Larsguy47

This is for researchers who want to trace the chronology changes themselves. If you approach this by trying to disprove everything, it's the best way to more naturally come across the weaknesses; otherwise, you will get lost in the shuffle.

IT ALL STARTED...

Chapter One:
With Darius landing at Marathon with intent to invade Greece later. Miltiades who had fled from Darius and knew him personally, being a greek racist and thinking of Darius as "barbarian" decided not to wait until a formal attack but to do a preemptive strike. So a beautiful woman was introduced to Darius that led to a private interlude at which point she cut off his the king's head. The next thing the Persians knew, the head of Darius with his distinctive long beard was being paraded in front of them. The Battle of Marathon then ensued. The head was never recovered. Xerxes, the ruling co-ruler at the time, of course was beside himself and swore he would wipe out every Athenian; all in good time. He did bide his time and in ten years personally financed the largest land and sea army the world had known for the sole purpose of exterminating the Athenians. You can read about what happened. In the end Xerxes became a laughingstock and Greek factions were desperate for revenge.

Chapter 2:
The general, Themistocles who had saved Athens by preparing for this invasion ended up in ill repute and fled to Persia for asylum. His area of expertise was false propaganda. He had written on some rocks during the invasion, for instance, false information about Greek loyalties and later sent a false letter to Xerxes about some fleeing Greeks so that Xerxes would advance his naval attack, etc. At any rate, he fled to Persia, telling no one who he was until he was before the king himself. He then offered his services to the king but being the politician he was wanted to learn the language. At this point Themistocles likely toured Persia and came upon the fabulous city of pride for the Persians, Persepolis. There he likely noticed that Xerxes appears in part of the bas-reliefs as "Xerxes" and in others as "Artaxerxes", a name adoption by Xerxes not known about in Greece. Themistocles then knew precisely how to assure his place in Persia by giving something to Xerxes no one else could. A new lease on life! He convinced Xerxes to claim that "Artaxerxes" was his own son! That would preempt any assasination bold Greek attempts to kill another Persian king (i.e. they had attempted to more than once but unsuccessfully during Xerxes' invasion). It worked! The basic propaganda, since Greece knew the son of Xerxes was "Darius" was that Darius was killed by Artaxerxes after Darius had his father murdered over a woman, etc. Greeks love tragedies and drama! Themistocles pulled this off the usual way, of course, with a false letter he leaked into Greece written to "Artaxerxes, the son of Xerxes" asking for asylum. That letter surely would be big news. But, of course, it also indicated that Xerxes had died. Historians would never go for that, knowing Themistocles fled to Xerxes but presuming Artaxerxes came to the throne shortly afterward. They never did figure out Themistocles was lying and Xerxes and Artaxerxes was the same king.

Chapter Three: Phase I Revisions:
Turing a Lie into the Truth: This was early CIA stuff! The CIA is expected to lie and lie well for the sake of "national security" and given lots of money to make the lies look truthful. Same here. The Persians had great wealth and control of all the ancient history from Assyria and Babylon to Egypt. So to make Artaxerxes an authentic grandson of Darius, his rule was extended a generation, 30 years, so that his short 6-year rule (per the Bible, Ezra 6:14,15) became 36 years. To compensate for this, the Persians rewrote Babylonian records so that 26 years were removed from the Neo-Babylonian kings. That's why the Bible's Neo-Babylonian Period is 26 years longer than the surviving Babylonian records, which were revised. Of course, Greek historians covering Persian history likewise reflected these changes, such as Herodotus.

Chapter Four: Phase II Revisions:
All was well, until Thucydides wrote his history of the Peloponnesian War and linked certain Persian events with that war. Case in point the death of Artaxerxes in year 8 of the war after a 41-year rule. This, of course, exposed that Xerxes and Artaxerxes were the same king since both would have begun ruling at the same time. The problem was Artaxerxes claiming his full 41 years of rule and still claiming Xerxes ruled for 21 years before him. At any rate, the Persians could easily overcome this by simply buying up the Greek history in time, but apparently decided to have it revised by Xenophon who enlisted the help of his good friends Plato and Aristotle. This was during the reign of Artaxerxes II whom apparently decided to have his rule extended by 30 years as well while they were at it. So what Xenophon did was added another 30 years between the Persian and Peloponnesian wars, so what was originally 20 years became 50 years. He gained another 28 years by moving an eclipse event that occurred in the first year of the war back to a similar eclipse which happened to occur during the same Olympic cycle year, redating the beginning of the Peloponnesian War to 431BCE rather than 403BCE. The net result was 58 extra years added. But this initial revision meant that Xerxes' invasion at 51 years earlier than 431BCE (482BCE) instead of 21 years earlier than 403 BCE (424BCE) fell in a non-Olympic year. This was adjusted down two years to to 480BCE where it is today. Thus the net addition of those years is 56 years, and in the end Artaxerxes II became the longest ruling Persian king at 47 years instead of 17. Of course, nobody knows anything about his rule except as told by Themistocles.

There did have to be some Greek historical adjustments as well. Basically, Socrates was left associated with the Peloponnesian War so his history was separated from that of Plato and Aristotle. Plato was just 8 years younger than Socrates who knew him in his youth and who was the same age as his older brothers, no Socrates was over 40 years older. Likewise, Aristotle, once the young lover-protege of Socrates would not be born until 16 years after his new date of death in 399BCE. Aristotle still manages to mention Socrates in his writings over 80 times, however. The character of "Phaedo" was invented to take Aristotle's place historically as Socrates' lover.

Chapter Five: Archaeological Expose!
Finally, thanks to some excellent digs in Palestine and great RC14 advancements, the precise year of Shishak's invasion and destruction of Rehov can be dated to within less than ten years by modern Groningen dating methods c. 871BCE. This exposes the unadjusted 56 years of fake Greek history which influenced the assignment of the Assyrian limmu eclipse mentioned to be dated 54 years earlier than it originally occurred in 709BCE. Thus Shishak's invasion is now dated to 925BCE and archaeologists can't figure out why the archaeological dating and especially the RC14 dating doesn't work. Some presume the Bible simply invented Solomon and his palaces, though the palaces do show up 54 years later, of course! Thus when the 709BCE eclipse is used to date the Assyrian Period then Shishak's invasion drops down to the correct year in 871BCE, exactly where the Groningen RC14 dating from Rehov places it. So now science exposes the conspiracy and corrects the chronology besides the Bible.

RC14 dating from Rehovl

Chapter Six: Fixed Biblical Dating.
The fixed Biblical dating for this period follows Martin Anstey's "Romance of Bible Chronology" which exposed the extra 82 years of Persian history (i.e. 56 extra Persian years and 26 reduced NB years offsets the 1st of Cyrus by a net 82 years, 537 vs 455BCE). Thus the fixed dating is linked to Jesus' baptism in 29CE with the 1st of Cyrus and the "word going forth to rebuild Jerusalem" occurred 69 weeks (483 years) earlier in 455BCE. From here the Exodus is dated 19 jubilees earlier (19 x 49=931) to 1386BCE. The 4th of Solomon falls in 906BCE and his 39th year, the year of Shishak's invasion (also year 5 of Rehoboam, co-ruler) to 871BCE. This is the same dating you get when you use the 709BCE eclipse for dating the Assyrian Period and the 925BCE dating for Shishak's invasion is fixed dated to 871BCE. So you have fix dating from two different directions to precisely the same year for the same event.

METHODOLOGY: The above is true and cannot be disproven, but there are a lot of turns. If you aggressive try to disprove this, you'll come across more evidence that supports it, remembering that it is not the strengths of the false chronology but it's weaknesses that you must discover.

I've posted specifics elsewhere, but as I said, this is a RESEARCHERS outline for those who want to go on this historical adventure themselves. Don't forget, a lot of history survives in art, like at Persepolis or on Greek vases. Not every aspect of history was revised.

ASTRONOMY: Finally, all the astronomy has been redated but the VAT4956 and the Strm. Kambyses 400 (SK400) texts, were created during the Seleucid Period, likely by Jewish astronomers to hide references to the original chronology as all the old NB astronomical texts were being destroyed. So be sure to become extremely familiar with the double-dating in both these texts which will save you a lot of time. The SK400 double-dates two lunar eclipses back to 541 BCE for "year 7" of Nebuchadnezzar, and the VAT4956 double-dates two references in Lines 3 and 14 down to 511BCE for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar. As you see, both redate the 1st of Nebuchadnezzar to 547BCE. This agrees with the Biblical dating for year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar occurring in 525BCE, 70 years before the Jews return from Babylon in the 1st of Cyrus in 455BCE. Year 23 is the year of the last deportation. The original date for the fall of Jerusalem in year 19 is 4 years earlier, 529BCE.

Have fun!!

LG47

RED DAVE

Back to this bullshit again.

That's because he was.

No evidence of this worth pissing on.

No evidence of this worth pissing on.

No evidence of this whatsoever.

That's because that's when he was born. No evidence to the contrary whatsoever.

That's because Aristotle was a philosopher as was Socrates. Plato, pupil of Socrates, was Aristotle's teacher. Who did you expect him to quote, Hegel?

No evidence. Ample evidence who Phaedo was – Phaedo.

So, we're back on the merry-go-round in Larsaguy47's mind. No brass ring as we go round and round and round and round ... .

RED DAVE

Larsguy47

I said this was a "research outline." You have to disprove everything. I don't have to prove it, you have to disprove it; which, of course, you can't.

By the way, since you're following this. I don't remember your specific comment on "The Delian Problem"; where Plato was consulted at the beginning of the PPW in 431BCE when he wasn't born until 428 BCE. Now, what was your official excuse for that one?

Thanks, Spin.

LG47

RED DAVE

From Larsguy47:
Uhh, you've got is bass ackwards. If you're just throwing some random jottings out, then proof is irrelevent on either side. However, if you're putting this out for serious concern, then the burden of proof is on you. Not only that, but since you're making extraordinary claims, the level of proof required has to be extraordinary.

From Larsguy47:
We went over this before. The source for the Delian Problem legend is Theon of Smyrna, a second-century Platonist. There is no reason to credit him over contemporary sources.

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

RED DAVE

Weltall

You are aware that in real research you have to provide proof for your assertions? No real scholar says "Here's what I believe, until you prove me wrong you might as well take it as truth.

Gamera

I think the lesson here is that taking "historical" texts at face value is always a mistake, and Thucydides had an agenda just like any other author, for example Luke.

It is somewhat odd that the detrators deconstruct the Christian texts, but naively accept the Greek "historical" texts as if the authors were impartial scholars in love with pure historical truth. That is a fantasy, which undermines the standard by which the question the Christian texts.

-Jay-

In another post, here, I made the following comment concerning your molestation of the chart at the other end of your link:

Quote:

Misunderstanding the chart once is excusable. Continuing to misinterpret the chart after it's been repeatedly explained is, at best, willful ignorance and at worst deliberately misrepresentative.

I now have my answer. You have repeatedly and unapologetically misrepresented the work of the archaeologists and scientists who:

• Excavated the Stratum IV dig at Tel Rehov,
• Collected, prepared, and dated the grain samples from Building F at that site, and
• Built the statistical model to analyze the dating results.

<edit> Worse, you are a <person> who thinks he has God on his side and consequently believes he is justified in his actions.

You made your bullshit assertion about being able to date the destruction of City IV here. I explained to you in this post why it is invalid to declare that since the Groningen dating protocols and equipment are capable of producing results with 1-sigma values of less than 10 years, the specific sample of charred cereal grains from Stratum IV, Building F at Tel Rehov could be so precisely dated. I then pointed out where, in the report which is the source of the very chart you hold up to support your point, the authors clearly refute your assertions. To wit:

• The 1-sigma value for the sample of charred cereal grains from Stratum IV, Building F is approximately 28 years (that's 28 years either side of the central date, just so we're clear),
• The 2-sigma value for that same sample of charred cereal grains is approximately 48 years to either side of the central date, and
• The data from Stratum IV at Tel Rehov do not strongly support the assertion that Shishak's campaign was responsible for the destruction of City IV.

Your own source betrays <edit> your assertions.

regards,

NinJay

Sauron

Except it's not. It's a wish-list of claims that you hope are true.

Absolutely, totally incorrect. You're the one claiming that established facts in history are mistakes or outright lies. Therefore it's up to you to prove it. He who asserts, has burden of proof. You've asserted a shit-load of things here about kings trading places, documents being changed, entire centuries being ignored or moved around, etc. Apparently you want everyone else to run around like crazed madmen, hunting up all kinds of evidence and sources to knock down every imaginary scenario that you can manufacture (have you been talking to lee_merrill?) - it doesn't work that way.

Sorry, poptart - the burden of proof is on you, not us. So the question is: how long before we can see some proof for any of this creative revisionist history you're peddling here?

Capability isn't the question.

The question is where the burden of proof falls - right on your back, since you're the one wanting to re-write history with these wild claims.

Larsguy47

Your link didn't work.

History: Doubling the Size of the Cubel

Thanks for your reply. You finally answered something.

LG47

Larsguy47

You missed the point. There are 82 years of extra Persian history. I've done all the work for you. But if you try to disprove what I assert you will discover the "weaknesses" in the chronology and that's what you need to remove the extra years.

For instance. I make this preposterous claim that Xerxes and Artaxerxes are the same person. If you try to disprove this, you will have to research Xerxes and Artaxerxes and when Xerxes came to the throne and all that. Then you'll discover there was a big controversy about it.

Or you might go to the Bible hoping to find a confirmation to the contrary, but you'll find the Bible never mentions "Xerxes" yet calls the successor to Darius who completed the temple "Artaxerxes."

And on and on. That's how I discovered the details of the conspiracy. I first assessed what the Bible's chronology was and then tried to disprove it and it led me to the above research. We research differently when we are trying to prove something, than if we're trying to disprove it.

LG47