Larsguy47

I can't find it either, but it is supposed to be in "de gen Soc. 7, p. 579" ??

Here's another info on it; amazing nobody notices Plato wasn't born yet.

Larsguy47

I think this is as good as it will get. But there is no telling if this was a famous story and handed down through various sources. Plutarch seems to quote from this source

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...06#post4308006

Weltall

The 'discrepancy' exists solely in your head as a means to facilitate your rewriting of history. Do you really think that nobody among the thousands of professional historians who make a living doing this sort of thing noticed it but you, untrained as you are, somehow did? Have you ever taken a formal course of study in Greek history? If so, I have a professor who would just love to know where you're getting your ideas from and who he can nail to the wall for spreading such tripe.
You haven't presented any. You've said 'here's what I believe, here's some numbers I pulled out of my ass, there's no evidence but it's your job to disprove what I've written'.
No, I left that to those with more understanding of the field. For some reason, they all think you're bonkers.
This would be the chronology that has the Flood take place during a very productive period of uninterrupted Egyptian history?
You haven't presented any. You've twisted references (like your chart which, try as you might, does not say what you want it to) and you've claimed to have a reference but you've never actually produced it.
In that case, may I suggest that you write a peer-reviewed paper on the topic. If the evidence really is on your side, you should have no trouble getting it published.
If I never see it again it will be too soon.The bible is not a historical record. This has been explained to you. It is wrong wrong wrong on so many things it's not even funny.
Tempting. Still I have hopes that even if nothing we say penetrates your skull, at least the lurkers will benefit in some way.
I'll do so right after you start posting yours. No, the chart is not a valid reference, the authors clearly state that it doesn't indicate what you think it does.
'They' (meaning you) aren't if you actually think there's truth in that story.When you lie to create the discrepancies (and yes, you have been proven wrong about many of your claims so continuing to make them is lying), yes you can be discredited.
It's not, you're trying to make it confusing in order to argue your beliefs.

3DJay

His peers might be part of the problem.


Peace

Larsguy47

No, I think some of them do know about it. I can't guess why they need this reference so bad, but it strange nobody noticed he wasn't born yet. I ran across a reference that suggested that Phaedo and Aristotle were the same person; it's just a theory but the ages check out and the general M.O. (orphaned at around 10, raised by others until about 18 when they were turned over to be student of Plato; Aristotle mentions Plato over 80 times and was a great admirer of his and often quoted what he "said", etc.) So I couldn't fully substantiate the reference was not real. But what you're saying is that Plato could have been consulted before his birth, don't worry about something this, it's above me! Or are you saying this story is fabricated?

Yeah, I heard that, but some think some of those dynasties were smaller kingdoms ruling together and so the chronology was not that long. So no need to go there.

Listen. I have a saying after debating everywhere for over ten years. You can make a perfect tapestry to fit perfectly on a wall, but if the wall doesn't already have hooks, you can't hang it up.

Oh I have! Wanna know what happened? I'll make this short. I discovered that Sachs/Hunger were misrepresenting some references in the VAT4956 so I contacted the British Museum about it. They acknowledged the "error" and then basically flipped me off saying, and I quote: "He who writes no books, make no errors." They have yet to formally correct the text that I know of even though they said they were going to get Stephenson and Hunger to review their astronomy stuff since and advent of computerized astro programs. Another researcher was permitted to study ancient texts in the British museum as well. He found something, probably discovered an error in the chronology and when he told them about it, they promptly kicked him out and told him not to come back. But he must have had notes or something and published what he found anyway, but in a very subtle way.

I published a chart for you of a PREDICTABLE ECLIPSE and noted for you that even NASA is not aware of this rare series. That's self evident. That's a no-brainer. But to ask astronomers to redate history so that the Thales eclipse works where it original was is too much of a trip for them. You know universities and all hat "peer" review. They don't know anything about anything else and they don't have to because they just ask the specialist in that field and if that answer sounds okay then they're done. So the "ignoring" continues.

But I'm in a great place right now because of Israel Finkelstein. He has come out strongly to dismiss Solomon and his buildings in the late early 10th century and david in th late 11th. He claims that Philistine pottery dates "well into the 10th century BC." So I already have a scholar saying Solomon is dated too early. But they have found nearly identical 6-chambered gates at Megiddo, Gezer and Hazor where Solomon says he built, but they are dated much later around the time of Omri (c. 870BCE). The palacial level associated with Solomon and thus thought to be destroyed by Shishak matches City IV at Rehov. So the RC14 dating chart, which apparently I don't know to read, it looks like it's pointing to 874-867 as it's highest probability but trusted experts here assure me this only means there is a probability this occurred sometime before this year between now and 20,000 years ago. It's not that specific. But anyway, I think it's consistent with dating around 871BCE. That is an argument already won. Plus there's no way 763 BCE dated earlier than it should be for that Assyrian eclipse will work, so I'm not worried.

I talked with the David Rohl camp as well about the KTU 1.78 and they dropped the focus on using that for their dating. I got the idea that the money they're making was more urgent or the "emotional" needs they serve for the Bible-bashers is big business. So I've been relatively successful for my standards with this.

But I'm also laughing at you because I merely pointed out a contradiction with Plato that would specifically suggest the war occurred 20-25 years later than it is currently dated. You dismissed that reference and decided to keep the old chronology. Wrong.


Yes it is.

Oh really, I haven't found any errors. Mostly it's people who have misread the Bible and don't understand it well. For instance Israel Finkelstein tries to find a "geopolitical" reason for Shishak's invasion in the north of Irsael, surprising if this was just a sparsely popoulated area, right? I mean Solomon and David are mere myths but you have a king invading a non-area and listing over 100 cities, which per the archaeologists for this time were just small towns and villages at the most. At any rate, Solomon was still ruling and there was a co-rulership with Rehoboam, which is why the nothern cities were attacked, the Israelite princes joined with Rehoboam in some type of idolatry likely, maybe setting up some favorite god or goddess in these cities that got all burned down. But he doesn't realize this. But others think this is a contradiction in some way, when it's not.

Yes, my same wish!

Yes, they do! Didn't you see the quote?

FOR THE LURKERS (not you):

"The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating - Archaeology, Text and Science" Edited by Thomas E. Levy and Thomas Higham


"This enables the calculation of a weighted average of the dates in order to increase the precision and possibly also the accuracy, resulting in a measurement that is closer to the "true age." (page 266)

"Multiple measurements of the smae sample are likely to result in an average date with a higher precision (smaller sigma) and also higher accuracy, in other words, close to the real age..." (page 214)

"However, multiple measurements of the same sample material, including AMS on small samples, may enable the calculation of a weighted average that can result in very low standard deviations, below 10." (page 213)


Impossible. I didn't make up "The Delian Problem." It's famous. Plutarch mentions it. It's a famous match problem. It clearly dates Plato as being consulted and commenting on the war. Nothing you can do about that. It's a discrepancy. We know it doesn't work, but just deciding it's not based on reality is not your perogative. On the other hand, it is mine to speculate that there was a revision in the timeline, specifically one that pushed the dating past the birth of Plato. That is what happens when history gets revised.


Maybe you're just confused.:wave:

Anyway, with the VAT4956 and the RC14 from Rehov dating Shishak's invasion to 871BCE, I can't lose.

LG47

RED DAVE

From Weltall:
From Larsguy47:
One more dumb-ass statement.

Listen, you want to discuss you play by the rules. You make statements of fact; you document.

The fact is that nothing in your statement above would pass muster in a 6th grade composition, let alone a scholarly discourse.

Document this bullshit or retract it!

The alleged Flood, as many have shown here, would have taken place during a very productive period in Egyptian history. AND THERE IS NO ARCHEOLOGICAL RECORD, NO GAP, THAT SHOWS THAT ANYTHING LIKE THIS TOOK PLACE.

RED DAVE

3DJay

Theon of Smyrna (ca. 70–ca. 135) was a Greek philosopher and mathematician, whose works were strongly influenced by the Pythagorean school of thought. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theon_of_Smyrna

Eratosthenes (Greek ??at?s?????; 276 BC - 194 BC) was a Greek mathematician, geographer and astronomer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes

Both methematicians, not historians. Theon is quoting a work of Eratosthenes, that no longer exists, so we can't find out where Eratosthenes got it, or the context. There's no sense of time span given in the short quote. How long did the Delians try, on their own, before they "fell into great perplexity" and came to Athens? How many years did it take for them to try and build a double sized temple, and fail? Did it come after the tale of Athenians trying cleanse the entire island of Delos, and reviving festivals to Apollo? How long did it take to clear Delos of the dead? How many years of festivals were attempted? That little quote, provides no real sense of time.

Archytas (Greek: ????ta?; 428 BC-347 BC) was an Ancient Greek philosopher, mathematician, astronomer, statesman, and strategist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archytas

Plato (Greek: ???t??, Pláton, "wide, broad-shouldered") (428/427 BC[a] – 348/347 BC) was a writer of philosophical dialogues, a mathematician, and the founder of the Academy in Athens.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato

Eudoxus of Cnidus (Greek ??d????) (410 or 408 BC – 355 or 347 BC) was a Greek astronomer, mathematician, physician, scholar and student of Plato. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eudoxus_of_Cnidus

Menaechmus (380 – 320 BC) was a Greek mathematician and geometer born in Alopeconnesus (within modern-day Turkey), who was known for his friendship with the renowned philosopher Plato and for his apparent discovery of conic sections and his solution to the then-long-standing problem of doubling the cube using the parabola and hyperbola. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menaechmus


According to you, the Delian problem was put to Plato, and his Academy, the same year the plague started. Plutarch states that Plato reproached the disciples of the other men, mentioned above. For Menaechmus to be 20ish, old enough to have disciples, the date would need to be, at least, 360 BC, for your version of events, to work. Either that, or you move Menaechmus, who is also thought to be a tutor of Alexander, to Plato's generation, instead of Aristotle's.

You've already moved the second Peloponnesian War, into the Athenian war of independence, or that war into the Spartan-Thebes war, or that war into Phillip's campaigns...oh yes, sounds much more reasonable, than simply assuming the Delian problem wasn't brought to Plato immediately.


Peace

Weltall

No. They. Do. Not. Aristotle wasn't alive when you need him to be unless you rewrite history. You can't use one faulty assumption to prove another faulty assumption.
Yes I'm saying the story was fabricated. You're the only person here who thinks that Plato was somehow alive before he was born.Red Dave's already pointed out the ground rules so I won't go there. The period in question was very productive and there is NO GAP. I'm sorry but this fact isn't going to go away just because it's inconvenient for you.If this is the debating style you've been using, I can assume that you either lost repeatedly or you picked really easy opponents (say, children who lack a sixth-grade level education, the mentally infirm and deaf people).This in no way responds to my request that you produce the title and author of this book you allege exists.Phoning a museum and producing a peer reviewed paper are two different things. Since you don't seem to understand how to back up your claims I suspect that the museum made polite noises and then brushed you off. Am I wrong? Then produce your paper in which you prove the error you corrected and give the names of the reviewers.
We have only your word for this. Considering everything, I trust your word as far as I can throw you telekinetically.
You should have no trouble giving us his name then. My professor is quite aware of discoveries related to Greek history, especially as relates to the time of the Persian wars. Somehow, he's missed this fascinating tome of yours. Somehow, I suspect that if this book was real he might have heard of it and published an award-winning paper revolutionizing the field.
Given that you think the planets were gathered from the ends of the galaxy and stuck in our system by your invisible friend (have you read that link on planetary formation I provided you yet, thought not), I don't think you have any qualifications to tell NASA what they do and don't know.
You've not been educated at a university I take it. Then again, given the amazing abyss that represents your knowledge, I'm not terribly surprised.
Until you can provide evidence that the story written 200 years after the fact is more reliable than the texts written while Plato was alive... no.'La-la-la, I can't hear you' says the person who has had his errors pointed out a thousand times.Yes, including the pieces you don't quote where they explain that all the dates within the century-long range are equally valid. You continue to ignore this.

-Jay-

No, I'd like you to move on because you've been misinterpretting this chart and the data behind it for weeks, and despite many, many attempts to educate you on it, you've steadfastly refused to learn. And don't decrease the signal to noise ratio here with a sanctimoniously reply like "Oh, really? Where has anyone tried to explain this?", because I know you know better.

(As an aside, it's interesting that you're trying to use a chart from a paper co-authored by Mazar as a way to destroy Mazar's dating...)

Whatever dates Finkelstein does or does not need are completely irrelevant to the fact that The Chart simply doesn't show what you're claiming it does. Focus, Larsguy47, focus!

Stipulated. That 871 BCE is smack damn in the middle of the 95.4% confidence interval is not, and has never been, in question. It's also largely irrelevant, since a whole bunch of other dates are also in that confidence interval, and must be given equal credence as 871 BCE. Your next four points aren't of much concern to me (although I'll confess interest in the Kenyon material), since they don't directly bear on The Chart and the data behind it. I will refrain from quoting them, but note that this in no way means I'm accepting them as valid.

Assigned by whom? Certainly not Bruins, van der Plicht, Mazar, Ramsey, and Manning...

I note that in their conclusions on pg 292, the authors state, as conclusion number 4:

Quote:

4. The destruction of City V occurred most likely in the full 1-sigma range of 924–902 BCE (68.2%). This time range could perhaps fit with the chronological assessments for the Asian campaign of Shoshenq I (Shishak), based only on Egyptian criteria (Shortland [Chapter 4, this volume]). Running the Bayesian model with the IntCal04 calibration curve yielded a slightly older date in the 1range: 929–906 BCE (68.2%). The latter range does also include the date 925 BCE for the Shoshenq campaign as suggested by Kitchen (1986, 2000).

That doesn't really look like they're eliminating 925 BCE as a possible date for Shishak's campaign. Hmmm.


How do conclusions by the original authors of your source that directly and explicitly refute every claim you make about their data confirm the Bible's chronology?

Perhaps more interestingly, why do you have such an obsessive need for the Bible's chronology to be correct? What would be the implications on your faith were it not? Would the notion that the supposedly historical tales in the Hebrew Scriptures may be simply culturally important myths obviate those Christian precepts that you hold so dear? Why? Just curious.

regards,

NinJay

3DJay

After examining the history of the legend, and seeing no sense of timeline or context, with it, are you still ready to rewrite tons of history? More and more actors, come into play, I'll try and pin you down as to the whos, whats, whens, wheres, of your new history.

What works fine, for me, is understanding that there are numerous "legends" out there, that end up being untrue, or partially true. It's seems pretty straight forward, to simply accept the "legend", as simply that, and not try and force it into history.

Nope. Didn't see anything saying either took 2 years. Show me.

"In 521 BC he made Susa his administrative capital, where he restored the fortifications and built an audience hall (apadana) and a residential palace." http://history-world.org/darius_as_an_administrator.htm

"Northwest of the Royal Town is the Apadana, where Darius I built his residence and two other palaces." http://www.irantour.org/Iran/city/SUSA.html

LOL. The story isn't about him visiting the tomb, AFTER the death...it's about him visiting it, during construction. If you believe the story, at all, then that's how he's said to have died...a decade before Darius.

"In another inscription, which was added when the palace was finished, Hystaspes is no longer mentioned; he must have died before the building was complete. The Greek author Ctesias, who is not known for his reliability, tells a strange story about the death of Hystaspes: together with his first wife, he wanted to visit the tomb that their son Darius had ordered to be cut in the rocks at Naqš-i Rustam, but when they were hoisted up, something went wrong, and they fell to their deaths (Persica, §19). There are some indications that this incident took place in 495 BC, which means that Hystaspes reached the venerable age of more than seventy years." http://www.livius.org/ho-hz/hystaspes/hystaspes02.html

"Darius' best-known building project is Persepolis, or, to use its Persian name, Pârsa. It was to be the splendid seat of the government of the Achaemenid empire, where the king received guests at the New Year festival (Now Ruz). Starting c.515, Darius' men leveled the ground and created a terrace of 450x300 meters, on which stood the Treasury and the Audience hall (Apadana). In the Treasury were stored the booty of the conquered tribes and the annual tribute, now fixed, from the king's subjects. The Apadana could contain thousands of people at the same time. The seventy-two columns which supported the roof were twenty-five meters high. The building inscription reads:
Darius the great king, king of kings, king of countries, son of Hystaspes, an Achaemenian, built this palace.
These buildings were finished in 490. At the end of Darius' reign, a small palace was added. The remarkable cavetto elements that crown the doors are an Egyptian influence. It was called Taçara, 'winter palace', but Darius probably did not live to see the building finished." http://www.livius.org/da-dd/darius/darius_i_7.html

Hrrrmmm, only 6 years after the tablets were uncovered. They must have been fast readers, to go through 30000 tablets and fragments. Guess they've learned a bit, since 1939... http://persepolistablets.blogspot.co...rtication.html

"The Treasury Tablets are divided by their formularies into "letters" and "memoranda." The letters from various officials, addressed to the head of the treasury in Persepolis, order that a certain sum be paid to individuals who carry out specified work, while the memoranda record the nature and duration of the work performed, the official responsible, and the amount of silver or foodstuffs paid to workmen in various categories according to their qualifications." http://www.iranica.com/articles/sup/..._Elam_Tab.html

"Some of the Fortification and Treasury texts contain the personal decrees of Darius I. For instance, he ordered the issue of 200 marriæ (1 marriæ = ca. 10 liters) of wine from the palace stores and 100 sheep to the queen Irtaæduna (see ARTYSTONE), who was one of his wives (Cameron, 1942, pp. 214ff, corrected by Hallock, 1969, No. 1795). According to a Treasury text, 530 karæa (44 kg) of silver were distributed by personal order of Darius to thirteen individuals, mostly with Iranian names, who had rendered some important service to the king (Cameron, 1948, No. 4). A number of Fortification Tablets contain records of the activity on estates belonging to members of the royal family. Evidently such records also constituted a part of the palace archive." http://www.iranica.com/articles/sup/..._Elam_Tab.html

Wrong again. He had over a thousand workers, working IN Persepolis, at the Treasury he had FINISHED.

Repeat: "The ruins were later confirmed to have been a palace, called Bardak Siah, built by the Achaemenid Emperor, Darius the Great."

Yeah, he started it, by building a ceremonial site. "In his studies, Stronach concluded that Tal-e Takht was constructed by Cyrus the Great for ceremonial purposes on the northern side of Pasargadae Castle and later it was turned into a fortress by Darius the Great who constructed a tower and rampart on it." http://www.cais-soas.com/News/2006/O...2006/09-10.htm

Oh c'mon...the egyptians had been doing this for centuries. You don't think they could tell the difference between a 2 year old bull, and a 27 year old bull?

It's not a problem, if the construction takes decades. The relief, with the prince, was added 10-15 years after the start date. Easy peasy. Zero problem.

Sorry, but the 6 year rule is the contradiction.

LOL. The way you jump to conclusions, is amazing.

Cook (The Persian Empire, 71) Plato refers to Darius I as the great lawgiver, and Olmstead (History, 119-34) credits him with the establishment of a penal law code. In Egypt, Darius ordered Aryandes to set up a commission to collect and codify laws, and within sixteen years they were codified on papyrus and published in Egyptian demotic and Aramaic. It is likely that Darius's efforts in the provinces in this area also touched Yehud, where we can imagine that the Primary History underwent further refinement and that other sacred writings, notably the prophets, were collected and organized.

Now... "whatever work was done was done over a 6-year period" ...that statement carries a burden of proof. Put up, or shut up. Prove it was all done in 6 years. Give me one example of an historian or archeaologist who backs you up.

They were working in the FINISHED Treasury, you don't believe was finished!

There were probably a lot more than 1000 working on the construction. I still don't think you're grasping the size of the project. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pyramid_of_Giza (30-300 thousand workers...Persia didn't have slave workers)

The Persepolis terrace is 33 acres, also limestone. Explain your 2 years.

I'm sorry, but you don't have their whole Imperial line, alive at that point in time.

What does "in the process of erection" mean? (ohhhh, that's an easy set-up)
Does it have a terrace? How big is it? See, I don't know. You have outright stated "2 years", for Persepolis. Prove it.

1932?! That'd be less than a year after discovery. Sheesh.


Peace