Well obviously if Persepolis began in the 4th year of the reign of Darius we can see Xerxes is already an adult, that reference is not correct. But we understand it's original source when applied to his grandfather, Cyrus, whose kingship was far more important to the Persians and especially the Medes. At 18 in 437BCE, Xerxes would have been born in 455BCE, the 1st of Cyrus. So he was indeed born the same year his father became king.

Of course, dating the 1st of Cyrus in 455BCE dates the Exodus to 1386BCE and that dates Shishak's invasion to 871BCE and that's where the RC14 dating from Rehov confirms when that city fell.

So it's great! The Bible and the Jews are good historians. Face the facts.

Sigh. I will leave this to someone with more patience, time and knowledge than I to refute.

In the meantime.

From Dean Anderson:

Quote:

Wikipedia doesn't mention it, but Nicomachus died when Aristotle was 10 years old (Phaestis had already been dead for some time) and Aristotle's uncle, Proxenus, became his guardian until he moved to Athens at the age of 18.

A quick Google search for "Aristotle" and "Proxenus" gives lots of references for this (although some say that Proxenus was not a blood relation, but merely a family friend).

From Larsguy47:

Quote:

Thanks! I have some quotes somewhere also about Hippocrates who allegedly was older than Socrates. Plus apparently the writtings of Hippocrates covers 100 years and so some of his writings are claimed to have been written by others. But of note, it would have to be a choice of either the first or last 50 years! When the chronology for this time is reduced, then the span of his writings falls within a normal lifetime.

Quote:

The Hippocratic Corpus (Latin: Corpus Hippocratum) is a collection of around seventy early medical works from ancient Greece, written in Ionic Greek. The question of whether Hippocrates himself was the author of the corpus has not been conclusively answered,[41] but the volumes were probably produced by his students and followers.[42] Because of the variety of subjects, writing styles and apparent date of construction, scholars believe Hippocratic Corpus could not have been written by one person (Ermerins numbers the authors at nineteen).

Could you please source your quotes. And what is your point here?

From Larsguy47:

Quote:

Socrates and Hippocrates were supposedly both youths together, with Socrates slightly younger than Hippocrates.

Source, please.

From Larsguy47:

Quote:

Right now Socrates is 9 years older than Hippocrates if Hippocrates is born in 460BCE and Socrates around 469. 9 years is a big gap. When Hippocrates was 10 Socrates would have been 19, and when Hippocrates was 15, Socrates would have been 24. Hardly youths together.

And hardly a major gap.

Quote:

To the later Plato and to Aristotle, Hippocrates from the island of Cos was known as a famous physician, and subsequent tradition sets Hippocrates into the midst of the intellectual ferment at the end of the fifth century. Aulus Gellius, a Roman rhetorician of the second century A.D., puts it this way:

Then the great Peloponnesian War began in Greece, which Thucydides has handed down to memory...During that period Sophocles, and later Euripides, were famous and renowned as tragic poets, Hippocrates as a physician, and as a philosopher, Democritus; Socrates the Athenian was younger than these, but was in part their contemporary. (Noctes Atticae XVII.21, 16-18).

So what is your point? Aulus Gellius, 600 years after this period, got it slightly wrong.

Sophocles – 495 - 406
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophocles

Euripedes – 480 - 406
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euripedes

Hippocrates – ca 460 - ca 370
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocrates

Democritus – ca 460 - ca 370
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democritus

Socrates – ca 470 - 399
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socrates

RED DAVE

Larsguy47 · 03-27-2007, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Please cite your references. I cannot read your mind.

Gen 47:1 "1 Accordingly Joseph came and reported to Phar´aoh and said: “My father and my brothers and their flocks and their herds and all they have have come from the land of Ca´naan, and here they are in the land of Go´shen.”

Gen 47:11 "Thus Joseph had his father and his brothers dwell and he gave them a possession in the land of Egypt, in the very best of the land, in the land of Ram´e·ses, just as Phar´aoh had commanded."

See, it was already called the "land of Rameses" during the time of the Hyksos.

Quote:

Ex 1:11 talks of the "treasure" cities of Pithom and Raamses.

So, they were named after the local land baron. They were super rich. Do you know of any other cities named after a pharoah? "Pi Rameses" means HOUSE OF RAMESES. Did Rameses live there? Was that his capital city? This land was owned by them during the Hyksos period and they just named a city after them, that's all. If you own the land, you don't have to be pharoah to have something named after you on your own land.

Quote:

Please cite your references. I cannot read your mind.

See scriptures above.

Quote:

This has almost nothing to do with archaeology. It's about problems of coherence of Hebrew literature.

It's all connected, one way or the others.

Quote:

The obvious conclusion should be that the biblical data is simply erroneous. These things happened in ancient literature. There are many such errors in the Hebrew literature.

Well, yes, that's one way out of it. My position is just the opposite, which is far more than likely it's the pagans who change their chronology due to politics, the same as today. The biggest and best liars today are governments and their spy agencies. They are paid to lie and make their lies convincing. There's barely an ancient historian out there from Josephus to Xenophon that doesn't decry how all the other historians are lying right and left. Herodotus is called both the "father of history" and also the "father of lies"! (by Ktesias, I believe).

So I don't take sides. I just make COMPARISONS. You know, two different dates for the same event compared to something archaeological or based upon an eclipse or radiocarbon 14 dating.

Quote:

People have told you often enough, the exodus is bogus. So you keep babbling around in circles not listening.

The Exodus was a real event. It actually happened. It happened in 1386BCE on Nisan 14th, after which, having seen all these great wonders, the next pharoah converted to monotheism, big time and tried to suppress worship of false gods in his kingdom. It all fits. Jericho fell 40 years later just where the archaeologists are dating that event. RC14 dating from Rehov confirms the true dating. So dream on.

Quote:

The simplest explanation is that you are dealing with errors. You don't trump up crap to stave off the inevitable. There was no mass exodus, because the Hebrews didn't emerge as an ethnos until they had a language to unite them and separate them from the other Canaanites.

Truly, I hear what you are saying based upon what survives archaeologically. But archaeology can't tell about everything. IF people are nomads and living in tents and traveling light, then nothing will be left of them for antiquity. Then when archaeologists dig something up they also DESTROY it. Someone was talking about a pile of rocks found at "Ai" in earlier times but that were removed by the archaeologists. They noted that it was there and took a picture of it, but now it's gone! Thus something potentially "historical" had it not been recorded would not have been confirmed now. So who knows who carted away all the stones left from the wall that fell at Jericho? We don't know. So I can't just dismiss a record of an event in a historical record because lazy archaeologists haven't been able to find anything that wasn't likely left anyway. HEY! The Jews are TENT PEOPLE. Yeah sure while they were in the wilderness out of boredom they did build a couple of pyramids, but Moses made them tear them down before they left so that the wilderness camp site was left nice for the next visitors....

Quote:

Your logic once again is based on poor foundations. We start with what we know, such as when Pithom was founded, and work from there.

Again, you only have evidence of things that survive, like stone and clay. If something was made of wood then it didn't survive. Names of cities are mentioned in Egyptian records that are virtually nonexistent now. You can't expect to find every little thing.

But I tell you this! When it IS time to find something absolute, then it matches the Bible quite well. The Bible mentions Solomon, for instance, building at Meggido, Gezer and Hazor, specifically. There they found very similar six-chambered gates at all three sites! These gates are at the same level as the palaces that were found. So that fits that they were built by Solomon, just as the Bible says. Problem is, where the incompetent archaeologists are dating Solomon based upon that bogus dating for the Assyrian Period, Solomon appears to early to have built these gates or the palaces, even though the Bible claims he did, and even though the palaces are actually there. What is criticial is that it's not that no palaces were found at all or that Israel never reached the state of opulence described during the time of Solomon. Archaeologists admit the evidence from the period of 910-870BCE was opulent based upon the palaces that were built. But the TIMING is off and so they doubt the Bible. But nobody told them to use revised dates from the Greek Period.

Now, RC14 dating, which simply dates specimens found at certain levels confirms that the palacial levels are 99% probable for dates between 874-867BCE! That is precisely where they should be dated per the Bible.

So archaeologists might be good at dating, but they don't know what they are doing as far as Biblical history is concerned. And they don't want to resolve problems because it is easy just to say as you do, that the Bible is just in error. But it's not the Bible or archaeology or scientific dating, it's the timeline and politics.

Quote:

I must agree. There is no chance of an exodus before the time of Necho II. Right?

Right. Except for the one in 1386BCE.

Quote:

Someone said:

"I hope this doesn't mess up your chronology too much elsewhere for Biblical events."

spin

Don't look at me.... :devil1:

Larsguy47

RED DAVE · 03-27-2007, 11:00 PM

Just a point, Larsguy47:

In all your cross-references to Socrates in Aristotle, not one of them is personal, and not one of them indicates any knowledge that would not have been held by a student of Plato who was the student of Socrates. None of them are as intimate as the quotes of Xenophon and Plato, both of whom knew Socrates personally.

Aristotle was born after Socrates died, and with all your posting, you have not produced one iota of real proof that it was not so.

As to your eclipse fantasy, one point: if the line of totality actually passed through the harbor of Athens, the actual time of totality in Athens would have only been a few seconds. Hardly an impressive solar eclipse. Cooler than the eclipse of 432 but not by much.

RED DAVE

spin · 03-27-2007, 11:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larsguy47

Quote:

Please cite your references. I cannot read your mind.

Gen 47:1 "1 Accordingly Joseph came and reported to Phar´aoh and said: “My father and my brothers and their flocks and their herds and all they have have come from the land of Ca´naan, and here they are in the land of Go´shen.”

Gen 47:11 "Thus Joseph had his father and his brothers dwell and he gave them a possession in the land of Egypt, in the very best of the land, in the land of Ram´e·ses, just as Phar´aoh had commanded."

See, it was already called the "land of Rameses" during the time of the Hyksos.

You are assuming your conclusions. You don't use a text to show itself to be correct.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larsguy47

Quote:

Ex 1:11 talks of the "treasure" cities of Pithom and Raamses.

So, they were named after the local land baron. They were super rich. Do you know of any other cities named after a pharoah? "Pi Rameses" means HOUSE OF RAMESES. Did Rameses live there? Was that his capital city? This land was owned by them during the Hyksos period and they just named a city after them, that's all. If you own the land, you don't have to be pharoah to have something named after you on your own land.

You cannot use a text you are trying to show is correct to show it is correct. You are only leaving yourself liable to building errors on errors.

And you totally avoid the fact that Pithom was built by Necho II.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larsguy47

Quote:

This has almost nothing to do with archaeology. It's about problems of coherence of Hebrew literature.

It's all connected, one way or the others.

In your fantasy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larsguy47

Quote:

The obvious conclusion should be that the biblical data is simply erroneous. These things happened in ancient literature. There are many such errors in the Hebrew literature.

Well, yes, that's one way out of it. My position is just the opposite, which is far more than likely it's the pagans who change their chronology due to politics, the same as today.

Would you like to use some evidence for your position rather than this stuff?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larsguy47

So I don't take sides. I just make COMPARISONS.

Oh crap. You start with an a priori position, ie a side, and that dictates your outcome. Of course you take sides. You cannot let the evidence lead you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larsguy47

Quote:

People have told you often enough, the exodus is bogus. So you keep babbling around in circles not listening.

The Exodus was a real event. It actually happened.

Does this logic that mean if I say Dorothy going over the rainbow was a real event, that it actually happened, you'll believe me?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larsguy47

It happened in 1386BCE on Nisan 14th, after which, having seen all these great wonders, the next pharoah converted to monotheism, big time and tried to suppress worship of false gods in his kingdom. It all fits. Jericho fell 40 years later just where the archaeologists are dating that event. RC14 dating from Rehov confirms the true dating. So dream on.

No, it doesn't, unless you use the word "confirm" to mean "doesn't obviously contradict".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larsguy47

Quote:

The simplest explanation is that you are dealing with errors. You don't trump up crap to stave off the inevitable. There was no mass exodus, because the Hebrews didn't emerge as an ethnos until they had a language to unite them and separate them from the other Canaanites.

Truly, I hear what you are saying based upon what survives archaeologically. But archaeology can't tell about everything.

But what archaeology there is is most of the evidence available to us. You know the importance of evidence, don't you? Archaeology can show that things did happen. Archaeology has confirmed the siege of Lachish by the Assyrians for example, or the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians.

When you get down to the foundations, such as happened with Pithom and find nothing else, you can go with the Necho II dating as archaeologically sound.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larsguy47

The Jews are TENT PEOPLE.

If you took the time to consider their feasts, you'll find two agricultural feasts, shavuot and sukkot, ie they weren't tent people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larsguy47

Quote:

Your logic once again is based on poor foundations. We start with what we know, such as when Pithom was founded, and work from there.

Again, you only have evidence of things that survive, like stone and clay. If something was made of wood then it didn't survive. Names of cities are mentioned in Egyptian records that are virtually nonexistent now. You can't expect to find every little thing.

You're not thinking. Take the city of Pithom (the "house of Atum"), dig to its foundations and stop. Look at the indications: they belong to Necho II. Stop. That's all you need.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larsguy47

When it IS time to find something absolute, then it matches the Bible quite well. The Bible mentions Solomon, for instance, building at Meggido, Gezer and Hazor, specifically. There they found very similar six-chambered gates at all three sites! These gates are at the same level as the palaces that were found.

Actually, you aren't up with the archaeology. Look at Amihai Mazar's book on the archaeology of Israel (or any such standard work) and forget about those gates being solomonic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larsguy47

So that fits that they were built by Solomon, just as the Bible says.

They weren't...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larsguy47

Problem is, where the incompetent archaeologists are dating Solomon based upon that bogus dating for the Assyrian Period,

I like this shift of incompetence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larsguy47

Solomon appears to early to have built these gates or the palaces, even though the Bible claims he did, and even though the palaces are actually there. What is criticial is that it's not that no palaces were found at all or that Israel never reached the state of opulence described during the time of Solomon. Archaeologists admit the evidence from the period of 910-870BCE was opulent based upon the palaces that were built. But the TIMING is off and so they doubt the Bible. But nobody told them to use revised dates from the Greek Period.

Please cite your sources. I cannot read your mind.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larsguy47

Now, RC14 dating, which simply dates specimens found at certain levels confirms that the palacial levels are 99% probable for dates between 874-867BCE! That is precisely where they should be dated per the Bible.

As you don't understand c14 dating, I suggest you learn before you try to use it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larsguy47

So archaeologists might be good at dating, but they don't know what they are doing as far as Biblical history is concerned.

And you were saying that you don't take sides.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larsguy47

And they don't want to resolve problems because it is easy just to say as you do, that the Bible is just in error. But it's not the Bible or archaeology or scientific dating, it's the timeline and politics.

Your ignorance of the history of (biblical) archaeology is your undoing.

spin

Weltall · 03-27-2007, 11:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Your ignorance of the history of (biblical) archaeology is your undoing.

[Emperor] Your faith in your facts is yours. [/Emperor]

Sorry, couldn't resist. Nice owning though, pity Lars won't take notice of the fact that his cart is demonstrably before his horse.

RED DAVE · 03-27-2007, 11:51 PM

Just a quickly before lights out:

According to Larsguy47:

Socrates born about 435 BCE

But what he doesn't realize is that he has actually uncovered he truth above one of the most startling personages of all time.

Because in 423 BCE, Socrates was depicted by Aristophanes in his play The Clouds as a full-blown adult intellectual. And he was only twelve hears old at the time!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristophanes

Wow!

RED DAVE

Amaleq13 · 03-28-2007, 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larsguy47

IF people are nomads and living in tents and traveling light, then nothing will be left of them for antiquity.

The ignorance of this statement is astounding.

As our own rlogan has pointed out repeatedly, evidence of far smaller ancient groups of nomadic peoples have been found here in Alaska despite the fact that they often lived in homes built of snow!

To suggest that the numbers of people over the amount of time indicated by the Bible myth would not leave plentiful evidence is simply ridiculous.

Pataphysician · 03-28-2007, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larsguy47

Thanks for that reference. Also apparently both became charges or students of Plato.

Actually No they weren't, Phaedo left for Elis soon after Socrates death and founded his own school with his own followers, there is even some evidence that he was on less than amicable terms with Plato, he was definitely not a student of Plato and Aristotle definitely was a student of Plato for 20 years and lived in Athens for 20 years, something Phaedo did not do as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larsguy47

Here's another quote about Socrates:

From: Lovers pre 1000 A.D.

Larsguy47

I guess I don't see the relevance of either source to your point. One by the way is Castiglione, a Renaissance writer is hardly a usefull source for Socrates. The other seems to be someones rehash of Diogenes Laertius but is unsourced so it could just be the author of this website.

So no they don't have being students or charges of Plato in common either. So again all they have in common is they are men, they are Greek, they are philosophers, if this is all it takes, I could say any number of persons is Phaedo, you could not dispute it.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-27-2007, 11:00 PM	#35
RED DAVE Banned Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: NYC Posts: 10,532	Just a point, Larsguy47: In all your cross-references to Socrates in Aristotle, not one of them is personal, and not one of them indicates any knowledge that would not have been held by a student of Plato who was the student of Socrates. None of them are as intimate as the quotes of Xenophon and Plato, both of whom knew Socrates personally. Aristotle was born after Socrates died, and with all your posting, you have not produced one iota of real proof that it was not so. As to your eclipse fantasy, one point: if the line of totality actually passed through the harbor of Athens, the actual time of totality in Athens would have only been a few seconds. Hardly an impressive solar eclipse. Cooler than the eclipse of 432 but not by much. RED DAVE

03-27-2007, 11:51 PM	#38
RED DAVE Banned Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: NYC Posts: 10,532	Just a quickly before lights out: According to Larsguy47: Socrates born about 435 BCE But what he doesn't realize is that he has actually uncovered he truth above one of the most startling personages of all time. Because in 423 BCE, Socrates was depicted by Aristophanes in his play The Clouds as a full-blown adult intellectual. And he was only twelve hears old at the time!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristophanes Wow! RED DAVE

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.