Larsguy47

How would Aristotle and Socrates being lovers affect anything in the Bibe? The answer is, it affects Bible chronology because the death of Artaxerxes is linked to the 8th year of the Peloponnesian War.

In history, Socrates had a young adolescent lover, who lived with him from about 10 years of age Socrates died 8 years later. This lover was called "Phaedo", who then became a charge or student of Plato.

But Aristotle's history is quite similar. He was also an orphan, adopted by someone around age 10 and raised until 18 and then also became a student of Plato. Coincidence? Hardly.

But having created this suspicion, we can move directly to the chronology implications. That is, if Phaedo and Aristotle were really the same historical reference, then Socrates would have died in 366BCE when Aristotle/Phaedo was 18 years of age. Aristotle was born in 384BCE. Socrates was 32 years old when the Peloponnesian War began. If he was born in 435BCE then the war would have begun in 403BCE. That means year 8 falls in 396BCE, the 41st year of Artaxerxes. Thus Artaxerxes began to rule in 437BCE. Artaxerxes had claimed he was the son of Xerxes, but in actuality they were the same king. So what we apply to Xerxes, we can apply to Artaxerxes. Artaxerxes/Xerxes was 18 years of age when he became king and he was born the year his father became king. So if Artaxerxes was 18 years of age in 437BCE, then he was born in 455BCE, the same year his father became king. However, his father became king just 2 years prior to Artaxerxes becoming king in 439BCE, thus this reference would refer to Xerxes' grandfather, Cyrus who must have begun to rule in 455BCE.

The 1st of Cyrus occurring in 455BCE is cross-matched to other references that also date his 1st year in 455BCE (i.e. Martin Anstey in "Romance of Biblical Chronology").

The VAT4956 astronomical text, though, is the most direct reference we have for specifically redating the Neo-Babylonian Period since it contains double-dating for the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar: both 568BCE and 511BCE. The multiple references matching 568BCE in this "diary" appear to be a camouflage to preserve the suppressed original dating, found in two references in the VAT4956 matching 511BCE. If the chronology was revised and this was an effort to hide a secret reference to the original chronology then the VAT4956 not only dismisses 568BCE as a bogus date but confirms that 511BCE would be the original true date for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar. If so, however, it should also confirm the 455BCE dating for the 1st of Cyrus in 455BCE. It does!

That's because the 1st of Cyrus must occur 70 years after the 23rd of Nebuchadnezzar, the year of the last deportation (Jer. 52:30). That forces the dating of year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar to 525BCE. 525BCE for year 23 matches 511BCE for year 37. Thus we have a coordination of an astronomical text with the 455BCE dating.

At this point, with about a 57-year difference between the revised, popular history for the Neo-Babylonian Period and the original dating, we have to find a better Assyrian eclipse event for the 10th of Bar-Sagale, the one solar eclipse event occurring in month three that dates the entire Assyrian Period. This is easily accommodated by the 709BCE eclipse, representing a 54-year reduction from the normally dated 763BCE event, the dating of which has already been suspect anyway:

The 709BCE fits the more customary dating for the year which begins after the spring equinox. But from 709BCE, we get the improved dating for the invasion of Shishak, dated down from 925BCE to 871BCE. That this is the correct dating is now confirmed scientifically by the Groningen RC14 dating from Rehov!

http://www.geocities.com/ed_maruyama/rehov872.html



The 871 BCE dating for Shishak's invasion though falls in year 39 of Solomon based also upon the 455BCE corrected dating for the 1st of Cyrus. That's because the year the Jews return from Babylon begins a 70-week jubilee period and the Exodus is exactly 19 jubilees earlier, that is 19 x 49 or 931 years earlier. 931 plus 455 BCE is 1386BCE. This datingis a very good date for the Exodus and the 1st of Akhenaten, who after experiencing the Ten Plagues immediately converted over to a monotheistic-type of worship, so similar to Jewish monotheism that the writings of Akhenaten have been compared to the writings of David, both claiming they were inspired by their god. Hmmm, must have been the same god!!!


Anyway, that's how you get from the Greek Period back to the Exodus without a hitch.

Aristotle who allegedly never knew Socrates, mentions him over 80 times in his works. Phaedo was said to be delighted by everything Socrates did and loved talking about him.

Larsguy47

Jack the Bodiless

...Nope, you're still just babbling.

There was no Exodus, "Jewish monotheism" wasn't invented until many centuries later, and Exodus (if assumed to be true) would confirm the actual existence of the Egyptian deities.

Why are you creating multiple threads full of nonsense?

Dean Anderson

Congratulations. You managed to get through a whole paragraph before you started making errors.

Not coincidence, but standard social practice at the time throughout the Hellenistic world.

Besides, Aristotle was raised in Macedon, in the capital city of Pella (his father, Nicomachus, was the Royal Physician for King Amyntas III of Macedon), and was brought up by his Uncle Proxenus. He only moved to Athens at the age of 18.

So he wasn't even in the right country to be Socrates's lover.

Sorry.

There is no "suspicion" other than your completely baseless speculation.

However, other than the fact that you need to do it to make your numbers fit, even if (and that is a ridiculously huge "if") Aristotle and Phaedo were the same person, what reason do you have to move Socrates's birth and death forward, rather than moving Aristotle's birth and death backward?

Why is "if Phaedo and Aristotle were really the same historical reference, then Socrates would have died in 366BCE when Aristotle/Phaedo was 18 years of age" any more likely than "if Phaedo and Aristotle were really the same historical reference, then Aristotle/Phaedo would have been born in 417BCE, 18 years before Socrates's death (in 399BCE)."?

The rest of your post simply assumes your modified date for Socrates, so can be ignored until you have established why this date should be granted.

Julian

One must also wonder, if Xerxes and Artaxerxes were one and the same person, why he would allow Cyrus to bring Clearchus, a spartan, and his ten thousand, a sizable force, into the Persian empire, regardless of pretense. Xerxes was smacked at Thermopylae fighting a force smaller than that.

Julian

Larsguy47

Well, that's what you say, but I interpret the historical evidence differently. The RC14 dating and archaeological evidence support my position. Your position can only be maintained by claiming the Biblical is a false record. But you can't prove that one way or the other. So, to each his own.

Thanks for sharing!

Larsguy47

Larsguy47

Sorry, I think you are mixing up the kings. Xerxes is Artaxerxes I. I think the spartans coming into Persia at the time of Cyrus is a reference to a later king, Artaxerxes II. Darius II ruled for 19-21 years in between.

Thermopylae was during the reign of Xerxes when he first invaded Greece.

Larsguy47

Jack the Bodiless

...Except that there is no "archaeological evidence" that supports your position, and I can indeed prove that the Bible is a false record.

Sven

I see that you still don't understand probability density functions - despite multiple explanations and a link to Wikipedia to read up on it. Even more, you've now added "nice" colors to make your - completely wrong - point.

Hint: No one will take you seriously as long as you persist in stupid errors like this one.

ETA: Please also see the other thread in which I deconstructed this in more detail. Everyone can check the PDF of the orginal article for himself there to see that Lars is completely clueless.

RED DAVE

No scholar in all the history of Greek studies has ever suggested that Phaedo and Aristotle are the same people. Besides the coincidence that you have cited, what proof do you have?

RED DAVE

premjan

No mention here of Aristotle being an orphan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle#Life