Re: Naqshi-Rustam: When was Xerxes' fake tomb created?


"Matt Giwer" <jull43@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4789f880$0$18429$4c368faf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Lars Wilson wrote:
"Matt Giwer" <jull43@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:47884fe8$0$10999$4c368faf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Lars Wilson wrote:
Why are you such a gibbering fool as to claim there is history in the
Old Testament?

Sorry but, with all due respect, you cannot prove a single thing in the
Bible isn't true.

I hate to break it to you but archaeology is a science and in science
anyone who makes a claim has to produce the evidence. Science has to prove
nothing untrue which mean archaeology has to prove nothing untrue. If you
claim there is history in the OT it is up to you to produce the evidence
for it. If you do not you don't have jack.

EXACTLY. And I've done JUST THAT! That is with the RC14 dating for the
fall of Rehov. Let me explain. They found out that if they tested grain
samples
multiple times that the random highest results piles up right in the middle
of the
range results. The range for 95.4% probability is from 918-823. You can
see
from the clear "pyramid" graph that the highest results are in the very
middle of
this range. That is, the highest results include the date of 871 BCE, which
is the
middle of the range of 918-823. This destructive level has been linked
with
Shishak's invasion by various archaeologists.

http://www.geocities.com/siaxares/REHOVPROB.JPG (comparison 871 vs 925
BCE)

http://www.geocities.com/ed_maruyama/rehov872.html



So the FACTs are in. The best dating for Shishak's invasion matches 871
BCE. That's exactly where the VAT4956 dating to 511 BCE would date it and
it is exactly where the strict Biblical timeline woudl date it. It is also
where the Egyptian timeline would date it based upon Amenhotep III being the
pharoah of the Exodus, and exactly where it would be dated based upon
Kathleen Kenyon's dating for the fall of Jericho. ALL of this is being
IGNORED in favor of an outdated timeline. That's why archaeologists are
losing credibility. They have left behind their academic focus and become
biased.


You mean like the New Kingdom of Egypt ruling all of Bibleland up to the
Euphrates since before the bible has Abraham born until after Solomon is
long dead? And you mean Solomon ruling from the river in Egypt to the
Euphrates differs from the New Kingdom ruling from the river in Egypt to
the Euphrates in what way? How is that for exposing the BS in the OT that
purports to be history? Is that not the "prove it isn't true" you asked
for?

NO. Those are YOUR assessments. I'm dealing just with the ARCHAEOLOGICAL
evidence. Very simple. The Bible dates the Exodus to 1386 BCE. That means
the
fall of Jericho must be dated per the Bible to 1346 BCE. Kathleeen Kenyon,
an archaeologist who dug up Jericho dates the destruction of Jericho by the
Israelites between 1350-1325 BCE. That's a match! Even if other
archaeologists
want to argue with her, that's nothing new. At least one prominent
archaeologist is looking
at this period for when the Israelites arrived. So that case is CLOSED.

Or the RC14 for Shishak's invasion. If you date the Exodus in 1386 BCE,
then
Shishak's invasion occurs in 871 BCE. The RC14 dating points specifically
to that very
date. So the EVIDENCE for the dating of that particular invasion gets
confirmed.

Now sure, archaeologists haven't found that video made of the burning bush
yet,
but I'm not claiming I have evidence of that. I'm dealing with the
DISTORTION of
the evidence that we do have by current archaeologists based upon their own
biases.

However it is a science and the RULES of SCIENCE apply. That means without
physical evidence you don't have jack ***.

EXACTLY. I have RC14 evidence Shishak invaded in 871 BCE. That's what I
have!
What do you have? Why are you still dating it to 925 BCE or some other
date? Archaeologists
claim to follow the RULE of SCIENCE but they don't when push comes to shove.
Money
and politics or other biases rule the day, regardless of the evidence. You
tell me?

Guess what? the 763 BCE eclipse misdating dates Shishak's invasion in
925 BCE. It's off by 54 years. If you date the Assyrian Period to the
better eclipse in 709 BCE, then Shishak's invasion drops down 54 years to
871 BCE, which is PRECISELY where the SCIENCE dates that event!!
Archaeologists haven't figure it out YET!

You should write a paper on the subject to show where they are wrong and
make your reputation.

EASY. What's beautiful about astronomy and RC14 dating is there are limited
choices. Check out this quote regarding 763 BCE from Wikipaedia, just to
show
you how some have noticed things are not quite right:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/760s_BC

"June 15, 763 BC - A solar eclipse at this date (in month Sivan) is used to
fix the chronology of the Ancient Near East. However, it should be noted
that it requires Nisan 1 to fall on March 20, 763 BC, which was 8 to 9 days
before the vernal equinox (March 28/29 at that time) and Babylonians never
started their calendar year before the spring equinox. Main article:
Assyrian eclipse"



See? It's POORLY DATED in 763 BCE. But the 709 BCE eclipse fits the
standard dating for month 3!!

Science has an absolute
requirement for physical evidence. Stories are worthless.

I KNOW. That's what I'm trying to say. RC14 dating for Rehov City IV is
absolutely.
It points to 871 BCE! But that is compared to the "stories" out there. The
Bible is
one of those stories. It dates this event in 871 BCE also. But the Greek
story, that
got revised, has manipulated the Assyrian timeline to reflect 925 BCE, which
is too
early. But archaeologists, too afraid or not knowledgeable enough about
history
buckle and ignore the evidence right before them. Some stories will work
and some
will not with the evidence! In this case, the timeline by Jehovah's
witnesses who
date Solomon 67 years earlier than the current popular timeline, and the
current
timeline itself are disproven by the RC14 dating. But not the strict
Biblical timeline,
which is right on the money. OR, if you prefer, not the timeline that would
be
adjusted if you used the VAT4956 to redate year 37 of Solomon to 511 BCE.
Which
eventually anthropologists will have to do anyway. It is THERE. So again,
lots of EVIDENCE is ignored selectively by archaeologists to keep up their
own
ideas. It's always dark outside if you're eyes are closed.


You can't find a single mention of any David or Solomon or Moses or
Abraham outside of the OT. Nor of Israel. Nor of Judea until the 2nd c. BC
AFTER the Greek Septuagint appears.

I don't care. The Bible mentions Shishak's invasion and Shishak himself
records
that invasion in his inscription. Shishak doesn't mention the king ruling
specifically,
but we have a confirmation of this event. So you're knitpicking here.
Shishak
confirms the state of Israel at the time of the invasion as a place of many
cities!
He left an inscription at Megiddo! That invasion is RC14 dated by
short-lived
grains c. 871 BCE. So archaeologists need to date that invasion to 871 BCE
with or without the Bible since Shishak's inscription records this event.
But
they are not doing it. They are confused because 871 BCE occurs too
late to dove-tail with the revised Assyrian timeline that is misdated to the
wrong eclipse. They don't know about astronomy and astronomical
revisionism,
so they are stuck. They are confused and don't know what to do.
Professionally,
they should just give the historians their dating references and let the
historians
sort out the historical implications.

Obviously the myth was created by the Septuagint as the first mention it
is not the original comes centuries later.

You can't prove that, and it is ridiculous and againt the principles already
set out.
That is, archaeology is not designed to disprove what is not true. Because
someome
came along and picked up the gold a few Jews dropped while they were in the
wilderness doesn't mean they never had any gold.

As far as Solomon being mentioned, most of our records are all WAR records.
When people die, memorials and records are made. Solomon's rule was one of
peace so what war records should there be during his rule? None. Other
than
Shishak's invasion, which happens at the very end of his rule and which we
DO
have a reference for!!!

But do you see how you have CHANGED the subject? You need to feel
comfortable with something that disproves the Bible. That's fine. But
other evidence
that supports the Bible is being swept under the rug. You need to deal with
that
new evidence. Deal with the archaeological EVIDENCE in place already if
you
want to compare it to the Bible. What is not confirmed, too bad. You don't
have
to believe it. But right now, you do need to date Solomon to 910-870 BCE or
be incompetent. In the meantime, you can't claim that invasion by Shishak
didn't happen near the end of his rule, nor can you claim Solomon was not a
great king who didn't built magnificent buildings. THAT part of the Bible
is confirmed by the FACTS.

You obviously have no idea what science is. You are prattling on about
trivia while not producing a single thing that is of any interest.

Not of interest to YOU, maybe. But YOU believe that Plato could have been
consulted 3 years before he was born, right? That's the current academic
timeline
in place. So everybody is not that 'bright" as far as seeing and
interpreting
something before their very eyes.

Why don't you comment on why you think Artaxerxes is buried in the wrong
place?

I'm giving you specifics here. Why not comment on why Plato is consulted 3
years
before he was born? Why don't you comment on why archaeologists are not
using
the RC14 dating from Rehov to date Shishak to 871 BCE? Let's deal with
some
real EVIDENTIARY issues here and get away from the philosophical.

What in the *** ever gave you the idea that a "precise date" would
magically make physical evidence of the OT suddenly appear?

WHAT? Are you saying you know MORE THAN ME about OT chronology.
You don't, obviously. But I have my references and my preferences. Maybe
you
have yours. But what makes YOURS better than mine? The PRECISE date is
a Biblical historical reference, not an archaeological issue. The fact that
you don't
realize that a "precise date" is extractable from the OT only reflects your
lack of
expertise, frankly. Why criticize me for my expertise in an area you are
not expert in?

You will dislike it because you have no idea what science is and you have
no idea what physical evidence is and you have no idea what the word proof
means. And that is just for openeers. You do not even have the slightest
idea what evidence is as you run off about dates when that has nothing to
do with peolpe and events and kingdoms which is all that matters to any
discussion of the OT.

Yeah. You TALK about what my response will be to so far a NON-EXISTENT
response to anything I bring up. So why don't you actually post your
REBUTTAL
instead of claiming I'm too dumb to understand it? Because that's just a
cop-out!
BRING IT ON! It's not that difficult. Let me make it easy for you:

ARTAXERXES is buried between Darius I and Darius II in a tomb older than
his alleged father Xerxes is buried in. Now WHY do you think that is? What
is
your professional archaeological and scientific explanation of that? I'd
like to know.
Trust me. I can take it. I think I can grasp your reply as long as its in
English.

So provide your EVIDENCE instead of just claiming you have it and what it
will
do. In other words, and I say this fondly: PUT UP, or SHUT UP. That's
what this is
about. I'm wrong about Naqshi-Rustam? Give me some academic response.
Talk
is cheap.

Thanks, again, for your interaction. But I'd love you to comment on:

1. Why Artaxerxes is buried in Xerxes' tomb.
2. Why Plato was consulted 3 years before he was born about a math problem.
3. Why don't archaeologists date Shishak's invasion in line with 871 BCE
based on the RC14 dating?
4. Why two "errors" noted in the VAT4956 just happen to match up to the
same date: 511 BCE?

LOVE to hear your views. Thanks.

Lars Wilson


.