Freethought & Rationalism Archive

3DJay · 04-30-2007, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larsguy47

So I really don't have to go back in time at all. I have enough "secular" references to reset the timeline basically without the Bible, thanks to astronomy and RC14 dating.

Bullshit. Almost all of the astronomy, and historical documentation, points to a different chronology than anything you've proposed, see above links. The few astronomical discrepancies are easily explained, without a massive conspiracy and assuming ancient peoples had the ability to retroactively falsify numerous astronomical events, some that wouldn't occur for thousands of years.

Jericho's carbon dating supports the walls falling in 1550 BCE, and you've got zero evidence of a later wall, or even what could be called a city.

Yours is not the concensus, regarding c14 dating, at Tel Rehov. Presenting Mazar's 2000 opinion is misrepresentation, as he is part of this 2003 c14 dating team. http://www.rehov.org/Rehov/publications/index5.htm

Peace

Larsguy47 · 04-30-2007, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3DJay

Bullshit. Almost all of the astronomy, and historical documentation, points to a different chronology than anything you've proposed, see above links.

With all due respect... let me explain something to you about astronomy and those events used for dating. Most persons presume that Ptolemy's canon confirms a certain Babylonian chronology. Professor Robert Newton who wrote the "Crimes of Claudius Ptolemy" called him a fraud and dismissed his references. But there were two texts independent of Ptolemy that referenced the NB Period. TWO TEXTS. One dated the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar and the other the 7th of Kambyses. These key texts upon which the dating is fixed, therefore, are the VAT4956 and the SK400. That's where you must start. Both of these texts are considered to be "diaries" and they come from the Seleucid Period, making them automatically dismissible as revised texts. But there are "errors" in both of them, that is, references that don't match 568 or 523BCE. With recent computerized astronomy programs, it was discovered these were not "scribal errors" as thought but secret references to another chronology, one that dated year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar to 511BCE and one that dates "year 7" of some king to 541BCE, if applied to Nebuchadnezzar, it matches the VAT4956 dating. That is year 541BCE for year 7 of Nebuchadnezzar is the same as year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar in 511BCE.

Since these are cryptic references, it preempts ANY ASTRONOMICAL TEXT matched to dating the current chronology which dates year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar to 568BCE. PERIOD. You have to start here. You can't just dismiss the these two texts and find some other non-contemporary reference. It doesn't work that way. The double-dating proves the timeline was revised and gives us the original chronology at the same time. Now if you don't understand WHY this automatically redates this period based upon this record, that's not my problem.

Quote:

The few astronomical discrepancies are easily explained, without a massive conspiracy and assuming ancient peoples had the ability to retroactively falsify numerous astronomical events, some that wouldn't occur for thousands of years.

Oh really? When how do you explain the 511 BCE references in the VAT4956? You know there is no "copyist error" because when they found broken tablets they indicated it was broken. They copied what was available and had no need to invent anything. One error might be a coincidence, but TWO coordinated to the same year must be considered an intentional inclusion, the only reason being it must be the original dating. Of course, per the Bible, year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar is dated to 511BCE. So the VAT4956 and the SK400 now are used to support the Bible's dating and to dismiss any astronomical texts that reflect the revised chronology.

If you wish, we can go through EACH reference you mention, look up the information and establish whether the reference comes from the Seleucid Period or not. If it does, it can't be used to establish the chronology.

In the meantime, there were some "contemporary" referenes that had counterparts in the revised chronology. These were preserved if possible, but usually don't fit as well as the original chronology. A perfect example of this is the Assyrian eponym eclipse. This reference would have been erased except the discrepancy in the chronology for this period of 56 years was very close to the 54-year difference between the 763BCE eclipse and the 709BCE eclipse. The eclipse must occur in the third month. Normally this would have been 709BCE. But there was an option used by Jews when the spring equinox occurred shortly after the new moon but before the full moon to count that month as the first month of the year instead of the 13th. Thus you had the option to date month 2 to month 3 in 763BCE. And that's what we have now, the key eclipse now dating the entire Assyrian Period dated to 763BCE but that is not dated per the customary dating, which would have dated it to month 2. At the same time, of course, once you have the true original chronology in place, the original eclipse in 709BCE matches the chronology and it is the natural and customarily occurring third month (Simanu) eclipse event, plus being a predictable eclipse as well.

Quote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/760s_BC

"June 15, 763 BC - A solar eclipse at this date (in month Sivan) is used to fix the chronology of the Ancient Near East. However, it should be noted that it requires Nisan 1 to fall on March 20, 763 BC, which was 8 to 9 days before the vernal equinox (March 28/29 at that time) and Babylonians never started their calendar year before the spring equinox. Main article: Assyrian eclipse"

So what you must do, is look at each astronomical reference INDEPENDENTLY and SEPARATELY, and then chart them and look at how that reference works in the revised chronology and in the original chronology, just as we did with the 763 vs 709BCE eclipse. Same thing with the eclipse used to date the Peloponnesian War, the 402BCE eclipse occurs closer to Athens and fits the description of that eclipse better than the 431BCE eclipse, etc.

And PLEASE spare me the "conspiracy theory" anxiety attack. Governments have always been the biggest liars in history because they had to protect government secrets. It's not that much of an elaborate conspiracy to change some records during wartime to fool the Greeks into thinking Xerxes had died and his son Artaxerxes was now ruling. The Persian government had the money and the power to accomplish this. It's just a matter of seeing where the changes were made and trying to reconstruct the original chronology. Fortunately, the VAT4956 establishes the rule of Nebuchadnezzar for us so it is easy to reconstruct from there.

Quote:

Jericho's carbon dating supports the walls falling in 1550 BCE, and you've got zero evidence of a later wall, or even what could be called a city.

So what. The Jews didn't conquer Jericho until the later LBIIA occupation. Kathleen Kenyon is quite specific when Joshua conquered Jericho between 1350-1325BCE. As you have noticed, 1350-1325 BCE is after 1550BCE. Nobody is saying some walls from that occupation hadn't fallen down, only that that is not the incident connected with Joshua. I don't know why that is so hard for some people to grasp. Oh well...

Quote:

Yours is not the concensus, regarding c14 dating, at Tel Rehov.

Oh?

Quote:

Representing Mazar's 2000 opinion is misrepresentation, as he is part of this 2003 c14 dating team. http://www.rehov.org/Rehov/publications/index5.htm

Mazar has no choice and neither does Finkelstein. The Meggido level, which is the Solomonic level believed destroyed by Shishak, supported by a stele he left there is linked to the destructive level of City IV of Rehov. Finkelstein knows this and so does Mazar. They cannot figure out how to work out the chronology since the RC14 and other evidence points to a later time for the fall of Rehov for this level. RC14 dating dates it 95.4% between 918-823BCE. 925BCE, where that event is currently misdated by the 763BCE eclipse is outside that range.

Anyway, they will never figure it out because they are using the 763BCE eclipse to piggy-back the Biblical dating of this event to 925BCE. The Biblical dating can be established by the baptism of Christ in 29CE or the return of the Jews to their homeland in 1947. Those two events can cross-date the Exodus to 1386BCE and Shishak's invasion to 871BCE. Anybody using any other date than c. 871BCE for Shishak's invasion are not comparing the Bible's internal dating. In the meantime, while 925BCE does not fall in the 95.4% probability range of 918-823BCE, 871BCE falls right in the middle of that range.

If you wish, please provide any CONTEMPORARY astronomical reference (not from the Seleucid Period) that you wish to examine and I'll look it up with my Skymap or Redshift5 program and we can compare and let people make up their own minds.

Remember, even the "experts" still think that the ancient astronomers couldn't even predict a solar eclipse until c. 300 BCE, when I've proven this is incorrect. Sachs/Hunger misrepresent what is in the VAT4956. So you can't just quote references to astronomical texts claiming they prove any chronology without looking at the alternative data on that reference. For instance, the VAT4956 is often listed as an astronomical text completely proving the rule of Nebuchadnezzar to 568BCE, year 37, but the double-dating from the "Errors" in the text preempt that dating to 511BCE. So that reference is outdated.

Further you say there are "explanations" for the "Errors" in these texts, but you don't give any. What are the coincidences that a scribe would guess twice the precise location of the moon for a specific year that happenes to match the Bible's chronology dating? vs trying to hide a reference to the original chronology?

You decide.

LG47

LG47

RED DAVE · 04-30-2007, 07:49 PM

From Larsguy47:

Quote:

Remember, even the "experts" still think that the ancient astronomers couldn't even predict a solar eclipse until c. 300 BCE, when I've proven this is incorrect.

This makes you a major historical researcher.

Please submit your results to a peer-reviewed journal ASAP, and get ready to receive your reward.

P.S. Make sure you tell them you're actually the Messiah. It'll certainly add to the credibility of your work!

RED DAVE

Dave Reed · 04-30-2007, 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xaxxat

Since you claim to be the messiah, why would you need evidence? Weren't you there?

Superman can go back in time. Why can't the messiah?

I can't recall Jesus ever pulling out his
abacus, and doing any calculations. That
would be interesting:

Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar?

Well, let me just pull out the old abacus and. . . .
uh oh, must of fallen out of my pocket
when I was walking on water yesterday

This time round LG's the mathemessiah,
spending literally hours each day with
endless calculations on how to pick up a
turd from the clean end, among others. I
think by now many are wishing that
Jerusalem never fell in the first place,
i.e. one less Lars thread. :banghead::banghead::banghead:

3DJay · 04-30-2007, 11:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larsguy47

With all due respect... let me explain something to you about astronomy and those events used for dating. Most persons presume that Ptolemy's canon confirms a certain Babylonian chronology. Professor Robert Newton who wrote the "Crimes of Claudius Ptolemy" called him a fraud and dismissed his references. But there were two texts independent of Ptolemy that referenced the NB Period. TWO TEXTS. One dated the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar and the other the 7th of Kambyses. These key texts upon which the dating is fixed, therefore, are the VAT4956 and the SK400. That's where you must start. Both of these texts are considered to be "diaries" and they come from the Seleucid Period, making them automatically dismissible as revised texts. But there are "errors" in both of them, that is, references that don't match 568 or 523BCE.

http://www.607v587.com/webpage%2010.htm

Quote:

R.R. Newton and ”Ptolemy’s Canon”
In a review of Newton’s book, The Crime of Claudius Ptolemy, published in Scientific American of October 1977, pp. 79-81, it was stated that ”Ptolemy’s forgery may have extended to inventing the length of reigns of Babylonian kings.” This was a reference to the so-called ”Ptolemy’s Canon”, which Newton at that time erroneously believed had been composed by Claudius Ptolemy himself and thus may have been affected by his ”forgery”. The statement was quickly picked up and published in The Watchtower (December 15, 1977, p. 747). On page 375 of his The Crime of Claudius Ptolemy, Newton also wrote: ”It follows that Ptolemy’s king list is useless in the study of chronology, and that it must be ignored. What is worse, much Babylonian chronology is based upon Ptolemy’s king list. All relevant chronology must now be reviewed and all dependence upon Ptolemy’s list must be removed.”

Newton was unaware of the fact that ”Ptolemy’s Canon” was not composed by Claudius Ptolemy. He was not an historian and he was not an expert on Babylonian chronology. He also admits in his work that he has not studied sources other than Ptolemy for the years prior to Nebuchadnezzar. (The Crime of Claudius Ptolemy, p. 375) He explains that his thoughts on the relations between chronology and the work of Ptolemy were influenced by a Mr. Philip G. Couture of Santee, California! In the Preface of his book he states: ”I thank Mr. Philip G. Couture of Santee, California for correspondence which led me to understand some of the relations between chronology and the work of Ptolemy.” . (The Crime of Claudius Ptolemy, p. XIV) The same Mr. Couture also induced Dr. Newton to reject the Assyrian eponym canon in his work, The Moon’s Acceleration and Its Physical Origins. (See Vol. 1, 1979, p. 189)

What Newton evidently did not know was that Mr. Couture was and still is one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, and that some of the chronological arguments he passed on to Newton were taken from the Watch Tower Society’s Bible dictionary, Aid to Bible Understanding. These arguments were not only aimed at supporting the chronology of the Watch Tower Society, but they are also demonstrably untenable!

Correspondence with R.R. Newton
In 1978, the year after The Crime of Claudius Ptolemy had been published, I had some correspondence with Professor Newton. In a letter dated June 27, 1978, I sent him a shorter study I had prepared in which the so-called ”Ptolemy’s Canon” was compared with earlier cuneiform sources. The study briefly demostrated that all the reigns of the Babylonian kings given in the Canon, from Nabonassar (747-734 BC) to Nabonidus (555-539 BC), were in complete agreement with these older sources. (This study was later expanded and published in a British scholarly journal for interdisciplinarty studies, Chronology & Catastrophism Review, Vol. IX, 1987, pp. 14-23.) I then asked: ”How is it possible that Ptolemy’s astronomical data are wrong, and yet the king list, to which they are attached, is correct?”

In his answer, dated August 11, 1978, Newton said: ”I am not ready to be convinced that Ptolemy’s king list is accurate before Nabopolassar [= before 625 BC], although I have high confidence that it is rather accurate for Nabopolassar and later kings.” He also pointed out: ”The basic point is that Ptolemy calculated the circumstances of the eclipses in the Syntaxis from his theories, and he then pretended that his calculated values were values that had been observed in Babylon. His theories are accurate enough to give the correct day of an eclipse, but he missed the hour and the magnitude.”

Thus Ptolemy’s ”adjustments” of the eclipse observations were too small to affect the year, the month, and the day of an eclipse. Only the hour and the magnitude were affected. Ptolemy’s supposed ”adjustments” of the records of the ancient Babylonian eclipses, then, didn’t change the BCE dates that had been established for these observations. They did not change the chronology! Further, Newton was convinced that the king list was accurate from Nabopolassar and onwards. In other words, he was convinced that the whole Neo-Babylonian chronology from Nabopolassar through Nabonidus (625-539 BC) was accurate! Why?

Because he had made a very thorough study of some of the ancient Babylonian astronomical records that were independent of ”Ptolemy’s Canon”, including VAT 4956 and Strm. Kambys. 400. From his examination of these two records, he had established that the first text referred to the year 568/67 BC and the second one to 523 BC. He concluded: ”Thus we have quite strong confirmation that Ptolemy’s list is correct for Nebuchadrezzar, and reasonable confirmation for Kambyses.” (The Crime of Claudius Ptolemy, 1977, p. 375) These findings were further emphasized in his next work, The Moon’s Acceleration and Its Physical Origins, vol. 1 (1979), where he concludes on page 49: ”Nebuchadrezzar’s first year therefore began in –603 [= 604 BC], and this agrees with Ptolemy’s list.”

Therefore, to quote some statements by R.R. Newton in an attempt to undermine the chronology established for the Neo-Babylonian era would be to quote him out of context. It would be to misrepresent his views and conceal his conclusions. It would be fraudulent. Yet, this has been repeatedly done by the Watch Tower Society and by ”Gary/Joshua92”. Newton’s findings refute both of their chronologies and prove them to be false.

Quote:

And PLEASE spare me the "conspiracy theory" anxiety attack. Governments have always been the biggest liars in history because they had to protect government secrets. It's not that much of an elaborate conspiracy to change some records during wartime to fool the Greeks into thinking Xerxes had died and his son Artaxerxes was now ruling. The Persian government had the money and the power to accomplish this. It's just a matter of seeing where the changes were made and trying to reconstruct the original chronology. Fortunately, the VAT4956 establishes the rule of Nebuchadnezzar for us so it is easy to reconstruct from there.

It IS a matter of an elaborate conspiracy. You're saying they went back and invented a reign of Xerxes, before Artaxerxes. You're saying they went back and rewrote the reigns of Darius and Cyrus. You're saying they can retroactively guess astronomical events. You're saying that they were changing ALL the years on older text... and only thanks to the quick wit of Hebrew scribes hiding references to the real time period, was history secretly preserved. You're stating that Greek historians were in cahoots with them and that the Greeks themselves were forging their own histories, because you don't agree with their Olympic dating system. That they invented Olympics and tied historical people to those invented Olympics. Etc. Etc.

How the hell is all that NOT an "elaborate" conspiracy? Do you know what the word "elaborate" means? You didn't know the meaning of the word "extensive", so I'm assuming you don't.

Quote:

With recent computerized astronomy programs, it was discovered these were not "scribal errors" as thought but secret references to another chronology, one that dated year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar to 511BCE and one that dates "year 7" of some king to 541BCE, if applied to Nebuchadnezzar, it matches the VAT4956 dating. That is year 541BCE for year 7 of Nebuchadnezzar is the same as year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar in 511BCE.

What a load of hooey. How can a computerized astronomy program tell you if something is a scribal error, or a massive conspiracy? Man you are so full of shit, it is unbelievable. What's the program called, that can tell if I accidently write down the wrong day or am plotting to rewrite history?

Quote:

Since these are cryptic references, it preempts ANY ASTRONOMICAL TEXT matched to dating the current chronology which dates year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar to 568BCE. PERIOD. You have to start here. You can't just dismiss the these two texts and find some other non-contemporary reference. It doesn't work that way. The double-dating proves the timeline was revised and gives us the original chronology at the same time. Now if you don't understand WHY this automatically redates this period based upon this record, that's not my problem.

It doesn't "prove" anything of the kind. You don't know what the word "prove" means, either.

Quote:

Oh really? When how do you explain the 511 BCE references in the VAT4956? You know there is no "copyist error" because when they found broken tablets they indicated it was broken. They copied what was available and had no need to invent anything. One error might be a coincidence, but TWO coordinated to the same year must be considered an intentional inclusion, the only reason being it must be the original dating. Of course, per the Bible, year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar is dated to 511BCE. So the VAT4956 and the SK400 now are used to support the Bible's dating and to dismiss any astronomical texts that reflect the revised chronology.

Your the one going on about how astronomical events are cyclical. If I make the same mistake, wouldn't there be a good chance they'd both point towards the same year? Here's a test...subtract 1 day from all the other observances...see how many correspond to 511. Or, try this, add one day (2 to the errors) to all the events and see how many end up pointing towards a similar year.

Quote:

If you wish, we can go through EACH reference you mention, look up the information and establish whether the reference comes from the Seleucid Period or not. If it does, it can't be used to establish the chronology.

Bullshit. You've got no evidence of a massive conspiracy. NONE. Plus, they have numerous astrological documents, dating themselves, starting with Cyrus. Using just the Babylonian business documents, providing a year for every Babylonian kings' reign, and end with Cyrus conquering Babylon, you could prove your BS wrong.

Quote:

In the meantime, there were some "contemporary" referenes that had counterparts in the revised chronology. These were preserved if possible, but usually don't fit as well as the original chronology. A perfect example of this is the Assyrian eponym eclipse. This reference would have been erased except the discrepancy in the chronology for this period of 56 years was very close to the 54-year difference between the 763BCE eclipse and the 709BCE eclipse. The eclipse must occur in the third month. Normally this would have been 709BCE. But there was an option used by Jews when the spring equinox occurred shortly after the new moon but before the full moon to count that month as the first month of the year instead of the 13th. Thus you had the option to date month 2 to month 3 in 763BCE. And that's what we have now, the key eclipse now dating the entire Assyrian Period dated to 763BCE but that is not dated per the customary dating, which would have dated it to month 2. At the same time, of course, once you have the true original chronology in place, the original eclipse in 709BCE matches the chronology and it is the natural and customarily occurring third month (Simanu) eclipse event, plus being a predictable eclipse as well.

March of 709 BCE. How does that support your "theory"?

Quote:

So what you must do, is look at each astronomical reference INDEPENDENTLY and SEPARATELY, and then chart them and look at how that reference works in the revised chronology and in the original chronology, just as we did with the 763 vs 709BCE eclipse. Same thing with the eclipse used to date the Peloponnesian War, the 402BCE eclipse occurs closer to Athens and fits the description of that eclipse better than the 431BCE eclipse, etc.

Actually, the 431 dating, is per the Olympic dating method. However, like the Julian calendar, it doesn't have a year zero. Astronomical dating does use a year zero. Soooo, the proper 431BCE (Olympic) eclipse should be the August 430BCE (Astronomical) one.

Quote:

So what. The Jews didn't conquer Jericho until the later LBIIA occupation. Kathleen Kenyon is quite specific when Joshua conquered Jericho between 1350-1325BCE. As you have noticed, 1350-1325 BCE is after 1550BCE. Nobody is saying some walls from that occupation hadn't fallen down, only that that is not the incident connected with Joshua. I don't know why that is so hard for some people to grasp. Oh well...

Bullshit. She has her religious belief. But, with regards to archaeology, she has no evidence, and HONESTLY stated so.

Quote:

Mazar has no choice and neither does Finkelstein. The Meggido level, which is the Solomonic level believed destroyed by Shishak, supported by a stele he left there is linked to the destructive level of City IV of Rehov. Finkelstein knows this and so does Mazar. They cannot figure out how to work out the chronology since the RC14 and other evidence points to a later time for the fall of Rehov for this level. RC14 dating dates it 95.4% between 918-823BCE. 925BCE, where that event is currently misdated by the 763BCE eclipse is outside that range.

Oh really? Exactly what strata level is the stele associated with? Please cite.

Quote:

Anyway, they will never figure it out because they are using the 763BCE eclipse to piggy-back the Biblical dating of this event to 925BCE. The Biblical dating can be established by the baptism of Christ in 29CE or the return of the Jews to their homeland in 1947. Those two events can cross-date the Exodus to 1386BCE and Shishak's invasion to 871BCE. Anybody using any other date than c. 871BCE for Shishak's invasion are not comparing the Bible's internal dating. In the meantime, while 925BCE does not fall in the 95.4% probability range of 918-823BCE, 871BCE falls right in the middle of that range.

"Tel Rehov Stratum V. Period II-B ended in a fierce destruction, which can be related to Shoshenq's campaign in view of our results."

Quote:

If you wish, please provide any CONTEMPORARY astronomical reference (not from the Seleucid Period) that you wish to examine and I'll look it up with my Skymap or Redshift5 program and we can compare and let people make up their own minds.

BM 32312 BM 86379

Quote:

Remember, even the "experts" still think that the ancient astronomers couldn't even predict a solar eclipse until c. 300 BCE, when I've proven this is incorrect. Sachs/Hunger misrepresent what is in the VAT4956. So you can't just quote references to astronomical texts claiming they prove any chronology without looking at the alternative data on that reference. For instance, the VAT4956 is often listed as an astronomical text completely proving the rule of Nebuchadnezzar to 568BCE, year 37, but the double-dating from the "Errors" in the text preempt that dating to 511BCE. So that reference is outdated.

You've "proved" that ancient astronomers could predict a solar eclipse?

Quote:

Further you say there are "explanations" for the "Errors" in these texts, but you don't give any. What are the coincidences that a scribe would guess twice the precise location of the moon for a specific year that happenes to match the Bible's chronology dating? vs trying to hide a reference to the original chronology?

Guess at the moon's location? WTF? They wrote down the wrong day.....think my link stated that. Yep.

e.g. VAT 4956 is supposed to be in order, yet...

Line 3: Night of the 9th, beginning of the night, the moon... ...followed by, in the next sentence... The 9th, the sun in the West...

The first 9th was supposed to be the night of the 8th, followed by the day of the 9th...no guessing at where the freakin moon is.

Peace

3DJay · 04-30-2007, 11:47 PM

And...BTW...I don't mind Wiki, but it's only as good as its citations. You could have easily written the totally uncited one, you posted.

Peace

Larsguy47 · 05-01-2007, 12:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3DJay

And...BTW...I don't mind Wiki, but it's only as good as its citations. You could have easily written the totally uncited one, you posted.

Peace

How can you write something from Wiki and claim it's uncited? It may be "un-linked" but it is cited and all you have to do is look it up. Normally I include the cite so if you want me to recheck and give you the citing just link the reply post # you have in mind and I'll include the LINK for you. I don't fabricate sources.

LG47

RED DAVE · 05-01-2007, 01:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larsguy47

I don't fabricate sources.

No, you just distort their meaning or import.

Or you make things up like the famous secret book about Socrates and Aristotle.

RED DAVE

Larsguy47 · 05-01-2007, 02:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RED DAVE

No, you just distort their meaning or import.

Or you make things up like the famous secret book about Socrates and Aristotle.

RED DAVE

It only seems as though I'm distorting things because I don't communicate well with people who think the way you do. I think I presume because I have a lot of background in a certain topic, Biblical or otherwise, that it's common knowledge, but that's not the case. I have to explain myself after creating the context as well to make any statement it seems.

As far as the "famous book" about Socrates, it is by a famous author but I wouldn't call it famous, and it was just an old book I came across in a used book store. Socrates and Aristotle originally being lovers made sense because Phaedo and Aristotle's histories are so interchangeable. But that source can't be used to confirm that Socrates and Aristotle were lovers, only that someone presumed so for some reason. It has credence since I know Socrates was alive during the first 19 years of Aristotle's life, and they should have known each other.

LG47

3DJay · 05-01-2007, 02:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larsguy47

How can you write something from Wiki and claim it's uncited? It may be "un-linked" but it is cited and all you have to do is look it up. Normally I include the cite so if you want me to recheck and give you the citing just link the reply post # you have in mind and I'll include the LINK for you. I don't fabricate sources.

LG47

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/760s_BC

As far as I know, you wrote the opinion on Wiki. Wiki, alone, isn't a source. But, it can provide sources. That page, however, has no sources listed. There's nothing to support you assertion, so it's pointless to post a link to it. Zero references for the opinion presented. ZERO.

cite: to refer to (a source) in writing or speaking.

Okay, now that you know what "cite" means...

Peace

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

04-30-2007, 11:47 PM	#26
3DJay Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Canada Posts: 363	And...BTW...I don't mind Wiki, but it's only as good as its citations. You could have easily written the totally uncited one, you posted. Peace

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.