Larsguy47

Thanks for the work 3DJay! But 434 BCE is the year of the Battle of Marathon. 424BCE, ten years later is the year for the invasion by Xerxes and the Battle of Salamis. 431BCE is the revised date for the beginning of the Peloponnesian War. The correct date for the PPW begins in 403BCE.

So I'm confused as to which wars you are actually having in reference. I'm presuming I don't understand your point or you have the dates for my wars confused. So here are my dates again.

434 BCE Battle of Marathon, Darius dies this year in his 6th year of Rule

424 BCE Xerxes who is also Artaxerxes invades Greece to punish Athens

403 BCE After a 20-year gap, the Peloponnesian War begins. An eclipse close to Athens occurs in the winter of 402 BCE mentioned in Thucydides as well as Plutarch.

The dates for the birth of Plato in 428BCE and Aristotle in 384 BCE remain the same. The history of Socrates is corrected so that he is born in 435BCE and dies c. 466 BC at age 69-70.

Plato would have been 25 years of age when the PPW began, lending credence to "The Delian Problem" which claims he was consulted when the war began to help solve a mathematical challenge linked with stopping the plague.

Socrates birth in 435BCE would make him still older than Plato, but only by 7 years. Socrates was around the same age as two of Plato's older brothers. Socrates claims to have known Plato when he was a boy. When Plato was 10 years of age, Socrates and Plato's brothers would have been 17-18 years of age, reasonable that they would still be at home at this time. Otherwise, when Socrates is born in 469BCE he is 41 years older than Plato, so at 10 years of age, an age when Socrates might have known him, Socrates and his brothers were in the early 50's, allegedly still hanging around at home. The 7-year age gap fits better with the context of Plato's brothers being around the age of Socrates.

Then there's this comparing the age of Socrates with Hippocrates:

Then the great Peloponnesian War began in Greece, which Thucydides has handed down to memory...During that period Sophocles, and later Euripides, were famous and renowned as tragic poets, Hippocrates as a physician, and as a philosopher, Democritus; Socrates the Athenian was younger than these, but was in part their contemporary. (Noctes Atticae XVII.21, 16-18).

Hippocrates is said to be born in 460 BCE and die in 370 BCE, c. age 90. Socrates' revised age has him born in 469 BCE which makes him 9 years older than Hippocrates, which contradicts the above reference. If we leave the dates of Hippocrates in place, and Socrates was born in 435BCE, then Hippocrates is 25 years his elder. This fits this reference that Socrates was younger but still a contemporary. When the PPW is moved down from 403 to 377 BCE, Hippocrates still survives the war and dies about 11 years before Socrates who dies c. 366 BCE. But he would have known Socrates in his latter years.

But it might be quite interesting to take a closer look at Hippocrates, because if he really was born in 460BCE he would have been around 26 during the Battle of Marathon (434BCE) and 36 during the Battle of Salamis (424BCE). It's reasonable he would have mentioned these events, both happening before 460BCE in the revised history. So we'll see as we check more details.

Thanks for the Greek references!

LG47

RED DAVE

Here we go gathering nuts in May, nuts in May, nut in ... oh, wait, it's April. But we still have a big nut on our hands.

From Larsguy47:
Except, oh consciously and deliberately forgetful one, Thucydides specified an eclipse on a spring afternoon, as in 431. Yours is on a winter morning, and, therefore, ineligible.

You don't learn a fucking thing, do you?

From Larsguy47:
No reason to do this. Just your nonsense. Your method of altering history reminds me of the techniques of the Communists. By the time they finished fucking with history, they practically had Stalin writing the Communist Manifesto.

In any event, the above by Larsguy47 is a derail.

Basics:

RED DAVE

Larsguy47

It is eligible because it's the substitue eclipse. Why can't you get that? It doesn't work in 431BCE with the original eclipse, which has to be near total at Athens. They found this eclipse, which occurs in the year 1 of the Olympics like the 402BCE eclipse. But it didn't happen in the same month, of course. Since the 431BCE eclipse is the substitute eclipse, it's reference to time is not relevant. In the meantime, there's a historical mismatch since the eclipse is associated with when Pericles sets out for sail which is after the plague breaks out. There's not enough time for the plague to first break out and then Pericles to set sail when the eclipse happens in the summer. That context thus better matches the original eclipse occurring the same year but after given enough time for the plague to break out, etc. So it's not ME that doesn't learn but you. The entire 431BCE eclipse is a big lie, so why should I be concerned about the details of when it occurs?

You're the one that doesn't learn. The substitute eclipse just matched the Olympic year 28 years earlier, that's all. The original eclipse happened in the winter after the plague broke out. The substitute eclipse occurs in the summer so they had to revise that part of the history. It doesn't work! They have to have Pericles leaving the following year. Even THEY didn't think the summer eclipse allowed enough time for the plague to break out. So the discrepancies are THERE. What you need to do is to remember that "The Delilan Problem" palces Plato as an adult when the war began, then take it from there.

Okay, fine. Play "I'm really, really smart, but just disinterested!" Be my guest. But you know as time goes by more and more details are just going to prove me right if I really am. I already have the Thales eclipse redated, so you're fighting a battle that has already been won -- by me!

In your dreams. But listen, every body can't keep up, so cool. I thank you for hearing the theories. That's all everything is at some point. Some people think the Bible is true history and some just myths, so it's going to be a personal choice at some point. It's nice to hear all the sides.

Cheers, LG47

spin

I don't want you to apologize I would like you to take your hands off your private parts and come back to reality.

As we have come to expect you'll try to do the old sleight of hand, but the tired magician lets everyone see the trick. So now you want to add an extra fifteen years to the reign of Darius II. All you are doing is robbing Peter to pay Paul. I think the thing that stuns everyone here is not the stuff that you try to sell, but your performance itself.

You won't learn anything from your experiences from other fora you have spammed with this stuff. You'll just keep repeating it, Memento style.

This ismerely an argument from silence.

This is not supported by history. It's just your empty mantra. You cannot help your slavish adherence to the ahistorical book of Daniel and its ahistorical figure of "Darius the Mede". You have simply reified the error, not aware of the real purpose of the book of Daniel for the 3rd and 2nd c. BCE and its struggle with Greek hegemony.

Who cares about what could have been, Larsguy47-LarsWilson-LarryWilson-Dave2002-messiah? Anyone can make ridiculous unverifiable claims. Your job is to make verifiable claims.

It wasn't because the king wore red underwear and the co-ruler wore blue?

You have just finally made my ignore list. There is no discourse here. I absolve you from all responsibility for your actions. When a growing mind is shod with JWism, it deforms like Chinese empresses' feet.


spin

RED DAVE

From Larsguy47:
Yeah, why should you? The fact that it corresponds to Thucydides' dating is just a small inconvenient fact.

From Larsguy47:
We've been over that. The Delian problem is a parable from about 250 years after the fact. Sort of liike Washington and the cherry tree.

From Larsguy47:
I guess we're getting close to a full moon. Your megalomania is waxing.

From Larsguy47:
Oh, yeah, I forgot, like you, about the point of this thread.

So, we'll stick to this for awhile:

RED DAVE

Larsguy47

How would you know that unless you were looking?

Forget it. You did me a FAVOR. I had already found a text that had Darius II with too many years and presumed a co-rulership. The co-rulership seat of government in the Persian Empire was always Babylon. So if Darius at 23 became king of Babylon so what? No biggee. That's why he is addressed more in the context of "King of Babylon" even in these latter years. The texts PROVE that he began his rule as co-ruler early in the reign of Artaxerxes, as Xerxes did with Darius. Persepolis proves this. So there is no real "sleight of hand" as you say. So I'm done with it. THANKS!! It resolves a lot for me. I'm delirious! (deliriously happy, that is!! :notworthy: )

That's, right, baby! You got my number!


Yes. It's always dark outside when your eyes are closed. What else is old?

ROFL!!! Ha! Your favorite Freemason, Isaac Newton clearly confirms that Darius the Mede was a real person. Are you going to go against Sir Isaac Newton?

Yeah, right, Darius the Mede is an imaginary character here... I can see that.

How DARE you list 4 out of my 12 screen names!!! Did I tell you to do that? :devil1: You forgot "Bibleman" and Gary and Joshua92, plus some others I can't recall right now.

Yeah, they all run in the end when they don't have what it takes with some excuse. What choice do you have? Nice getting some great research from you "Spin" - much appreciated!!! Take care, pal!

LG, et al :devil1:

RED DAVE

A. Isaac Newton is not a legitimate source. He was not a historian. I challenge you to find a single, legitimate historian who believes Darius the Mede existsed.

B.

RED DAVE

Doug Shaver

If it was only 100 people over 20 weeks, there is still no good reason to believe it happened.

Babylon Sister

And, even at 100 people for 20 weeks, there would still be plenty of evidence of their passing. But there isn't.

Larsguy47

I agree, normally, there should be something. That was 3353 years ago though. Maybe we're looking in the wrong place for the wrong things.

We have a good reference, chronologically speaking, from Jericho that the Jews apparently did destroy that LBIIA city, which Dame Kathleen Kenyon specifically, by her opinion, dates between 1350-1325BCE. Per the Bible, the city was not to be rebuilt and archaeology confirms there was no occupation of that city for the next 400 years. Likewise, Syncellus (Manetho) can be used to date the Exodus specifically at the end of the rule of Amenhotep III with Akhenaten's (Amenhotep IV) sudden conversion "toward" monotheism a very strong indicator that the Ten Plagues did actually happen. There are also some other circumstantial events during the reign of Akhenaten consistent with this happening at that time (i.e. decreased military support, decreased gold shipments, etc.)

So we have some smidgens of evidence from the time they left and until they conquered Jericho, but nothing in between in the Wilderness of Sin apparently.

Also, they had a special diet eating manna, so who knows if the archaeologists are looking for the right kinds of waste byproducts? They might be looking at some high levels of some rare chemicals and not realize that is consistent with what they were eating.

Still I think we should have found something left behind. Maybe it is waiting to be found.

LG47