Post by JTEMPost by Lars WilsonYou don't realize that I am the one on the cutting edge.
Sorry, you frigging lunatic, but you're alone in that
assessment.
People who are on the cutting edge -- as opposed to
have fallen off the deep end -- have no need to lie. You,
on the other hand, constantly lie.
Ha! I don't need to lie. The evidence speaks for itself. The RC14 dating
points to 871 BCE as the date for Shishak's invasion. There's is nothing
that can be done about that. It is too late for the 925 BCE present dating
for Shishak based upon the revised chronology. But unfortunately for
archaeologists using the revised chronology, it is also too early for the
next historical match-up with Hazeal. But everything works out perfectly
when you correct the Assyrian timeline by 54 years and use the 709 BCE
eclipse rather than the 763 BCE eclipse.
But even so, Solomon's rule dated to the early 9th century is required by
Kenyon's dating of the fall of Jericho by the Israelites between 1350-1325
BCE. That dating limits the Exodus to between 1390-1365 BCE, implying
Solomon's 4th year would not begin before 910 BCE, since his 4th year is
exactly 480 years later (1390 - 480 = 910 BCE). That alone places
Solomon's rule squarely in the early 9th century BCE where the buildings
that he clearly built are found. But archaeologists are confused by this
since they ignore the Egyptian timeline reference and the strict Biblical
reference, as well as the historical reference by Syncellus that the Exodus
occurs in the first year of Akhenaten. The KTU 1.78 can be used to date
that event specifically in 1386 BCE. That specifically dates Solomon's
rule by application of available astronomy from 910-870 BCE. Year 39 would
fall in 871 BCE which is Shishak's invasion date per precision RC14 dating.
Meaning?
Meaning because of archaeologist bias and ignoring historical revisionism,
they are incompetent in assigning the correct event to 871 BCE, even though
everything archaeologically points to Shishak. Shishak lists the cities
destroyed and archaeology shows all these cities ending at the same time,
plus a stele from Shishak at Megiddo taking credit for conquering that city.
Shishak had a massive army to do this. Now Finkelstein things that Hazeal
accomplished all this c. 835 BCE, a date not supported by the best science
available pointing to 871 BCE. All because they think that the Assyrian
timeline and the NB timeline are absolute and well documented.
Those periods are well documented but from the Seleucid Period where the
revisions were made. Fortunately, we don't have to take "conspiracy theory"
here, or even absolute Biblical timeline. We have two astronomical texts:
the VAT4956 and the SK400, both of which contain clever "errors" that can be
matched astronomically to the original chronology. The SAME original
chronology. The SK400 points to a precise interval between two eclipses
that match 541 BCE for "Year 7", and the VAT4956 has two lunar positions
that do not match 568 BCE (the popular date) for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar,
but do match 511 BCE. Since you obviously can't add, year 7 in 541 BCE
and year 37 in 511 BCE give you the same dating for the rule of
Nebuchadnezzar. Thus we can redate his rule specifically based upon these
texts.
So there is no conspiracy "theory" any more, we have absolute proof of
astrotext manipulation during the Seleucid Era, clearly by Jews who needed
secret proof of the original chronology linked to the reign of
Nebuchadnezzar II, which is a well-documented historical reign in the Bible.
The proof that these texts were designed to "hide in plain sight" the
original chronology is evidenced by the fact that these documents were
copied multiple times. Why? Why else other than to help improve the odds
of survival through the centuries? There are five extant copies (or
fragments) of the SK400 that have survived!!
But people like you, JTEM, are too dumb to see what is right in front of
your face, that is, if you'd bother checking out the facts. So like I
archaeologists and historians, even Biblical historians, who think the
secular historians were so very honest, they are still currently deceived,
even though, obviously, the revisionism was quite well done.
The big question YOU'RE asking is why hasn't anybody noticed before now?
The answer is that it became a popular revision that nobody wanted to
change. Thus we find Jews in the 3rd century AD revising their records to
help authenticate the extra reign of Xerxes. They revised the Book of
Esther, changing her marriage to "Artaxerxes" to "Ahasuerus"/Xerxes. So it
is clear people understood the two timelines.
The Pope at one point adopted the timeline based upon Ptolemy's canon rather
than the true Biblical timeline that would date the 1st of Cyrus to 455 BCE
based upon the Bible.
Plus, you can extract the true timeline from a cryptic rabbinical timeline
based upon the fake temple dates using temple event intervals.
Huh?
The rabbinical timeline lists these erroneous dates for temple-based events,
namely:
836 BCE, 4th of Solomon, begin 1st temple.
426 BCE and 422 BCE, 4-year gap between end of 1st temple and last
deportation.
352 BCE, end of second temple.
Note that 352 BCE is totally ridiculous for the 6th year of Darius,
ordinarily dated to the 7th year of Artaxerxes III, already into the time of
Alexander the great. The Persian empire ends in 333 BCE, just 19 years
later? No way! It's an in-your-face denial of the current timeline without
giving you any true information about the real timeline. But note how it
converts using temple-event intervals.
The current date for the return of the Jews is 537 BCE, but should be 455
BCE. That's an 82-year discrepancy. The 6th of Darius also carries an
82-year discrepancy for 516 BC versus 434 BCE. But note that 352 is EXACTLY
82 years later than 434 BCE (82 + 352 = 434 BCE). Is this just a
coincidence, or is this a cryptic reference confirming knowledge of
precisely what the original chronology was? Let's compare the other dates!
426 and 422 clearly represent the 4-year interval between the fall of the
1st temple and the beginning of the last deportation. The last deportation
is 70 years earlier than the 1st of Cyrus (Josephus, Ant. 11.1.1). The
original dates are 529 BCE and 525 BCE, calculated by adding 70 years to 455
BCE. 426 BCE and 422 BCE do not convert using 82 years. But if you add
the interval from when the temple began in the 1st of Cyrus to when it was
completed in the 6th of Darius, 21 years, they number convert to 529 and 525
BCE. That is, add 21 years to 82 years and you get 103 years. Add 103
years to 426 and 422 BCE and you get 529 and 525 BCE! Another coincidence?
Well, does the 1st temple date of 832 BCE convert using any temple-based
interval? We know the 4th of Solomon occurs in 906 BCE based on the Exodus
being 19 jubilees from 455 BCE (19 x 49=931 years). That is 19 jubilees is
931 years plus 455 BCE is 1386 BCE. 1386 is 480 years to the 4th of Solomon
which falls in 906 BCE. 906 is exactly 74 years earlier than 832 BCE.
So is 74 years a period that is significant to the first and second temples?
YES. There are 74 years from the end of the first temple in 529 BCE to the
beginning of the 2nd temple in 455 BCE (529 - 74=455 BCE).
So you see, whether or not you're completely convinced the Jews are playing
with the numbers here, academically you cannot rule them out as having ever
lost track of the true trimeline. This rabbinical dating scenario combined
with the revision of the Book of Esther proves the Jews, that is, some Jews,
may have never lost track of the true timeline, but decided to continue to
suppress the truth over time, for whatever reason. But it may be purely
traditional! The Jews helped the Persians to hide the identity of
Artaxerxes as Xerxes because he was their favorite Persian king. They
revised their own official records when they re-wrote the "Book of Esdras."
So it was always Jewish tradition to go along with the revised timeline and
adjust their own writings accordingly.
The Jews, likewise, need only compare their apocryphal "Esdras" to the
canonical Esdras/Ezra-Nehemiah to see that Nehemiah returned from Babylon
with Zerubbabel and thus would not likely live over 143 years down into the
reign of Darius II. Christians observing this discrepancy simply presume
that the Nehemiah who returns with Zerubabbel is a different Nehemiah than
who rebuilds the walls in the 20th of Artaxerxes. But that has to be done
ignoring the Jewish references that link the Nehemiah that returns with
Zerubbabel and the Nehemiah that was the cupbearer during the reign of
Artaxerxes.
ARCHAEOLOGY though confirms this by the artwork at PERSEPOLIS, which shows
Nehemiah already the cupbearer during the co-rulership of Darius I and
Xerxes, a co-rulership demonstrated in the artwork but not historically
ignored by archaeologists!
http://www.geocities.com/siaxares/nehemiah.html (Nehemiah at Persepolis)
http://www.geocities.com/siaxares/xerxeshand.html (Xerxes hand position)
But, of course, ignoring the identity of Nehemiah at Perspolis is one of the
things that needs to be suppressed as well if you want to keep the
conspiracy in place. Plus the longer right hand of Artaxerxes is clearly
being focussed on with Xerxes (see above link). So archaeology supports
that Xerxes and Artaxerxs were the same king and that Nehemiah indeed was
cupbearer from as early as the 6th of Darius during the co-rulership. So
basically, you're looking at another 30 years for the rule of Darius, 21
years for the rule of Xerxes, 41 years for the rule of Artaxerxes plus say 5
years into the rule of Darius II based upon the bas-reliefs alone showing
Nehemiah with Darius and Xerxes. Since you can't add very well, JTEM,
that is, I don't trust you can keep up with this, let me add this up for
you.
30 + 21 + 41 + 5 = 97 years!
If Nehemiah was at least 30 years old in the 6th of Darius per this
scenario, you're looking at 127 years old. But we know he was at least 30
years of age 21 years earlier in the 1st of Cyrus, so that means we're
looking at a 148-year old man to cover this timeline. That is way too old
to be accepted, so Christians simply claim there are two Nehemiahs! But
Jews can't because their original revised book of "Esdras" in dealing with
this new timeline, wrote it so that the later Nehemiah who is cupbearer with
Artaxerxes was removed from the new book of Esdras. So why haven't the
Jews said anything? Good question.
Fact is, Josephus and other Jews have always known what the true history and
timeline was, but publicly supported the revised timeline while secretly
hiding in their works references to the original timeline.
This is an important observation because it changes our perception of why
this discrepancy hasn't been noticed before. Why Nehemiah hasn't been
identified at Persepolis. Why no archaeologist couldn't figure out if
"Artaxerxes" was buried between Darius I and Darius II that he must be
Xerxes. Why a text dated to year 38 of "Artaxerxes also known as Arses"
wasn't a reference to Xerxes! The fact is, they DID notice! But it was
just not politically correct to go against the popular timeline, the
timeline developed by Xenophon.
Thus both timelines exist together. One for the gullible public who are
only looking superficially at the records, and one for those who check the
details and "errors" and discrepancies that lead to the precise original
timeline.
Only NOW, thanks to the RC14 dating from Rehov, there is something more
critical in place to investigate the "conspiracy" theory related to the
Persian Period revisions. And NOW that we have computerized astronomy
programs, even the lay person can check these astronomical events out and
sort out links to the true timeline. It is no longer in the hands of the
academic world who must go where the money tells them to, or where those in
power over the religious organisations tell them to. The universities,
after all, are just extensions of the major religious institutions who
control knowledge in the world. People with money are the ones who also
control the universities and museums who in turn manipulate evidence or
suppress what is not "politically correct."
So who is LYING now? Me? Or the Catholic Church and everything it
influences? So it is not like certain academic circles don't know or
SUSPECT this, it is just that when push comes to shove, it's been such a
long-time coverup it is not worth it to try and open that can of worms.
Plus there's the issue of exposing Aristotle and Socrates as lovers and
Plato and Xenophon as co-conspirators with the Persians to revise history.
It's fascinating! But very true. So now the academic world has little
choice but to go into DENIAL PHASE or SEE-NO-EVIL-HEAR-NO-EVIL phase, and
ignore this and call me a "liar" or a "cook" or "crazy" or a "crackpot" and
all kinds of other stuff. What choice do they have. Only thing is, those
aggressively doing so have to be considered agents of those trying to
protect this secret. I mean, it might be personal, but how can you tell?
Usually those completely unwilling to discuss the details are presumed
already to know. That's because that is their best defense, to not validate
the investigation. A reasonable person, with all the facts, can see where
the pieces of the old chronology fit together. Persepolis will show them
Nehemiah! So it is best to suppress rather than rebut.
Of course, since I have the critical research, there is no much the Catholic
Church can do but have it's little sock puppets monitor groups and call
anybody discovering the truth "liars" since they have no other rebuttal!
That makes them look incredibly stupid, like you JTEM. But what else can
you do? You're between a rock and a hard place. If you offer rebuttal,
you'll lose the argument. You have to do something, so you just start
calling names to prevent others to take what is being posted seriously.
But it's too late. Others not so loyal to the establishment are starting to
come up with their own theories, making lots of money off the anti-Biblical
market. That opens up the discussion for any conspiracies, including this
one. Soon it will be all too clear it is academically incompetent to
maintain a strict view of the Assyrian Period timeline dating based on that
763 BCE eclipse. But once it becomes the slightest consideration of
possibility of manipulation, then the timeline will immediately fall simply
because there is an alternative one. Only the RC14 dating and
archaeological dating for the fall of Jericho will force archaeologists to
side with the original timeline. If they don't, they will be seen as
biased, fraudulent and incompetent, which is already beginning; their price
for not being more professional about chronology, and particularly Biblical
chronology.
Lars Wilson