Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

A recent book on the Jewish chronology issue.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...DKIKX0DER&st=*
Jewish History in Conflict: A Study of the Major Discrepancy between Rabbinic and Conventional Chronology by Mitchell First

Three views on the issue.

http://www.lamblion.com/articles/pro...el/Jews-09.php
The Jew and Israel - What Year Is It? - David Reagan

http://www.starways.net/lisa/essays/heifetzfix.html
Fixing the History Books Dr. Chaim S. Heifetz's Revision of Persian History
by Brad Aaronson

http://www.talkreason.org/articles/fixing1.cfm
Fixing the Mind By Alexander Eterman

Here are discussion links

Avodah Mailing List
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol02/v02n177.shtml#14

Mail.Jewish Mailing List
http://www.ottmall.com/mj_ht_arch/v35/mj_v35i40.html

Tweb had a few discussions, this is one mention
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...t=35635&page=2

soc.culture.jewish
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.c...c814ad819a6197
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.c...00789b937f6371

Shalom,
Steven

Larsguy47

Listen, it's my intent here to claim anything other than to show you how these dates compare with the alleged revised dates and the alleged true dates. It merely suggests that since certainly no one will take the date of 352BCE as the date of the 6th of Darius, ostensibly some 30 years before the Battle of Marathon and 40 years before the Battle of Salamis when in Greek history both wars are well over, including the Peloponnesian War which can be dated by eclipse. Therefore, because temple date intervals can be used to convert to the original chronology, as I said, we're not in a position to rule out a cryptic reference here. That's all. If that's too unbelievable or complex or ridiculous to you, then understood. Don't go along with it.

LG47

Larsguy47

WOW! Thanks, Steven! Much appreciated!

One of your sources confirms the RABBINICAL DATING I present, except for one year off:



This is great. Here is a confirmatory source. My dates from my list are 832, 422, 352BCE for events noted above. Difference probably due to not recognizing the no zero Roman year. When that happens the dates are 1 year later. Much thanks and aloha!!

LG47

spin

So, have you got even a single primary source yet or are you still blowing smoke?

-Jay-

Comments like this peg the needle on the BSometer, and does little to convince anyone that you're not just making all of this up as you go along. There are dozens, probably hundreds, of folks on these fora who would eagerly dive in to help sort through the conflicting records, if they only knew what on earth you were referring to. Come on, LG! Help us help you! Share your sources. What's the worst that could happen?

regards,

NinJay

Sauron

Well, for starters he could be exposed as a flagrant bullshitter.

Why else do you think he won't reveal his sources? He already knows that they're flimsy.

Larsguy47

I don't need one now because the above source confirms the common reference. When I looked for my reference and didn't find it I remember that a research colleague and writer had looked it up at a Jewish university I believe and just e-mailed me the information. So I was looking for a common reference to the information since it is clearly out there, and here it has turned up. So no, I don't have a primary source other than a quote in an email about the dates, but they are confirmed as above.

The above proves I wasn't "blowing smoke." I might have the email in some papers that gives the source reference, but really, I don't need to now. All you need to know is that I didn't make it up that the rabbinical timeline was dating the 6th of Darius c. 352/51 BCE, etc. !

LG47

Larsguy47

Ha, ha, ha! Too late. Praxeus came to my rescue and published another source (maybe the same source) for the temple dates I mentioned.

LG47

Sauron

1. Oh, please. Which source from praxeus do you think supports you? Be specific.

2. Morever, by your own careful phraseology, you realize that the rest of praxeus's sources fail to support you. I suppose you think you can just grab whatever source works for you, and dismiss the rest as inconvenient?

3. Finally, you seem to ignore that praxeus isn't rescuing you, on your claims that dates were suppressed and histories re-written. Not even Avery is that stupid. I still haven't seen any evidence for that - just you waving your hands saying, "it is well known that...". Funny - for something being so well known, you're having a surprisingly hard time showing that any scholars are aware of it.

spin

No source means you don't know what you're talking about.