DAVID AND SOLOMON vindicated by Greek history
- From: "Moshiyosef" <siaxares@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 00:11:19 -0500
DAVID AND SOLOMON VINDICATED: Fall of Greek timeline.
Archaeologists have ignored lots of evidence of the current timeline they
use to date David and Solomon as too early for the archaeology. One
being that very thing, that the buildings attributed to Solomon at
Megiddo, Gezer and Hazor should be used to date Solomon to the
early 9th century BCE rather than the current Assyrian timeline based
on the wrong eclipse assignment of 763 BCE which should be 709 BCE.
But trying to have an intelligent discussion with closed minds when it
comes to revisionism is a lost cause. Except, of course, when it comes
to the Bible revising things and that's considered acceptable.
The irony is, though, regardless of the strengths in archaeology for
the Neo-Babylonian and Persian Period timeline, the foundation is
still on the Greek Period timeline. If you can effectively correct the
Greek timeline then there will be no issue. The result is that the
entire timeline will self-correct when the 709 BCE eclipse is used for
dating the Assyrian Period, which was the original eclipse anyway.
Since the academic world has used this timeline all this time it will
mean all the history books will suddenly be outdated. The Bible's
timeline will not be affected, which dates the 1st of Cyrus to 455 BCE,
now confirmed by the VAT4956, but that is another complex and
intellectual discussion that one discovers only has to be ignored to
have no traction. Thus destroying the Greek timeline logically is
the best approach. The Greek history has little to do with David
and Solomon but once it is clear it was revised then the eclipse
used to date the Assyrian Period will be corrected. Once that
happens, David and Solomon will align with their archaeological
evidence a half century later.
The best way to do this is to show all the "loose ends" that
were created that were found so far that contradict the current
timeline and to show the consistency in these contradictions, that
is, they point to expansionism rather than reduction. I plan to
get the specific references lined up but here are some I can
recall right now that will be part of the comprehensive list.
1. I have a quote that claims that Socrates was a generation younger
than Hippocrates! Right now he is born earlier. When the dating
is corrected then that statement becomes true. Socrates was born
in 435 BCE, Hippocrates c. 460 BC. Right now Socrates is
369-399 BC. Why would anybody claim that?
2. The "Delian Problem": My favorite. Plato is consulted in year
430 BC in the 2nd year of the PPW (Peloponnesian War) and
he isn't born until 428 BCE. Yep, doesn't work. When corrected
by eclipse, the war begins in 403 BCE when Plato was 25.
3. Plato's younger brother Glaucon is reported to have been in a
battle in year 7 of the PPW, now dated to 424 BCE. If he were
a year younger than Plato, thus born in 427 BCE, he would only
be 3 years old. When the chronology is corrected where the
PPW begins in 403 BCE he would have been 31 years of age;
21 years of age is the minimum age. Again, a clear discrepancy
that is corrected when the PPW is redated to 403 BCE.
4. In the Republic Socrates and Glaucon are said to be "young men"
at the time of a discussion at the house of Cephalus, who died in the
2nd year of the PPW, thus this event must have occurred before 431 BC.
If Glaucon was born after Plato then he would not have been born yet,
let alone close to the age of Socrates. Socrates born in 469 BCE would
have been already 38 years old in 431 BCE, not exactly a youth. So
this doesn't work. When the PPW is corrected to 403 BCE, though,
Socrates is born in 435 BCE and Gluacon as early as 427 BCE, thus
they would have only been 8 years apart at the time and in 404, the
year before the war 31 and 23 respectively. 5 years earlier would
make Socrates 26 and Glaucon 18, thus dating the event of The
Republic more likely about six years before the war breaks out
around 409 BCE.
5. The eclipse in the first year of the PPW: There was an eclipse
that survives in relation to the first year of the war. It is recounted
how Pericles soothed his concerned sailors when the eclipse occurred,
putting a cloth over his head to show that darkness was not a frightful
thing. This, however, occurs in a specific location, the Athens harbor.
Thus you have the location of a TOTAL eclipse in a specific location that
has to be matched. The current 431 BCE solar eclipse was an
annular eclipse and too partial to create darkness. That reference
is in Plutarch, "Lives, Themistocles." The same eclipse mentioned
by Xenophon in Thucydides (i.e. Xenophon edited/published Thucydides'
history of the PPW) the intensity is specifically noted: "After it had
assumed the form of a crescent and some of the stars had come out, it
returned to its natural shape." Now this would ordinarily be a conflict
with the total eclipse which occurred in relation to Pericles, but if
the total eclipse track was close enough to Athens towards the
south of Athens and thus even closer to the Athens harbor, then
the effect of darkness would have still created that effect. Once
darkness sets in you can still see a slight crescent outline around the
moon that then disappears in the path of totality and reappears on
the opposite side of the moon. But the farther away you get from
the line of totality the less of the crescent disappears. If you get
even farther away, then darkness does not occur and the eclipse is
just a partial eclipse. So the combined description is so specific
it can only match a very specific eclipse event in a very narrow
range of about 28 years that we can date the PPW. Question
is, was this a legitimate eclipse reference or not? Answer is: YES!
Turns out the eclipse on January 12, 402 BCE coursed very close
to Athens to the south which is close enough to cause darkness but
where the outline crescent did not totally disappear but would have
been seen to transfer from one side of the moon, over the top to the
other side and then recovered!
If this eclipse was the original eclipse then the PPW would begin
that summer in 403 BCE. The PPW begins in the 1st year of
the Olympic cycle. That fits 403 BCE! Of course, this eclipse
is not during the summer as is the eclipse of 431 BCE. Therefore,
we have an example of "double dating" by the historian where
the actual event is described so specifically it contradicts the
context of the revised history but points you to confirm the
absolute date in relation to the specific eclipse reference.
If Xenophon were serious about redating this event to 431 BCE
he would have not mentioned the details of this eclipse which
can only match the eclipse of 402 BCE. This is is our only
candidate.
However, once the PPW is dated, it has to harmonize with the
rest of the Greek timeline and the Persian timeline where the
1st of Cyrus occurs in 455 BCE. Which it does and beautifully.
Basically the end of the 30-year peace agreement occurs in
the 10th year of the War in 394 BCE, which means Xerxes'
invasion would have occurred in 424 BCE, the year the agreements
were made. This must meet two criteria: 1) It must be an Olympic
year, which it was. 2) There must be an eclipse in the beginning
of spring in this year, per Herodotus. There was. A solar eclipse
occurred on March 21st! There is no eclipse in either 482 or 480 BCE,
the current years based on the revised timeline that would have
been the year of Xerxes invasion. That is, when Xenophon revised
the timeline, he simply added 30 years between the wars. 30 years
was the common standard expansion amount (i.e. Darius I and
Artaxerxes II).
This was exclusive and thus turned 20 years
between the wars into 50 years. That is the specific reference,
50 years between the two wars (Thucydides 5:1). The
comparison here is 403 and 424 BCE, which is
403 + 21 = 424 BCE, thus
431 +51 = 482 BCE.
482 BCE is 50 years "between" the two wars. But
since 482 BCE is not an Olympic year, 50 not being
evenly divided by 4, it got bumped down to 480 BCE,
which means there are only 48 years between the wars
now. This happened after the time of Sir Isaac Newton
who read the 50 years as inclusive and simply dated
the Battle of Salamis in 481 BCE (431 +50=481), which,
of course, is also not an Olympic year and has no eclipse
in the spring seen in Persia.
So we recover an eclipse event for the year of Xerxes'
invasion with the corrected timeline to 424 BCE! By
the way, Herodotus wrote his history before the revisions
of Xenophon done near the end of the rule of Artaxerxes II,
so his reference to the eclipse is to the original event in 424 BCE.
From here the Battle of Marathon, at which time Darius actuallydied, is dated to 434 BCE, 10 years earlier. The year of
Darius' death is recorded in the Bible at Ezra 6:14,15 as the
same year the temple was completed the following spring in
the last month of the year Adar, thus in 433 BCE. The temple
took 22 years to build beginning the 1st of Cyrus, so
433 + 22 = 455 BCE
Thus the 1st of Cyrus is dated to 455 BCE specifically by
coordination with the corrected PPW event in 403 BCE.
That's incredible since it also now aligns corrected Greek
history with Bible history. However, again, the dating
of the Neo-Babylonian Period is done via the VAT4956
and the SK400 astronomical texts which hid the original
dating for the years of 37 and 7 of Nebuchadnezzar in
511 and 541 BCE, respectivelly. Thus we do not use
the 455 BCE reference to the 1st of Cyrus for dating anything
but his rulership. The Babylonian timeline for Nebuchadnezzar
is dated directly from these two texts. Noting that this
reduces the NB Period by 57 years, the 709 BCE eclipse
is set in place instead of the 763 BCE eclipse to date
the Assyrian eponym, which in turns dates Shishak's
invasion in 925 BCE down to 871 BCE, which is the
precise date you get from RC14 dating from Rehov for
that invasion!!
Convinced yet? How about one more for now:
6. HIPPOCRATES. The writings of Hippocrates about his
medical history is too long! In fact, it is claimed his history
covers a period slightly over 100 years! Thus it is presumed
he did not write everything attributed to him. However,
if you remove some 56 years of fake Greek history during
the time of Hippocrates, which is the time of the expansion between
the two wars, then the medical career of Hippocrates is cut in
half and it makes it quite easy for him to claim these writings
that have historical references to events that were stretched
apart during the revisions!
So you see, the incompetence or negligence of the historians
not to recognize these revisions are now coming back to haunt them.
Once the correction is made in the timeline and the Assyrian Period
redated by the 709 BCE eclipse, you have complete harmony with
RC14 dating all the way back to Jericho and Rehov and complete
alignment with Egyptian history where the Exodus occurs at the end
of the reign of Amenhotep III which has always been the official
pharaoh of the Exodus per "secular" history of Manetho and in the
"Book of Sothis", ignored by biased historians and archaeologists!
In other words, the impact of what might seem as a drastic and
impossible redating actually makes things work out much better!
Some dismiss this as too drastic and never look at the details. But
in fact, all the chronology is corrected by the beginning of the reign
of Artaxerxes III in 358 BCE!!! So we are only talking about
changes from Nebuchadnezzar II through Artaxerxes II.
Since this is true, there will be many more little obvious
contradictions in the Greek Period to list, including Xenophon's
claim he was at the Symposium which would have made him only
8 years old at the time! Plus he said he knew Socrates in his youth.
Xenophon is only 7 years younger than Socrates when Socrates
is born in 435 BCE, versus 40 years older when he is born in 469!!
The ancient Greek historians played the politically correct game with
the propagandized Persian history but left lots of clear-cut clues to
the original chronology by referencing specific eclipse events. It's
absolutely fascinating when you realize there is a second history written
between the lines that tell the original story that is preserved.
Archaeologists
have zero expertise in this area of "cryptic historiography" so can say
little about it. In the end the historians will dictate the final timeline,
not archaeologists, who will then compare their own archaeological
timeline to the final official timeline. Only, I've already done that and
the match-up with the true original timeline is magnificent, now matching
to within a year even high-level RC14!!
So the age of old time secrets and propaganda is over, and time for
archaeologists to stick to archaeology and leave the history to the
historians and histochronologists and Biblical chronologists.
Mos
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Landowner says he faces jail over tumbleweed....
- Next by Date: Re: The Kingdom of God
- Previous by thread: Re: Landowner says he faces jail over tumbleweed....
- Next by thread: Re: Men and Women's Rights in Islam: Equal or Equally Balanced?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
