Larsguy47

WHY DON'T YOU STARE AT THIS AND TELL ME IT WAS A PRINTING ACCIDENT?



Understanding the Symbolism of the dollar bill.

LG47

Larsguy47

Sorry, but no where in this reply do you rebut a single claim I make! Trying to "change the subject" like this is just a sign of desperation. It's HANDWAVING!

Now sure you can contradict what I say, but you have to have some scientific discussion about what's wrong with it, not that I've asserted this before.

SO IS WHAT I'M SAYING, "RELEVANT" or not?

Are you saying that the Moon should remain as the reference for Line 18 and there's nothing wrong? Even the British Museum had no choice but to admit this was an error. But they didn't correct it publicly. Why not?

So hey, I've been in drag before to and on TV that way. What does that have to do with whether or not Sachs/Hunger is misrepresenting what is in this text? Nothing.

So "handwave" all you want, it just means you don't have an academic rebuttal to this; which there is none.

Thanks for the validation of my position.

LG47

Larsguy47

Hex, you are too much! But I like what you post! You wouldn't happen to have a Windows XP version of the WTS Library would you? We could negotiate something. I can't get a copy of it, it's only available to members, but it's a pain going through the books. E-mail me if you can help me.

As far as Jericho goes, you know Kenyon claims that the Israelites DESTROYED the city in 1350-1325BCE. So you're arguing with her about the walls deal, not me! If you disagree with her, that's fine. But archaeologists have two dates for everything usually so it's no big deal. Scholars have different views. Kenyon has one, Finkelstein might have another. That's the way it goes. Lots of choices. You've made yours. Kenyon made hers. I respect both of you.

LG47

spin

I had no intention to rebut any of your stuff. Much of it has already been rebutted and you have simply ignored it and drifted back to repeating yourself. There is no point in rebutting your errors. As you don't listen or analyze what people say to you except through the filter of your a priori assumptions, ignoring that which doesn't fit, I won't bother even handwaving.

I have complained about your lack of understanding of archaeology and history.

I have pointed at your plain ignoring the epigraphic record that shows for example that Darius reigned for at least 35 years. I and others have called you on the rubbish about Aristotle and Phaedo. Your shocking abuse of the Tel Rehov C14 chart! Empty ravings about KTU 1.78. Using old wives' tales about Plato. Manetho. Syncellus. This is a diarrheic trail to be avoided.

I haven't commented on your VAT4956 stuff because I haven't read the original report, but then I have little doubt that you haven't either.


spin

Larsguy47

[QUOTE]I don't have to as long as my dating falls between 918-823BCE, right? 925 BCE is outside that range, by the way. Does that mean anything to you?



I'm entitled to my opinion and the Biblical chronology will have to sink or fall on it's own merit. What you don't seem to REALIZE or accept, is that the shaded areas and peaks are weighed against a scale from 0.0 to 1.0. Thus various dates fall at different places on that scale, depending upon the height of the shaded area above it. This is VERY BASIC. That is, that gauge measures the height of the peaks above the dates. The higest peak is weighted at 1.0, the lowest value is 0.0.

What this SCALE is called and LABELLED as is "relative probability".

Now, without presuming I know what that means at all, it is clear that a few dates do reach above 98% on this scale labelled "relative probability" and other dates do not. So if I simply noted that the highest years on this scale that reach 98% or greater are from 874-867BCE that would not be incorrect, regardless of the "weight" that reference has as to "relative probability."

What you are suggesting is that the "relative probability" is even for the entire range, for each date in that range. If so, the relative probability for 918-823 BCE would all be at 98% or above. But as you can see, it isn't.

So simply based on the chart, if I looked under 925BCE and checked where that peaks out, it is 0.05 on the scale. If I check 871BCE, it's 0.98+.

Since I'm presuming that 0.05 does indeed represent a lesser value than 0.98 on this scale, it could be said that 871BCE has a higher "relative probability" (whatever that means) than 925BCE, per the chart. It's just that simple. This has nothing to do with whether the conventional testing generating the ranges point equally to every date in that range. I understand that. And if you want to go there then great. But the "relative probability" is indicated for certain dates by the graph and the highest peak at over 98% is only for about 8 years from 874-867BCE.

Now if you believe that "incidental" observation means nothing or little. Then fine. Ignore it.


regards, LG47

Hex

You mean Western Theological Seminary's Library? Nope.

I have access to (and note I really only count the full text databases, so I can get context and sources): Poiesis, JSTOR, Project Muse, United Nations Common Database, CIAO, Britannica Online, Gale Virtual Reference Library, Grove Dictionary of Art, AnthroSource, eHRAF Collection of Ethnography, AccessScience, arXiv Preprint Server, PROLA (Physical Review Online Archive), and ScienceDirect. And those are only for Religion, Anthropology/Archaeology and Astronomy/Astrophysics. Unfortunately that's university based, so I really can't share ...

No. She claims that if there was a destruction to be associated with the Isrealites, it would be then. And, if you claim Kenyon as -your- source for that date, then you have to use her date for the walls collapsing as well. You can't cherry-pick your data like that.

And, for the record, as much as two different archaeologists might have different dates, each individual archaeologist will have only one date for an occurance. Unless you're going to try and propose that Kenyon had multiple personalities and that at least two of them were archaeologists, and each one found different data for the same occurance, I don't see how you can reconncile the differences between the walls and the destruction layer.

Please explain it without making Kenyon into some sort of unstable nutjob, huh? If you trust her date for LBIIA, why not her date for MB? Same woman, same site, same technology in excavation and analysis, how could she be 200 years off? :huh:

Or is it just that you want to warp the facts to fit your book? :wave:

Hex

And that's the problem, Lars. It's got no chance to float or fly. Any time you try and prop it up with evidence or fact, it merely weighs it down.

(Yes, I know it should have been sink or swim/fly or fall, but what you wrote just seems so ... apropos, no? )

Larsguy47

Of course you have no intention of rebutting this, because you CAN'T! So run away from the argument. That's one way to do it. It's classic 'Freemasonry' technique, to refuse to discuss the topic at hand and to allude to the fact that it has been discussed before, rebutted successfully and thus there is no need to do it again! RESULT: A classic exit without any evidence. So sorry, CLAIMING that something in your opinio has been successfully rebutted without showing where it has so that new people in the discussion can check out the arguments is nothing but running with your tail between your legs. Not good enough. Especially for you. You have to do better than that. Let's see what YOUR opinion is about LINE 18 of the VAT4956. If you don't understand it, I will help you.


Forget. If Xerxes was claiming for the sake of avoiding a war that he was Artaxerxes and the Persians decided to change their history and add 30 years to the rule of Darius I in order to have better compatibility with the ages, then EVERYTHING EPIGRAPHIC with a 36-year reference is on the table for challenging. That's why I look directly at the bas-reliefs of PERSEPOLIS. There we noted that Darius I started a palace and could barely finish it. That suggests a shortened reign. We notice at Behistune he only talks about the first 3-4 years of his rule? Where's all the big events for the rest of his rule? Please keep the excuses coming! And at Naqshi-Rustam, Artaxerxes (Xerxes) is buried where he is supposed to be, between Darius I and Darius II! Why is "Xerxes" buried in a newer tomb than Artaxerxes? Please ignore all this though. I know if it doesn't jump up and bite you, then "it's not real." In the meantime, the Biblical record limits his rule to just six years. So it's Bible history vs Persian history. Let's get into it.

PLUTARCH addresses this issue of Themistocle fleeing to Persia at the critical time of when Xerxes died and Artaxerxes allegedly comes to the throne. But they never did figure out which king he went to. Interestingly, the account of the actual interview before the King of Persia by Themistocles was to XERXES, not Artaxerxes! Now why do you think that is?

Bottom line, Spin, you're going to have to DISMISS one historical reference or the other. The Bible or one or more secular references and make a choice for which you think is the best. I'm basically here to show you where the discrepancies are. Where Ktesias claims Cyrus was the son-in-law of Cambyses and where Herodotus claims he was his grandson, etc. Classic "red flag" for revisionism for the rule of Cyrus.

Did you know that Herodotus claims there was an eclipse in the spring the year Xerxes invaded Greece? After the original revisions, the timeline was back in sync by the time of Xerxes' invasion in 424BCE, an Olympics year. And there was also an eclipse in the spring that year. Where's that eclipse in 480 BCE? When Xenophon made his revisions he pushed the history back 56 years and the year of the invasion along with it from 424BCE back to 480BCE. Problem is, no eclipse in the spring to date this event.

So, sorry, it's going to be a tossup here, and the VAT4956 will do no matter. Once you get past the misrepresentations by the "experts" then it becomes clear the text was designed to hide in a safe place some references to the rule of Nebuchadnezzar whose 37th year fell in 511BCE. BUT YOU WON'T FACE THAT, running from that discussion. You can only claim this is baseless, has been disproven before and you don't have time to go over this again, you have better and more important things to do. Classic COP-OUT and eyes-closed so you don't have to face reality. As they say, "ignornance is bliss"--I guess that's the appeal!


I told you I didn't invent that reference about Aristotle and Phaedo and you can't disprove they weren't lovers. All the men back then were sleeping with young boys, so it's not rubbish. I couldn't find a bust of "Phaedo" but I found lots of Aristotle. So you might be right. That source might be misleading or erroneous. Maybe not. If Aristotle doesn't turn out to be the lover of Socrates, then fine. But I haven't been able to effective disprove it.


The TEL REHOV chart speaks for itself. It clearly shows you which dates have the greatest "relative probability". You can ignore that if you want to. I'm not the one in denial. You didn't win that argument.

As far as the KTU 1.78 is concerned, that text had already been dated to 1375BCE by FR Stephenson, which falls during the conventional time for the Amarna Period. Rohl had assigned it to year 12 of Akhenaten so I just noted if that were applied to 1375BCE then the 1st of Akhenaten would fall in 1386BCE and that is still within the range given for the fall of Jericho by Kenyon, that is Jericho would fall in 1346BCE and Kenyon dates that fall by the Israelites between 1350-1325BCE. It's just an observation of the FACTS. If you don't want to assign that reference to Akhenaten, you don't have to. But I'm not the only one doing it.

As far as Syncellus and Manetho goes, if you want to rewrite the entire Egyptian timeline, be my guest! I'm just noting what the reference is and how it would play out in the timeline. I'm not saying it is absolutely correct.

So in all, you've just objected to everything where there is nothing to object to. You've rebutted nothing. Disproven nothing. All you've done is DISGREED and presumed your superior disagreement was a rebuttal. But it's not.

Oh well! Finally some responsibility here! You should study it thoroughly! And yes I have read both the translation and transliteration and I have sent a SUGGESTED CORRECTIONS of what I've found to the original translator (and misrepresenter), Herman Hunger. I reported the error made by Sachs/Hunger to the British Museum and they said they were going to round up Hunger and Stephenson and others and get them to review all the astronomy now that we have precise computerized astronomy programs, but I haven't followed up on that recently. They sort of remind me of my old days in the Watchtower organization growing up. One time I found an error and reported it to them; they wrote me back and told me just to "correct your personal copy" and they never printed a correction. Same with British Museum who told me rather flippantly, "He who writes no books, makes no errors." I'm not a big fan of the British Museum, needless to say, and neither are some others who have had direct interaction with them.

SO, by all means find out AS MUCH as you can about the VAT4956. It's a fascinating text. If you have any questions, then let me know.

:wave:

Oh, you forgot! My claim that the 763BCE eclipse is misdated since normally June 15 would fall in month 2. Don't forget that. Of course, lots of people already know that, right? Yet one more thing I'm just soooo completely wrong about, something else everybody else has good sense enough to ignore and sweep under the carpet. Why can't I do the same?


LG47

Larsguy47

I do! Are we talking about the same thing? Wall collapse in 1550BCE, Israelite destruction in 1350-1325 BCE? Kenyon separates the two! She debunks either the Exodus in 1446BCE or during the time of Rameses II. This is here direct quote--she's not confused, I won't comment on what she says, but will let her own quote speak for itself. OH, by the way, you know she actually had hands on with Jericho? Not just some archaeologist reading about it:


I do. Unless you have a specific quote you have in mind. What you don't get is that Kenyon does not associate the fall of the walls in 1550BCE with the event of the Israelites. She attributes that event to an earthquake, I believe, in fact. But there were more than one occupations at Jericho and there was one in LBIIA, which is the Amarna Period. Cartouches from Amenhotep III was found in tombs there. This is very academic here. LBIIA is 1400-1300BCE the normal range for Amenhotep III and Akhenaten. So there's no conspiracy on my part here. I'm just noting that per Manetho the Exodus would have likewise been during the time of Amenhotep III and Akhenaten and the archaeological evidence for the fall of Jericho associates this to the same time. WHY is that so hard for you to understand? I'm not pulling any "fast one" here (for a change!!). This is just establishing the basics here.

She's not. You're misunderstanding her. There were major walls that were destroyed in the MB period 1550 BCE. That's her dating for that event. But she doesn't assign the Israelites to that destructive time or layer. That means she thinks someone else destroyed the city at that time, but specifically not the Israelites. Her specific dating for the destruction by the Israelites is "1350-1325BCE." That's her opinion. You are confusing two separate layers of occupation.

So let's go over this one more time: KENYON notes a major walls of Jericho that fell or were destroyed around 1550 BCE, by an earthquake or possibly by an enemy. But that's not the event she associated with Joshua. There was a later occupation in the LBIIA period which she ends between 1350-1325BCE and specifically associates the destruction by the Israelites to that LBIIA occupation. Relatively speaking, she dates it up to 25 years after the rule of Amenhotep III when his rule ends in 1351BCE. That's it. She's not confused. I'm not confused. That just leave you. :huh:

I don't have to. My dating for the Exodus is based upon 1947, which is the easiest Biblical way to date ancient events now. That dates the Exodus to 1386BCE. I'm simply noting those historical or archaeological references that are compatible with that dating, which are:

1. Manetho's reference to Joseph's appointment as vizier in year 17 of Apophis; that dates the Exodus to the 1st of Akhenaten.

2. The KTU 1.78 when dated to 1375 BCE and to year 12 of Akhenaten (which others do!) it dates the 1st of Akhenaten to 1386BCE and thus the Exodus to that date.

3. Kathleen Kenyon's dating for the fall of Jericho by the Israelites between 1350-1325BCE is compatible with the above dating since Jericho would fall in 1346BCE.

4. NOW WATCH THIS: If we date the Exodus in 1386BCE then Solomon's reign would fall between 910-870BCE. Per my own personal reading and interpretation of the Bible, I believe this invasion occurred while Solomon was still reigning and thus year 5 of Rehoboam was part of a 6-year co-rulership with Solomon. In that case, year 39 of Solomon falling in 871BCE would date Shishak's invasion at that time. Radiocarbon 14 dating from several sites date Shishak's invasion closer to this date than to 925BCE, which is the popular date based upon an eclipse in the Assyrian eponym which usually would be dated to month 2 but is here dated to month 3. Another eclipse that would normally fall in month 3 would date Shishak's invasion to 871BCE, 54 years later (709BCE).

That's it. That's the whole deal.

LG47

Hex

Right! I'm not even going to bother with the rest of your stuff because it doesn't matter. You have answered what I wanted to get from you. You are willing to discount the archaeological evidence that would prove that the Isrealites were a critical factor in the Walls of Jericho coming down. By the timeline you propose they're no-where near Jericho when the walls fall, right?

So, in doing that, you make it such that the Bible is no longer a good source, as the archaeological evidence of the walls collapse which becomes such a show of Yahweh's power in Joshua 6 is just a story. *gasp*

Now ... If we have evidence that would put the Isrealites at the destruction of LBIIA, where is it? Oh, wait, Kenyon says:

Huh, no walls, then ... Maybe no attack? Which part of Joshua do we believe? Any of it? Maybe the otehr books are just so much lore too and that's why archaeologists 'get so much stuff wrong', not being able to find fiction in the archaeological record? :huh:

Maybe all this timeline your constructing is doing is stringing together just so much legend, and ... not so much fact about what happened in history? :wave: