Re: 709 BCE ECLIPSE, why PREDICTABLE? Why important?

"Matt Giwer" <jull43@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
Lars Wilson wrote:
"Matt Giwer" <jull43@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
Lars Wilson wrote:

And you are the only person trying to make an issue of it. You present no
archaeological evidence either way.

HA! You're living in a fantasy world. Kathleen Kenyon dates the fall of
by the Israelites between 1350-1325 BCE. Last time I checked she was
claiming to be an archaeologist. Do you know what that means? It means
you have to date Solomon no earlier than 910 BCE. Do I have to explain
why? So there you have it. That's one out of many "archaeological"
reasons to date Solomon to the early 9th century.

OR, you could just date him in association with the buildings at Gezer,
Megiddo and Hazor that he is associated with anyway. So much so they
call this level the "Solomonic" level!!! Those buildings are dated by
archaeologists to the "early 9th century BCE" (900-875BCE). So you
could just use that association to date Solomon to this period if you want,
ignoring any Biblical or secular timelines. That is a direct dating based
upon what Solomon was described as doing and what was found.

So sorry, I DO have archaeological bases. You're just in denial.

You yammer a lot about things that have no bearing or archaeology.

ROFL! RC14 dating of grains found at an archaeological site is definitely
in the heart of archaeology. Sorry. You need to find a better dictionary,
I think that's the root of your problem, essentially.

Like David. you do not understand what archaeology is.

Sorry. But I'm afraid I probably understand the bigger picture of what
archaeology is, it's impact and significance than you do.

You have no idea what a science is nor the rules of science.

I don't HAVE to. I didn't create my OWN chart with my OWN dates. I
quoted from an apparently well-accepted updated source for the dating by
RC14 of Rehov City IV c. 871 BCE, yes a specific year, the mid-range year
for the 95.4% probability of 918-823BCE. But per you, I'm sure you take
that to actually mean that we can safely date that event sometime between
1914 AD and 4000 BCE. The chart means nothing to you, right? Just a
loose reference. I get it. Heaven forbid scientists can actually date
within a 10-year period using RC14!!!

You have yet to post anything related to archaeology. Every time you claim
you have you demonstrate you have no idea what archaeology is.

Oh I see. I get it. My posts will be edited and changed down the road and
your rebuttal will make sense? Historical revisionism is amazing, isn't
it? This
RC14 thing must be a REALLY BIG DEAL. It is touching a very tender cord
here that is not so easily gotten past apparently. I hadn't realized how
all in the field of archaeology were to keeping the phony Assyrian timeline
place, even if science shows clearly something different. But I know now!

You do not even understand what proof means. There is no proof in science
you stupid twit.

Maybe. But I don't have to understand your definition of scientific proof.
I don't
have a photo of an invisible God. But I don't NEED that proof. YOU do. I
only need circumstantial evidence and zero contradictions. Lack of evidence
does not constitute a contradiction. We are on opposite sides of the
and I don't begrudge you that. In fact, I'm perfectly capable of saying
in the Bible that is not confirmed by archaeology can be presumed to be
unfounded, not necessarily untrue, up until the time of Shishak and Omri.
that, there is plenty evidence of Bible characters and biblical Israel right
into the Persian Period. So it's only the early nation, the post-Exodus
that we have a lack of confirmation in surrounding culture's records.

No. You are an unqualified idiot.

Do you realllly believe I'm an IDIOT? I could call you that too, but I'd
know it's
not true. I can see that. Idiots I don't think type all that well. But it
feels good
to say that so you can let some of your frustration out. So go ahead. Call
meaningless names.

YOU'RE IN DENIAL. I can redate Solomon via Jericho OR RC14 or a redated
709 BCE eclipse, or the KTU 1.78 BC eclipse or even by the Bible. There is
you can do about it but try to defend the current timeline and that includes
Assyrian timeline that is based on the NB timeline that is based on the
Persian timeline
that is based on the Greek timeline ultimately, the weakest point in the
timeline. And
that timeline currently has Plato being consulted on a math problem in 431
BCE three
years before he was born in 428 BCE. You can't deal with those
implications and
so you call me names, call me an idiot, and that helps your denial
self-defense mechanism.

Next, after labeling me an "idiot" you'll feel you're still academically
credible if you no
longer discuss any more topics or issues with me because I refuse to believe
that it is
acceptable that someone can be consulted before they are born as you would
have me to.

Fine. PLEASE IGNORE THIS IDIOT, by all means.

Lars Wilson