Lars Wilson
2008-01-30 23:36:32 UTC
EGYPT: Egyptian chronology is rather remote to these revisions, but
ultimately will be affected by the final timeline, that has already been
reconstructed.
===============
Archaeology note: The current timeline used by archaeologists that is
considered FIXED is the Assyrian eponym dated by the single eclipse of 763
BCE. However, this is linked to the entire timeline steming from Greek
dating. Issues regarding Xenophon and Plato being involved together with
the redating of this period, adding some 58 years of fake chronology is now
being investigated. The original timeline has already been restored by the
redating of an eclipse beginning the PPW from 431 BCE to 403 BCE. Now
historical contradictions are being examined to add to ones such as "The
Delian Problem" where Plato is already an adult when the PPW begins in 431
BCE and plague breaks out. Plato wasn't born until 424 BCE. Once enough
examples of the same type of discrepancy add up then historians will be
forced to consider revisionism seriously and remove the 58 fake years from
the Greek timeline. When that happens all fixed dates in the NB and
Assyrian Period will drop similarly. In the case of the Assyrian eponym
list, the eclipse of 709 BCE which is 54 years later will replace the 763
BCE eclipse. This in turn will allow alignment for the RC14-dated
destruction of Rehov by Shishak to 871 BCE, creating historical and
scientific harmony. Thus it is relevant to archaeology.
FUN, FUN, FUN!!! But this type of investigation is fun. If there really
are 58 years of extra history during the Greek Period then we should have no
problems finding discrepancies as is the case here, regarding when the
goddess Bendis/Artemis was introduced into Greece. Here is the basic
quote:
Loading Image...
(Bendis goddess dating)
Basically if this event is dated to either 429 or 413 BCE, it contradicts
the history of the Peloponnesian War since the host of the conversation for
the "Republic" dies in the second year of the war in 430 BCE.
QUOTE: "Cephalos was old (he actually died in 430). Polemarchos died in
403. Plato was born in 427. That Plato's brothers are young men puts
practical limitations on how far before or into the Archidamian War the
dialogue could be placed."
So we have a problem! The man at whose house the dialogue takes place is
Cephalos, the father of one of the young men around the same age of
Socrates. This dialogue begins with the first celebration for the goddess
Bendis. Those trying to date this event came up with 429 or 413 BCE. Both
of these dates are after the death of Cephalos though, if he dies in the
second year of the war in 430 BCE. Thus this problem is irreconcilable.
Also problematic is that Plato's brothers, Glaukon and Adeimantus who were
rich young men at the time, therefore, under 30.
RECONCILIATION PER CORRECTED CHRONOLOGY: This scene has no problem
occurring some time before the Peloponnesian War if Plato's brothers,
Glaucon and Adeimantus, close to the same age, were the same age as
Socrates. Socrates was 32 years old when the PPW began and thus was born in
435 BCE. The PPW would not begin until 403 BCE. Therefore if this event
say occurred when Socrates and Plato's brothers were around 25-30 years of
age, this could have happened 2-7 years before the war breaks out, when
Cephalos would have still been alive. He is said to have been very elderly
as well.
Of note, this discrepancy goes in the same direction as "The Delian Problem"
where the war needs to be moved to 403 BCE so that Plato and his brothers
are young men when the war begins but while Cephalos was still alive.
There are details about Cephalos dying during the war, his furniture being
confiscated, etc. So there is no way this could have occurred after the PPW
begins in 431 BCE.
Note this Socratic dialogue was written by Socrates. Xenophon and Plato
preserve the dialogues for Socrates, likely editing what was necessary. But
they could not catch every little detail. In this case nothing works.
Also think how this affects the age of Socrates! He is supposed to be still
a young man, right? Currently he is burn in 479 and dies in 399 at 69-70
years of age. In 429 BCE he would have been already 50 years of age! In
413 BCE he would have been 66 years of age, dying just 14 years after this.
But in this setting, Socrates is still a young man!
SOCRATES AND THE WAR: Plus, he is supposed to be 32 years old when the war
begins, another discrepancy! If Socrates is born in 479 and the war
doesn't begin until 431 BCE then Socrates is already 48 when the war
begins!! 7 years into the war when he is still fighting and escapes at
the time of the Delian Battle (i.e. 424 BCE) he would have been 55 years old
versus 39 years old.
So is it more believable that Socrates enlisted to fight at 48 years old or
32 years old? Or is it reasonable that Socrates was 41 years older than
Plato or just 7 years older? Socrates was the same age as Plato's brothers
who were his comrades!!
All the while, though, keep in mind these are not completely random
discrepancies. ALL of them are resolved when you move the Peloponnesian War
down from 431 BCE to where it belongs and actually began in 403 BCE in
relation to Plato's birth in 428 BCE. Besides resolving the above issue,
the "Delian Problem" makes sense as well. Plato would have been 25 years
of age when the war began rather than not born yet for 3 years!!
And thsi is just the tip of the iceberg! This is just new stuff I read
about today! Other problems already existed with Archytas who claims to
have known people who died before he was born, or Hippocrates whose writings
are said to cover over 100 years of history, thus he is denied some of his
works. But if you take 58 years of extra history from the timeline, then he
could easily have a career of 40-50 years including all those events.
A MATTER OF INCOMPETENCE: So as I noted, eventually I'll have enough quotes
so that the Classical Greek historians will look more and more stupid and
incompetent for not having figured this out before. Claiming a coincidence
here and a "myth" there to dismiss a few discrepancies is one thing. But
once they add up and all point in the same direction, it's an entirely
different story.
But keep in mind, as the Greek Period falls apart, the VAT4956 has already
conclusively redated the NB Period anyway, at least as far as the 37th year
of Nebuchadnezzar to 511 BCE. So the "anxiety attack" that will be had by
archaeologists and historians at the outset will be immediately arrested
when they realize they have little choice in adjusting the Neo-Babylonian
Period since it has to adjust via the VAT4956 anyway. So it is out of their
hands totally. The only other issue is simply adjusting the 763 BCE eclipse
to 709 BCE. When that is done, then the discrepancy with Solomon's
buildings and Shishak's invasion in 371 BCE per RC14 dating will make SENSE!
Now some people here have claimed immediately: "I'm not interested in the
Delian Problem or anything Greek!" Well, that's not their choice if they
use any chronology timeline to compare with archaeological events. Right
now Israel Finkelstein and others are saying Solomon is dated too early!!!
Well they are right. But it is not because the Bible dates them too early,
the Bible has always dated the reign of Solomon from 910-870 BCE, NOT where
Finkelstein is dating it based upon the Greek-adjusted timeline, which is 54
years too early. So the IMPACT of removing the 58 extra years in the
Greek timeline will have zero affect archaeologically, since the RC14 dating
already points to 871 BCE for Shishak, much later than the Greek-dating
dates him in 925 BCE.
GREEK TIMELINE WEAKEST LINK: Remember, the whole foundation of the NB and
Assyrian dating, although aligned with substitute astronomical events, still
stands on the Greek Period timeline and three Greek historians basically:
Herodotus, Thucydides and Xenophon. Once their history starts to look weak
and unreliable then it will fall and when it does, so will the entire
timeline which will SELF-CORRECT via the VAT4956 and the 709 BCE Assyrian
eclipse immediately to the original dating. All that has to be
demonstrated is what is being demonstrated now. That removing 58 years of
Greek history will improve the history and explain contradictions, rather
than cause discrepancies!!
Wake up and smell the coffee, folks! This is just the beginning. It is
going to get a lot worse! This is just the first of TWO huge discrepancies
I've found just in a few hours today.
Lars Wilson
http://www.geocities.com/siaxares/709guide.html
ultimately will be affected by the final timeline, that has already been
reconstructed.
===============
Archaeology note: The current timeline used by archaeologists that is
considered FIXED is the Assyrian eponym dated by the single eclipse of 763
BCE. However, this is linked to the entire timeline steming from Greek
dating. Issues regarding Xenophon and Plato being involved together with
the redating of this period, adding some 58 years of fake chronology is now
being investigated. The original timeline has already been restored by the
redating of an eclipse beginning the PPW from 431 BCE to 403 BCE. Now
historical contradictions are being examined to add to ones such as "The
Delian Problem" where Plato is already an adult when the PPW begins in 431
BCE and plague breaks out. Plato wasn't born until 424 BCE. Once enough
examples of the same type of discrepancy add up then historians will be
forced to consider revisionism seriously and remove the 58 fake years from
the Greek timeline. When that happens all fixed dates in the NB and
Assyrian Period will drop similarly. In the case of the Assyrian eponym
list, the eclipse of 709 BCE which is 54 years later will replace the 763
BCE eclipse. This in turn will allow alignment for the RC14-dated
destruction of Rehov by Shishak to 871 BCE, creating historical and
scientific harmony. Thus it is relevant to archaeology.
FUN, FUN, FUN!!! But this type of investigation is fun. If there really
are 58 years of extra history during the Greek Period then we should have no
problems finding discrepancies as is the case here, regarding when the
goddess Bendis/Artemis was introduced into Greece. Here is the basic
quote:
Loading Image...
(Bendis goddess dating)Basically if this event is dated to either 429 or 413 BCE, it contradicts
the history of the Peloponnesian War since the host of the conversation for
the "Republic" dies in the second year of the war in 430 BCE.
QUOTE: "Cephalos was old (he actually died in 430). Polemarchos died in
403. Plato was born in 427. That Plato's brothers are young men puts
practical limitations on how far before or into the Archidamian War the
dialogue could be placed."
So we have a problem! The man at whose house the dialogue takes place is
Cephalos, the father of one of the young men around the same age of
Socrates. This dialogue begins with the first celebration for the goddess
Bendis. Those trying to date this event came up with 429 or 413 BCE. Both
of these dates are after the death of Cephalos though, if he dies in the
second year of the war in 430 BCE. Thus this problem is irreconcilable.
Also problematic is that Plato's brothers, Glaukon and Adeimantus who were
rich young men at the time, therefore, under 30.
RECONCILIATION PER CORRECTED CHRONOLOGY: This scene has no problem
occurring some time before the Peloponnesian War if Plato's brothers,
Glaucon and Adeimantus, close to the same age, were the same age as
Socrates. Socrates was 32 years old when the PPW began and thus was born in
435 BCE. The PPW would not begin until 403 BCE. Therefore if this event
say occurred when Socrates and Plato's brothers were around 25-30 years of
age, this could have happened 2-7 years before the war breaks out, when
Cephalos would have still been alive. He is said to have been very elderly
as well.
Of note, this discrepancy goes in the same direction as "The Delian Problem"
where the war needs to be moved to 403 BCE so that Plato and his brothers
are young men when the war begins but while Cephalos was still alive.
There are details about Cephalos dying during the war, his furniture being
confiscated, etc. So there is no way this could have occurred after the PPW
begins in 431 BCE.
Note this Socratic dialogue was written by Socrates. Xenophon and Plato
preserve the dialogues for Socrates, likely editing what was necessary. But
they could not catch every little detail. In this case nothing works.
Also think how this affects the age of Socrates! He is supposed to be still
a young man, right? Currently he is burn in 479 and dies in 399 at 69-70
years of age. In 429 BCE he would have been already 50 years of age! In
413 BCE he would have been 66 years of age, dying just 14 years after this.
But in this setting, Socrates is still a young man!
SOCRATES AND THE WAR: Plus, he is supposed to be 32 years old when the war
begins, another discrepancy! If Socrates is born in 479 and the war
doesn't begin until 431 BCE then Socrates is already 48 when the war
begins!! 7 years into the war when he is still fighting and escapes at
the time of the Delian Battle (i.e. 424 BCE) he would have been 55 years old
versus 39 years old.
So is it more believable that Socrates enlisted to fight at 48 years old or
32 years old? Or is it reasonable that Socrates was 41 years older than
Plato or just 7 years older? Socrates was the same age as Plato's brothers
who were his comrades!!
All the while, though, keep in mind these are not completely random
discrepancies. ALL of them are resolved when you move the Peloponnesian War
down from 431 BCE to where it belongs and actually began in 403 BCE in
relation to Plato's birth in 428 BCE. Besides resolving the above issue,
the "Delian Problem" makes sense as well. Plato would have been 25 years
of age when the war began rather than not born yet for 3 years!!
And thsi is just the tip of the iceberg! This is just new stuff I read
about today! Other problems already existed with Archytas who claims to
have known people who died before he was born, or Hippocrates whose writings
are said to cover over 100 years of history, thus he is denied some of his
works. But if you take 58 years of extra history from the timeline, then he
could easily have a career of 40-50 years including all those events.
A MATTER OF INCOMPETENCE: So as I noted, eventually I'll have enough quotes
so that the Classical Greek historians will look more and more stupid and
incompetent for not having figured this out before. Claiming a coincidence
here and a "myth" there to dismiss a few discrepancies is one thing. But
once they add up and all point in the same direction, it's an entirely
different story.
But keep in mind, as the Greek Period falls apart, the VAT4956 has already
conclusively redated the NB Period anyway, at least as far as the 37th year
of Nebuchadnezzar to 511 BCE. So the "anxiety attack" that will be had by
archaeologists and historians at the outset will be immediately arrested
when they realize they have little choice in adjusting the Neo-Babylonian
Period since it has to adjust via the VAT4956 anyway. So it is out of their
hands totally. The only other issue is simply adjusting the 763 BCE eclipse
to 709 BCE. When that is done, then the discrepancy with Solomon's
buildings and Shishak's invasion in 371 BCE per RC14 dating will make SENSE!
Now some people here have claimed immediately: "I'm not interested in the
Delian Problem or anything Greek!" Well, that's not their choice if they
use any chronology timeline to compare with archaeological events. Right
now Israel Finkelstein and others are saying Solomon is dated too early!!!
Well they are right. But it is not because the Bible dates them too early,
the Bible has always dated the reign of Solomon from 910-870 BCE, NOT where
Finkelstein is dating it based upon the Greek-adjusted timeline, which is 54
years too early. So the IMPACT of removing the 58 extra years in the
Greek timeline will have zero affect archaeologically, since the RC14 dating
already points to 871 BCE for Shishak, much later than the Greek-dating
dates him in 925 BCE.
GREEK TIMELINE WEAKEST LINK: Remember, the whole foundation of the NB and
Assyrian dating, although aligned with substitute astronomical events, still
stands on the Greek Period timeline and three Greek historians basically:
Herodotus, Thucydides and Xenophon. Once their history starts to look weak
and unreliable then it will fall and when it does, so will the entire
timeline which will SELF-CORRECT via the VAT4956 and the 709 BCE Assyrian
eclipse immediately to the original dating. All that has to be
demonstrated is what is being demonstrated now. That removing 58 years of
Greek history will improve the history and explain contradictions, rather
than cause discrepancies!!
Wake up and smell the coffee, folks! This is just the beginning. It is
going to get a lot worse! This is just the first of TWO huge discrepancies
I've found just in a few hours today.
Lars Wilson
http://www.geocities.com/siaxares/709guide.html