RED DAVE

Uhh, dude, I've been answering your points since you began your fantasy venture in history here. I've restricted myself to your nonsense about Greek history. As an example, you still haven't produced an iota of evidence that Aristotle was Phaedo and Socrates' lover, yet you still repeat this bullshit time and again.

RED DAVE

spin

Larsguy47,

You have ignored too much evidence while constructing your fanta-history. There is plain evidence from Persia which indicates that Xerxes I and Artaxerxes I are different people. You functionally ignore that data by the absurd proposal that Xerxes and Artaxerxes are really the one person, despite the fact that Artaxerxes claims to be the son of Xerxes and despite the fact that there are documents -- the Persepolis fortification tablets -- which show the years from the 30th year of Darius for a number of generations after that.

You ignore the indication in Herodotus that Artaxerxes was the son of Xerxes who was the son of Darius. And I'm sure you'll ignore the data from Thucydides that calls Artaxerxes the son of Xerxes.

Number fiddling won't help you, Larsguy47. You need to face the historical data and provide a cogent argument that deals with it. You need to provide real serious upfront evidence that Xerxes and Artaxerxes I were one and the same.

Why do the Greeks firmly link Darius I to the Second Persian Invasion with the battle of Marathon (c.490BCE)? why Xerxes to the Third Persian Invasion and the battle of Plataea (c.479BCE)? All the historical and epigraphic sources agree that we have three kings, those we know as Darius I, Xerxes I and Artaxerxes I. All you do is twiddle numbers. You must deal with all the evidence. It is insufficient to point at a Greek translation of Esther which substitutes Artaxerxes for Xerxes -- you can't even tell me when Esther was written, nor can you explain why both the MT and the Vulgate have Xerxes if your belief is correct. I've already explained the possible error translating Ahasuerus in the MT to the LXX Artaxerxes rather than Xerxes. The Hebrew starts with a vowel (well, alef), which suggests an alpha in Greek, hence Artaxerxes. Explain why Artaxerxes in Greek Esther ended up in Hebrew Ahasuerus, while Ezra has both Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes.

Why does Darius have a 30th year according to Persepolis tablets? You have to answer questions rather running from them and starting new threads.


spin

Julian

Okay, there are some real howlers in here, I just have to point out of few of the more 'interesting' ones for the general readers who, I am sure, would never bother to read this silliness. So without further ado I bring you the highlights of the OP, the comedy stylings of LG47:
Errr, landing at Marathon IS an invasion of Greece. See, Marathon is IN Greece. How exactly does one invade Greece while intending to invade it later?
Wow, tough girl. Are you sure she didn't bite it off? Was her name Λορενα Βοββιττος?
On this point I accept your expert opinion based on personal experience.
Is there such a thing as a non-ruling co-ruler?
"Damn those Athenians! I'll get them for this! Later."
How would you know?
So the Greeks make Xerxes a laughingstock (again I accept your opinion here for the same reasons as above) and, having done so, they want revenge?!?!

"Man, we really messed up that Xerxes guy. He was humiliated and beaten."
"Yeah, we need revenge for beating him. There is nothing I hate more than the utter destruction of my enemy. I need revenge. Later."
Because how could the widely traveling Greeks ever know anything that was chisled in stone, oversized, and publically displayed for all to see in the city that was the pride of Persia? The best way to hide something is to leave it out in the open and attach a few neon signs, flashing 'Get it here!'
Which makes more sense than LG47's posts, i.e. none whatsoever.
Having brains, education, and common sense. Maybe even all three?
Chaldean Intelligence Agency
His old drinking buddies. Especially Aristotle, who loved to cooperate with the Persians, a feeling he conveyed to a future pupil of his up in Macedon. Let's face it, those old Greek philosophers were all in cahoots, conspiring with the Persians against their own country, and had no principles. And don't get me started on Xenophon! He loved the Persians. He loved them so much that he went over there with the ten thousands and caressed the Persians with kind and gentle implements, such as spears and swords. And he would never fight the Persian ruler directly...
Yeah, right! Like anyone can get decent digs in Palestine these days. The best you can hope for is a bombed-out condo.
Hell, we can date it down to the actual date using the surprisingly simple LG47 Method of reading distribution charts.
Such as a vast array of internet posts by Larsguy47 in addition to...errr...in addition to...hmmm...
want to be confused with insane asylum escapees and
You know, stars and stuff.
Okay, so David goes out Linda and Solomon brings a handy selection of Egyptian wenches.
I did have fun, it was a nice little break from work. I didn't comment on your historical observations since you simply made up most of them. I am not saying that you are lying, I am sure you believe everything you write, just that no one else seems to know any of the things you are privy to. You might just be the most knowledgable man on the planet.

Julian

RAFH

Somehow, I am getting this has nothing to do with the great Greco-Parisian fashion wars of recent years. Or am I not understanding any of this?

Julian

Aha, but that's where you are wrong! On one hand we have the parisian standards and on the other the aforementioned pogoniasis of the pogomaniacal Darius.

Imagine my pilary horripilation when realizing the depilous floccinaucinihilipilification of your comment.

I can't believe I just typed I sentence I couldn't possibly pronounce. I dare anyone to try...

Julian

FatherMithras

Well, even though the burden of proof is on Lars, it seems that he's been roundly refuted once again.

I can't imagine the mental hoops one puts them through trying to reconcile the Bible with reality. It's so much easier, simpler, and more accurate to just admit the Bible has flaws.

Weltall

Pronouncing it or producng a snigfripulytious sentence with zxnyiand words of ylz own?

Larsguy47

Certainly! That tends to be the trend though the believers are holding out. The scholarly community in particular seem to have a blind eye to evidence supporting the Bible and freely presume what they don't accept personally in the Bible simply isn't true or has been exaggerated. Case in point the Groningen dating of City IV Rehov, which is clearly Shishak's invasion is dated within less than 10 years c. 871BCE, but it doesn't match the revised chronology so archaeologists are trying to explain their way out of it to match the secular timeline but have long ago been Bible bashing Solomon and dated when based on that same timeline are out of sync with archaeological findings. So it's truly hypocritical.

Thanks for your comments!

LG47

Larsguy47

You haven't refuted a thing! I always amazes me that people who simply disagree with you and in their own minds think they have address an issue think something has been refuted. Then they come back the next day and summarize for everyone that the debate has been won.

I used to debate all kinds of things with people and then when they didn't win and give up, later came back and claimed they adequately disputed my point when they have done no such thing. It's a progaganda thing.

The fact is, I've learned that certain things people seldom talk about such as:

XERXES AND ARTAXERXES BEING THE SAME KING. Nobody touches that for some reason. Maybe because it's too problematic. Of course, Plutarch shows Themistocles fleeing to XERXES not Artaxerxes though he acknowledges the confusion over this. And Persepolis doesn't help either.

NEHEMIAH RETURNS WITH ZERUBBABEL: I haven't developed this of late but nobody likes to deal with Nehemiah and his complex Jewish history compared to the Bible. Maybe because there are too many contradictions. It's clear the Jews split the history of Nehemiah when they rewrote "Esdras" but clearly left off the part where Nehemiah was with Artaxerxes and rebulding the walls. That's problematic because in later times just the opposite is promoted. That the Nehemiah who returns with Zerubbabel isn't the same Nehemiah with Artaxerxes many years later. But there's nothing you can do with that history.

So you see some things are not "refutable" in history, they are just standing contradictions.

Another example is Ktesias, who is suppressed by modern historians but who gives a different detail of the life of Cyrus than Herodotus and Xenophon. Ktesias has Cyrus as the nephew-in-law of Darius the Mede, and as the son-in-law of Astyages rather than his grandson!!! It's a conflict and its there. It can't be refuted. In the meantime, the famous Thales eclipse must occur in 478BCE obviously, since it has to be an eclipse that matches one in Egypt 54 years earlier. Egypt is where Thales studied astronomy. How can you refute that? Herodotus says the peace agreement was mediated by then king of Babylon, Labynetus. It was a double-reference. But those who see this make up the idea that this is not the king and some administrator named Labynetus and think they have "refuted" something because they came up with an excuse.

Which gets to what's happening here. Everybody isn't smart enough to understand these complexities and are easily fooled by smooth words, or fail to check out anything. So all I have left to do is to post my information for "the wise" and they can investigate further and make up their own decisions.

HERE'S YOUR BIBLICAL I.Q. TEST:

Ezra 6:14 And the older men of the Jews were building and making progress under the prophesying of Hag´gai the prophet and Zech·a·ri´ah the grandson of Id´do, and they built and finished [it] due to the order of the God of Israel and due to the order of Cyrus and Da·ri´us and Ar·ta·xerx´es the king of Persia. 15 And they completed this house by the third day of the lunar month A´dar, that is, in the sixth year of the reign of Da·ri´us the king.


Answer: Artaxerxes completed work on the temple in his accession year, the 6th year of Darius, who died earlier this year. If you don't get that message or think you can read anything contrary to that, then you don't have it. It's just that simple.

In the meantime, astronomical redating place the battle of Marathon the same year as the 6th of Darius from which we learn he died at Marathon. That in turn explains Xerxes' vicious invasion of Greece to punish the Athenians. Hardly a coincidence! (i.e. the real total eclipse that happens in Greece in 402BCE, dates the 1st year of the PPW to 403BCE, the 10th year to 394BCE, 30 years after the invasion by Xerxes when a 30-year peace agreement between Greek city-states was made. That dates his invasion during the Olympic year of 424BCE. Marathon occurred 10 years earlier, which we date to 434BCE. Marathon occurred in the fall. But 434BCE per the Bible's chronology that dates year 1 of Cyrus in 455BCE is the 6th of Darius and the Bible says that Darius I died in his sixth year (above). Are the two connected? Of course! Darius died at Marathon and his son, Xerxes, finished the temple at Jerusalem only he adopted the new name of "Artaxerxes." PUZZLE SOLVED.

Anyway, sorry for disturbing your nap!

LG47

Gamera

It's a form of privileging. Basically because they categorize the Christian texts as "religious" they assume they must be fabricated, whereas they categorize Tacitus as "historical" so it must be basically accurate.

But of course these are retrospective categories that have no relationship to the realities of the time. The gospels look just like any other biography written in antiquity (though they are much better written), with basically a narrative structure and the fabulous thrown in. I don't discount Herodotus for his fabulous elements. It think he basically gave a narrative view of events (taking into consideration his agenda and the inherent failings of the narrative structure). Same with Tacitus and his agenda. Same with Luke and Mark and the rest.