Clivedurdle

You are giving away my plot! That xianity is actually a Persian offshoot!

spin

We can scratch another silly excuse for a thread because once again Larsguy47 got it wrong. As I pointed out in post #6 he didn't understand his source document and that was the cause of his lunacy.

He hasn't responded to my #6, but I don't think he needs to. There's probably nothing meaningful he can say to stitch his espoused view up.


spin

Cege

6 At the beginning of the reign of Xerxes, [b] they lodged an accusation against the people of Judah and Jerusalem.
7 And in the days of Artaxerxes king of Persia, Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel and the rest of his associates wrote a letter to Artaxerxes. The letter was written in Aramaic script and in the Aramaic language. - Ezra 4:6-7 (NIV)

According to the footnotes for Ezra 4, "Xerxes" is the translation of the Hebrew "Ahasuerus", which is "a variant of Xerxes' Persian name".

As already pointed out, the bible refers to "Darius the Mede" "son of Ahasuerus". If Ashasuerus is the same name as Xerxes, the Darius the Mede was a son of Xerxes.

Darius the Great (Darius I) was a son of Hystaspes, according to the inscription on Darius' tomb http://www.livius.org/da-dd/darius/darius_i_t01.html

Therefore, the Bible, which is your only source for a historical person called Darius the Mede son of Ashasuerus/Xerxes, says that Darius the Mede and Darius the Great/Darius I are not the same person.

In your opening post on this thread you state:
Are you referring to the Bible verse you quoted from Ezra to support your claim of Persepolis' construction begun in the 4th year of Darius and completed in the 6th year??? The descriptions of building in the book of Ezra are about rebuilding the Hebrew Temple in Jerusalem by permission of Cyrus king of Babylon in his 1st year of reign, not about building Persepolis in Parsa.

And again I'll point out that the Bible does not say that Darius the Mede ruled for only 6 years.

It appears that Issac Newton made the same error you are perpetuating by trying to prove Darius the Mede was an actual person merely because the Bible says he was.

Sauron

Come back when you can produce them.

Wrong. Longimanus was Latin, not Greek. The Greek is plainly given above: Greek Macrocheir.

The other names we have for these rulers (Cyrus, Xerxes, etc.) are all Greek versions of Persian words. So these alternate names you're referring to would be Greek names as well.

Problem is you are the one who got it mixed up.

1. You have an active imagination. As the photo says, this is Darius, with his son Xerxes.

2. Artists and sculptors of the time did not understand scale or perspective, which is why attempts at three-dimensional depictions of people look awkward. "Walk like an Egyptian" - that's why the tomb paintings look funny. An outstretched hand was longer than a hand grasping something, because it was more 2D than 3D.

3. For comparison purposes:
* Look below at the 1st picture.
* Now look at the the official standing two figures behind the throne (left side of the first picture).
* Now look at his outstretched hand (laid over his wrist)

The hand of this carved official is the same length as the outstretched hand of Xerxes. Ergo, nothing special was intended by the length of Xerxes' hand, since the sculptor appeared to carve all outstretched hands to the same length.

No, these are matching (left and ride side) carvings inside the throne room. They are mirror images of each other, depicting the same scene. The only difference is that they are reversed right-to-left. They were obviously on facing sides of the same hallway or entranceway.





Neither. You just can't tell the difference between Latin and Greek. And you apparently don't know that all Persian names we have today are actually Greek.

Wrong. That is Darius.

1. Uh, no. It was not.

2. You didn't answer my statement: there would have been no reason to camouflage this history.

It's not far out; it's simply incorrect.


Get used to saying that.

Good. I hope you understand that we won't be taking your memory as a supporting citation for any of these claims.

Newton's reference was the bad history in Daniel. No help for your argument there.

MortalWombat

...with my wife.... Morgan Fairchild, whom I've seen naked. Yeah, that's the ticket.

RED DAVE

So, Larsguy47: Now we have: (a) a mysterious book that says that Aristotle and Socrates were lovers; (b) an assertion of a man being banned from the British Museum because he knew too much; (c) astronomical texts that aren't available' and (d) a mysterious identification between Nehemiah and Esther.

People might think you're ... up to something. (4 gold stars if you get the reference).

RED DAVE

3DJay

The whole first building phase, is given as 28 years, and Darius still lived for 4 years, after that. The palace still wasn't done. He finished the leveling of the ground, cutting into the mountainside, building the decorative and massive terrace (135000 square metres...covers 33 acres...to compare, the base of the great pyramid of Giza was about 53000 square metres), and cutting a piped drainage system into it. He finished most of the Apadana (the largest structure, with 72 20m high columns to support the roof, 5m thick walls, 4 towers...large enough to hold some 10000 people), Xerxes finished the 4 towers, and exterior. Darius finished the Treasury, and started his elaboratly carved Palace.

Besides, finishing his father's palace, Xerxes started building his own palace. Xerxes is said to have reigned for 21 years, and didn't finish his own personal palace...just like his father. His son, Artaxerxes, did. Artaxerxes also finished the throne room, started by Xerxes.

What? For one, his grandfather was never a king, so wasn't co-ruler of anything. He was a military general. Secondly, Darius' father, Hystaspes, is said to have died, about a decade, before him, so wasn't alive, when Xerxes took the throne. You may be thinking of Darius' father and grandfather both being alive, when he took the throne.

There was 32 years of building, before Darius died! Are you starting your count, after the terrace area was built and carved out of a mountain.....by Darius?

Who cares how long it "could have" taken to complete. I thought we were discussing how long it did take to complete? Where did you get your 2 year estimate from?

Not only was it a massive project, and we've left out all the planning time that would have been necessary, but Persia was a non-slave nation. Darius had previously started, and managed to finish, a similar apadana and palace, in Susa, which he describes...

Sculpted by the same sculptor? Where's your evidence? I would have thought something that size, would take multiple sculptors.

How can anyone "know this is the same Nehemiah as the one who was cupbearer to Artaxerxes", when there's no evidence that Artaxerxes had a cupbearer named Nehemiah, or Marduka? There's no evidence that tablets with the name Marduka, all refer to the same person. In fact, they think they represent up to 4 different people. The highest ranking one, that I know of, being an accountant/scribe.

ROFL! Prove it's Nehemiah. I want a relief with his name inscribed.

Persia had lots of eunichs, and you've got zero evidence to attach a name to the person in the reliefs. You don't even have evidence that it's the same person.

Oh look...there's Nehemiah, again, as a servant of Artaxerxes III, but it seems he got himself demoted. The Persian kings probably didn't appreciate the long vacation in Palestine. How old is he now?



Oh look...he's actually a set of quadruplets. Or, is it quintuplets...is there another Nehemiah with the king?



And, they go on to call many other Nehemiahs, mere servants, Arians, and other nonsense. You really need to get down there and school them that every Beard covered dude, is, in fact, Nehemiah. And, you've got a Bible, to prove it.

Stop trying to make us uninformed, then. Much appreciated.


Peace

spin

This is certainly not correct. Ahasuerus, ie Xerxes is found in Ezra 4:6 in Hebrew, Greek and Latin.

While Josephus may have used a Greek translation anyway, the Hebrew clearly has Ahasuerus, as does the Vulgate. This should mean that the Greek is at odds with the original form of the text.

But then, who cares? when the Persian literature indicates that the two names were for separate people, as does Herodotus, as I have cited elsewhere.


spin

Larsguy47

Please, please pay attention to your references. Ezra 4:6 indeed mentions an "Ahasuerus" but this king is followed by an "Artaxerxes" during whose reign the temple work is stopped. The "Artaxerxes" and "Xerxes" we are dealing with come after Darius, who restarted the temple work which was completed in his sixth year, the year he died, by "Artaxerxes". So here are the Biblical equivalents to the historical kings:

CYRUS = "Cyrus"
KAMBYSES = "Ahasuerus" (Ezra 4:6)
BARDIYA/SMERDIS = "Artaxerxes" (Ezra 4:7)
DARIUS I = "Darius"
XERXES/ARTAXERXES, LONGIMANUS = "Artaxerxes" (Ezra 6:14; Daniel 11:2)
DARIUS II = "Darius" (Nehemiah 12:22)

Neh 12:22 "22 The Levites in the days of E·li´a·shib, Joi´a·da and Jo·ha´nan and Jad´du·a were recorded as heads of paternal houses, also the priests, down till the kingship of Da·ri´us the Persian. "

Ezra 4:4 At that the people of the land were continually weakening the hands of the people of Judah and disheartening them from building, 5 and hiring counselors against them to frustrate their counsel all the days of Cyrus the king of Persia down till the reign of Da·ri´us the king of Persia. 6 And in the reign of A·has·u·e´rus [KAMBYSES], at the start of his reign, they wrote an accusation against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem. 7 Also, in the days of Ar·ta·xerx´es [BARDIYA/SMERDIS], Bish´lam, Mith´re·dath, Tab´e·el and the rest of his colleagues wrote to Ar·ta·xerx´es the king of Persia, and the writing of the letter was written in Ar·a·ma´ic characters and translated into the Ar·a·ma´ic language."

The letter to Bardiya/Smerdis ("Artaxerxes") is what resulted in the temple work being stopped, even though the new walls were finished during this reign. Not until the 2nd year of Darius did the work begin again, and then it was completed in his sixth year by Xerxes, who by now had adopted the new name of "Artaxerxes" as well and so is called "Artaxerxes" at Ezra 6:14,15 and named as the last Persian king to have been involved with the building of the temple.

So, lots of "Artaxerxeses" and "Dariuses" to try to figure out, so one must keep them in order and not get them mixed up.


The fact that the LXX (Greek) has Esther married to Artaxerxes proves the book is non-inspired and just a fable. Josephus knew this and knew that the "Mordecai" in the Book of Esther was a reference to the work and greatness of Nehemiah, likely a direct reference to how Artaxerxes honored him in the bas-reliefs at Persepolis, showing him with him alone in some instances:



Nehemiah 10:3 "Mor´de·cai’s [NEHEMIAH'S] greatness with which the king magnified him, are they not written in the Book of the affairs of the times of the kings of Me´di·a and Persia? 3 For Mor´de·cai the Jew was second to King A·has·u·e´rus [LXX, "ARTAXERXES"] and was great among the Jews and approved by the multitude of his brothers, working for the good of his people and speaking peace to all their offspring."

As you can see, Nehemiah is always second to Xerxes/Artaxerxes as proven by the artwork at Persepolis. Josephus apparently understood, therefore, that the Book of Esther was really a cryptic reference to the history of Nehemiah which had been left out of the revised version of "Esdras". Josephus thus clearly mentions both Ezra and Nehemiah during the reign of "Xerxes" and places Esther and Mordecai's history after that. But it's just a different version of the same story. It was not an error to place Ezra and Nehemiah during the time of Xerxes because Xerxes and Artaxerxes were the same king. Also relating the story of Esther and Mordecai during the time of Artaxerxes was okay since Mordecai was Nehemiah and so was Esther. Nehemiah was a eunuch and in old Jewish fables he was depicted as very effeminate and in love with Artaxerxes, so that part of the story got "sanitized" by making the romance side of that story carried by the character of a Jewess, Esther, who becomes the woman the king loves who rescues her people by getting them to take up arms. But this is just a beautiful version of Nehemiah's story and how he did the same thing.

During this time the books of Daniel and Ezra/Nehemiah were suppressed since they exposed that Xerxes and Artaxerxes were the same king. Apocryphal "Esdras II, III" was written and the Book of Esther continued the story as "Esdras IV." But later when the books resurfaced, obviously there were conflicts, particularly with the LXX Book of Esther showing Esther married to Artaxerxes. So it was rewritten to show her married to "Ahasuerus" which some thus feel free to displace as a reference to "Xerxes."

Listen, everybody is not cut out for some of the more esoteric readings of history. They expect everything to be truthful direct and in black and white, but that's just not the case.

The LXX version has Esther married to Artaxerxes. That's what you have to focus on and deal with. That's a critical contradiction of Ezra/Nehemiah. It is not fixed by simply sweeping it under the rug because you have a revised Hebrew version that works with the revised history. It doesn't work that way. Josephus has her married to Artaxerxes, the "son of Xerxes" as well.

LG47

Larsguy47

Omigosh! I'm being followed! That is SO ON POINT!

But those are just the "mysterious things". You forgot the upfront stuff which is direct and absolute:

1. I have two quotes in Manetho linking Akhenaten with the Exodus. One that gives the year Joseph was appointed vizier and another that says it was the sister of Thuthmosis III that adopted Moses. Both point to Akhenaten at the time of the Exodus and Amenhotep III dying in the Red Sea (not directly, just the change of rulership!!) Nothing you can do about these references. They are there. Reliable or not. Not hidden in my closet.

2. I have KATHLEEN KENYON'S dating for the fall of Jericho by the Israelites between 1350-1325BCE along with cartouches found at LBIIA Jericho (same level) from Amenhotep III, again linking the Exodus to the time of Amenhotep III and Akhenaten. That dating dates the Exodus between 1390-1365BCE. Again, direct reference.

3. I have the KTU 1.78 eclipse. Sure it has problems and it's circumstantial but has been used elsewhere to try and date the Amarna Period and the 12th of Akhenaten. One of four dates has always been 1375BCE so when that is applied you get 1386BCE for the 1st of Akhenaten. Thus a potentially FIXED date for the Exodus, extra-Biblically. Of note, 1947 requires the Exodus to fall in 1386BCE, period. So I'm on a roll here!

4. "The DELIAN PROBLEM" which confirms that Plato was an adult when the Peloponnesian War began.

5. I have plenty of Evidence that Nehemiah was already cupbearer during the time of Darius and Xerxes as co-rulers at Persepolis.

6. I have evidence that Artaxerxes I was buried between Darius I and Darius II where "Xerxes" should have been!

7. I have archaeological connection between Level City IV at Rehov dated to 871BCE which is my date for Shishak's invasion based upon 1386BCE! The chart clearly shows the 95.4% probability range for 918-823BCE which if you locate the middle of that range you get 870.5 (871BCE).




So you see, I've already proven my point without conspiracy theory stuff!

I don't need the theories to establish the dating for the Exodus. Those things are just the supplements.

LG47