Larsguy47

Only because I'm not ready to give up my source just yet. You've heard of the "word to wise." What is I told you that OJ Simpson was innocent and that the murders of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman was a set-up and a frame by a secret cultic group and that you could identify the group by special trademark markings they left on the bodies? Insiders who understand the trademark would know OJ was innocent. Then it would be a matter of simply admiring how well it was done. Of course, it was over done; a neat man like OJ wouldn't wear his best dress shoes to kill a person when he knew he had to get ditch all the clothes along with the murder weapon. But then, if he wore some throw-away tennis shoes the shoe evidence could be anyone in a million. Expensive Bruno Magli shoes would narrow down the suspects quite a bit, so they thought. Now, want more? I'm not giving you more. That's the difference between a lead and a reference. A lead leaves you with a supposition you have to try to disprove, a reference is a source that gives you proof in some way of the affirmative.

Actually, perhaps I could use "if" or "perhaps" more but then people don't read through those lines very well because they are used to straightforward propaganda through which they don't have to deal with shady gray areas, only absolute black and white. So yes, I have the source, so I know it's not disprovable, no more than you can prove OJ Simpson himself left his own glove at the crime scene versus the persons setting him up took the gloves from his home for the purpose of faking evidence that he was there, or using blood from the scene to try and link him to the crime, including his own blood likely gotten from his doctor.

So get over it. The 431 BCE eclipse doesn't work! Not nearly as well as the 402BCE eclipse. Some stray historical folklore links Plato to the beginning of the war. If, that is IF we presume this was the original eclipse, then Socrates, who was 32 when the war began would have to die much later at 69-70 around 366-365 BCE. That means he was alive during the time of Aristotle and Aristotle would have known him. If Aristotle only mentioned him about five times, it would be different, but he quotes the man! He mentions him 80+ times! Phaedo, his protege should have become a great philosopher if he was taught in the art by the greatest Greek philosopher that ever lived, but he's somewhat obscured, that is, compared to Aristotle. And three of the most surviving personalities from this period were all intimate friends of Socrates, with Xenophon the key historian of PERSIAN HISTORY and Greek history, who couldn't have done this without the help of these two surviving icons from the period. Strange that Xenophon and Plato are the ones who both publish the works of Socrates. The work of Xenophon picks up exactly where the work of Thucydides leaves off. Now this is not proof but they are leads, they are clues, that the inquisitive mind, looking for only absolute proof will never pick up. But others will extrapolate for you a wide range of potential scenarios of "what if", with some of them being painfully more logical than others.

Technically, since I believe the Bible is true, I should be able to quote it as "proof" of something. I can, with others who believe the Bible as true history. But in the context of many who don't and treat the Bible as a non-historical source, quoting from the Bible is just a qualified reference to yet an "unproven" history of chronology. That's why ASTRONOMY is so important. Because it forces the option. If you have an astronomical text, like either the VAT4956 or the SK400 that is a "copy" from 200 years later, it automatically is presumed to be a revised document until proven otherwise. That might have been easy if there were any surviving contemporary astronomical texts from the NB Period, but there don't seem to be any, when there should have been thousands, especially since tens of thousands of other types of palace documents particularly from the rule of Nebuchadnezzar have survived.

So in the end, lots of this archaeology and astronomy debate and discussion is going to be subjective "what ifs" and "maybes", but that's the nature of the game. Barely two scholars in any given field agree on a single thing. Debate is considered healthy and informative. So I'm happy to simply establish a plausible alternative to the current history that agrees with the Bible and people can take it or leave it as they see fit. So if you have absolute "proof" that Aristotle was a virgin until he married some woman, then my source about him possibly being Phaedo is just an unsubstantiated rumor, and both he and Phaedo being about 18 when Socrates died is just a coincidence. It's possible he knew and liked him, but never slept with him. Aristotle didn't become a student of Plato until 19, what was he doing education wise all the time before then? Phaedo was having an affair with Socrates.

LG47

Larsguy47

Is that how you see me? It's not how you're seeing me, Ubercat, it is how you're seeing yourself. I presume that many here are educated and scholarly and well versed on the topic, not completely new. I wouldn't be laughing down at some scholar I was contending with. So that description doesn't necessarily reflect my relative emotional connection with this post.

But I'm here to educate and inform, so if you have any questions, then just ask and I'll fill you in. It's not a one way street. Learn about some astronomy in passing! Don't be so shy.

I'll try and present this in more layman's terms. Basically what this text is is a text made on the surface to be poilitically correct with the new chronology but purposely includes astronomical "errors" designed to look like scribal errors so they will be ignored, but actually hold the secret to the original chronology and ancient observations that would have been evermore lost once the original texts were all destroyed. Thus, I'm quite embarrassed to mention at this late point that there are five extant copies of this text! That means it was copied perhaps hundreds of times to raise the odds of its survival! But that makes sense if there was secret information in it. That was the plan, implant the secret information something no lay person would easily recognize nor any astronomer unless he actually tested every reference.

If you can imagine it, the double eclipses in both 541 BCE and 523 BCE were virtually the same, a partial eclipse covering the top half of the moon followed by a total eclipse the same year. That is enough to match 523BCE perfectly! But once the specific times of the eclipses are mentioned, it adds another specific criteria for the match. It limits the interval between the eclipses to 2:46. So a less critical description would match 523BCE perfectly. Two eclipses, the first partial the second total, occurring the same year. That works for either 511 or 541BCE. But once the times are added, only 541BCE works. But that causes a mismatch for the second eclipse for 523BCE. So we know it's a cryptic reference to 541BCE for some scenario of "year 7" of Kambyses or some other king. The "year 9" reference of a mars location that matches year 9 of Cyrus in 930 BCE confirms that more than one king is in reference. I believe they had to do this because unlike the VAT4956 where you have two references for the same king, for this reference to work, you need to switch kings. That is, 541BCE is not the original year 7 of Cambyses but of Nebuchadnezzar. So the "year 7" coincidence with the double-eclipses work, but the kings don't match. We might have presumed another king anyway when the Cambyses chronology didn't work, but the "year 9" reference is there to confirm this is a cryptic reference. Also that it was copied so many times. Also since year 541 BCE was indeed the original year 7 of Nebuchadnezzar.

So LE ME TEACH YOU SOME ASTRONOMY! One little thing at a time. One little piece of trivia at a time, which is how we all learn, one detail at a time. So how's this.

EXELIGMOS CYCLE, SAROS CYCLE: The exeligmos cycle is called a trible-saros because it is the length of three 18-year lunar cycles, a period of 54 years. As we know from the Assyrian eponym list solar eclipses that repeat in the same location every 54 years and 1 month, so another well known pattern known to the ancient astronomers is this 18-year lunar cycle where a repeat eclipse was expected every 18 years. Some of the new, revised chronology is set against this famous 18-year cycle because there were gaps left in the Neo-Babylonian Period when it was reduced by 26 years. So setting the new history against a consistent pattern of eclipses closes these gaps, making it seem more certain the gaps were not there. For instance, Josephus claims Evil-Merodach, the son of Nebuchadnezzar ruled for 18 years in his Antiquities, but he or others later changed it to 2 years in his final work Against Apion. The redactors must have been self conscious about the gaps, so tried to close those gaps by the 18-year lunar cycles they were aware of, or revising family business documents kept through the reigns of various kings. Once you know what is being revised, then it makes the motive behind it quite apparent.

So in that context, the VAT4956, first, and then the SK400, likely created by Jews, were designed to "hide in plain sight", a document that looked like and did agree with the revised chronology on casual glance but actually provided a cryptic reference to the original chronology. This is the purpose of the DIARY, so that you have some camouflage and distraction for the preserved text. The copyists were professional secretaries that had nothing to do with the texts they were told to copy in the information from. The likely Jewish astronomers simply gave them a collection of tablets to copy into new texts. The copyists likely didn't know or care that some of the texts were from different years. That's another reason "scribal error" is really a cop out when it comes to astronomical texts. When they came across a broken portion of the tablet, they noted it. Why would they presume to invent something or guess something? And if we presume they did, why is it that they guessed more than once the precise location of the moon on the right day and location for the original chronology? No way!

So don't feel too lost! Just take it in a little at a time. It's PERTINENT because upon these few texts the entire chronology of the NB Period stands which on, in turn, stands the Assyrian Period and the misdated 763BCE eclipse. Once you know you can potentially and effectively reduce the NB Period down by 57 years then the 709BCE eclipse for the Assyrian Period becomes the easy and obvious correct original reference for the third month solar eclipse.

Sometimes people don't want to be bothered on going on what they consider a "wild goose chase" so you have to do it for them. So I provide everything, which they can then check if they're interested. I have the astronomy books and the programs and everything, most people are clueless, as you suggested.

Sorry this is such a new field for you but there are only about 9 astronomical events upon which all the chronology of the ancient world hang. You don't have to become an astronomer to learn about the "options" related to these events.

LG47

Larsguy47

Peace[/QUOTE]

Thanks 3D for your suspicions about Aristotle and Plato! I answered your post in the original thread on the the topic

HERE

I don't want this thread high-jacked just because of Aristotle. But I will say you have increased my interest immensely in comparing the loose ends for this chronology. Hope you don't mind I moved this to the original thread.

Thanks for the Furuli references, but you don't quote a single thing in all those articles that would be pertinent to the SK400. So we don't know if he's for it or against it or doesn't know about the discrepancies or what. We do know, though, that he's an example of serious Biblical chronology and once you get really into serious pro-Biblical chronology, you have to deal with the VAT4956 and the SK400. So thanks for listing those references for us!!!!

But suddenly I'm a tad bit more interested in peeking under Aristotle's and Plato's dirty robes now (ewww! That's not didn't come out quite right, anyway...)

Thanks!

And thanks for keeping the revision Greek stuff out of the astronomy threads unless directly connected. I started a thread about astronomy and Greek revisionism but it was closed by the moderator who didn't think there was anything new. But now this is definitely a hot topic again, at least for me.

LG

spin

I think you could use History 101 more. It's not being less definite so much as having a clue about history.

We don't do propaganda here well. We require evidence and you have History 101 level problems understanding what evidence is.

I'm at the stage of needing to get over the effete benevolent streak in me that has me wasting my time on the education of an old JW who won't stop to understand the starting conditions for constructing historical arguments because he thinks he knows better than the scholarly world.

I don't think you are in a position to know. You seem to be constructing fantasies plausible to you.

Stop there. Hang on. STOP THERE. This does not give you the basis to brush aside everything we already know about Plato. History favors evidence which adds to our knowledge, given that the knowledge we already have has been derived along the same means. To wipe out even a little of this evolving structure, you have to show that what was there was not supported by the evidence -- and here new evidence can change that balance --, but replacing old with new requires that the new fits with the evidential construct once the old is removed.

What you have consistently done is created more problems each time you want to modify that evidential construct, so that the hypothetical changes to the construct do not improve it. To put it briefly you're making a mess.

Before proceeding, I hope you understand the notion of having a secure foundation -- the evidential construct -- to build on, when you present an argument. In the past, you have simply ignored whatever is not convenient for you, in order for you to present your views. That is certainly not a kosher approach. Nothing is sacred in scholarship. You do have the power ultimately of pulling the whole evidential construct down. It is extremely unlikely, but it is the necessary nature of scholarship. If it can't face scrutiny, it's not worth having.

I'm stunned. 80 times! Plato had only shoved Aristotle down the throat of everyone who came to his school of course. But wow, 80 times!

If you took everything Plato said for granted.

Ummm, there are other sources.

I was also underwhelmed when you made this startling observation previously.

Not only is it not proof, it's quite normal for historians to pick up where others left off. You must expect the sort of thing. An argument from ignorance -- alright a lead from ignorance -- is nothing at all. You need to know something about the material you are trying to analyze. You cannot gormless make assumptions about it, not knowing anything.

You'll forgive me if I, who have an inquisitive mind and know a little about history, cannot take your naivety seriously.

Technically, history requires the historian to validate his/her sources. You will never attempt to validate the bible. Therefore, you are rendering it useless as a source.

You can swap beliefs.

The problem is, if the bible is a historical source, to what is it historical? Is it a historical source to the last modification, the last book added, the whole history of the Jews and the early history of christianity? I don't think you will attempt to do the validation necessary to make it an acceptable source for history.

Here's the problem here: unless you can guarantee the astronomical event you claim to be able to move is justified, all you are doing is misleading yourself and anyone silly enough to believe you. As it is, you seem to make two blatant errors: you use a source you hardly know anything about historically (the bible) and you try to fit events to preconceived constructs of your own, constructs whose validity you cannot question because of your conviction. This is a formula for potentially talking fluent rubbish.

You are just making more assumptions about what you think ancients should have preserved texts about. You are in no position to make such assumptions.

This is another one of those issues you need to stop and think about. The greatest source of error in any analysis is false assumption. From everything I've seen that you've written, I caanot know that you have checked even one of your assumptions to the objective satisfaction of an innocent bystander.

Here you are consigning the debate you are the protagonist of to the waste bin.

Almost any scholar in the field of Persian ancient history will agree that there is overwhelming evidence that Darius ruled for over 35 years.

Almost any scholar in the field will agree that casually lopping scores of years out of history in one civilization is certain folly.

No, you're not.

Aristotle's generic level of adolescent sexual activity has absolutely nothing to do with your specific claim. You should at least try to stick to your own topic.

If you cannot put an argument together, you might try Logic 101 as well as History 101.


spin

3DJay

No problem. The reviewer refutes redating. Glad you like it.


Peace

RED DAVE

Just show us the secret book that you claim has the reference, or else shut the fuck up.

RED DAVE