Godlike Productions - Discussion Forum
Users Online Now: 2,096 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 389,466
Pageviews Today: 646,584Threads Today: 220Posts Today: 4,005
08:46 AM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

The role of myth in the bible

 
Dr VIP 1

User ID: 72874558
Israel
08/29/2016 05:14 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The role of myth in the bible
regarding the 164 (mess by herodotus)

google: Fixing the History Books

Dr. Chaim S. Heifetz's Revision of Persian History

By Brad Aaronson

if you are interested.
Truth shall spring out of the earth; and righteousness shall look down from heaven.
Psalms 85:11

There is no solution to the Jewish problem.
There is no answer to the Jewish question.

Judaism is the solution, Judaism is the answer.
As I am
User ID: 72868799
United States
08/29/2016 05:47 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The role of myth in the bible
...


Doc, I'm just holding you to what you said when I asked you if you were sure. Those 20 years may seem like a meh, but once things tighten up later on, they are anything but meh, so you not going to be able to slide shit around and still maintain there aren't any problems.

I'm not desperate because I am not claiming inerrancy. You are. And you are leaning your whole case on an orthodox aplogetic site which is bound by its belief to squeeze everything into its a priori pov, just like the Christians are. This makes it tempting to slide things around so they fit what they must fit because they must fit. At some point those 164 years may become problematic in a way that just saying all the other dates are wrong may not be able to paper over.

So for the duration, these are your locked and loaded dates and no trying to wiggle out of them.
 Quoting: As I am 72868799


give or take a couple of years yes, these are my dates.

but do you expect us to resolve the entire chronologies of the near east?

may I remind you that researches themselves admit these chronolgies contradict themselves and other chronologies REGARDLESS of the bible.
which in itself leaves the door open to me to say it is a mess - modern academia got it wrong, bible got it right.
 Quoting: Dr VIP 1


It's not just the dates that all this hinges on, but we do need to lock them in and so we have. Dating is just one piece of the puzzle, but there is a difference between a 164 window and trying to move an entire age forward 900 years, so it's best to keep things in perspective, especially against the facts in the ground, which seem to tell another story than the one in the book.
 Quoting: As I am 72868799


ok... am I hearing from you that you dont want to focus on the dates?
 Quoting: Dr VIP 1


Not at all. I wouldn't have asked you to nail them down if they weren't important. I was just saying they were only part of the puzzle and that disputed chronology alone wasn't going to open any door for you to say that since there is a dispute in chronology, all the rest is wrong and your tale is therefore true. That's just not how it works, and the problems in the way of your thesis are not restricted to dates alone.
As I am
User ID: 72868799
United States
08/29/2016 06:18 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The role of myth in the bible
regarding the 164 (mess by herodotus)

google: Fixing the History Books

Dr. Chaim S. Heifetz's Revision of Persian History

By Brad Aaronson

if you are interested.
 Quoting: Dr VIP 1


Taking a look.
As I am
User ID: 72868799
United States
08/29/2016 07:42 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The role of myth in the bible
regarding the 164 (mess by herodotus)

google: Fixing the History Books

Dr. Chaim S. Heifetz's Revision of Persian History

By Brad Aaronson

if you are interested.
 Quoting: Dr VIP 1


At the start, this stuck out:

There is a school of thought which holds that it is best in such circumstances to simply ignore the findings of scholars and historians. After all, we know that Chazal are right; why bother with the errors of non- Jews and their Jewish imitators? Others have tried to reconcile the two views of history by explaining how Chazal could have gotten confused or how they might have deliberately obscured this period of history for reasons we can only guess at.[5]

That first bit seems to be your take. When there is a dispute, trust the home team above all. Note the last bit, "for reasons we can only guess at." I'm sure those reasons were part of the efforts to reconcile the dispute, but this little brush off is a standard ploy in running down the other side to make them seem silly. I recognize this playbook in your own posts. So be it.

But then there's another interesting part at the end:

What chance does Heifetz's revision have of being accepted by mainstream scholarship? It depends. As Heifetz himself is the first to admit, his is a work in progress. More work needs to be done before a detailed, year-by-year picture of this period can be presented to the scholarly community at large, with attention given to every scrap of archaeological and historical evidence. As little as that is relative to other periods in history, it is still a considerable undertaking. It is certainly not a one-man project.

So you are leaning on the argument that "is still a work in progress," but it's that "attention given to every scrap of archaeological and historical evidence" that is going to carry the day or not. You seem to be putting undue reliance on something and characterizing a work in progress by one guy as amounting to a done deal. What about the detractors to this reckoning? Are their points valid or just dismissed because they are evil pagan heretics that piss you off like you say?

Strictly on its merits, Heifetz's revision should be given at least as much credence as the Greek chronology. For Torah Jews, who possess emunat chachamim, there is no question that Chazal are more trustworthy than Herodotus and company. But even on a more empirical level, there is much reason to see Jewish historical traditions as more reliable than the Greek histories. The Greek historians picked their stories up as they passed through the lands of Persia, Mesopotamia, and Asia Minor. Sometimes they heard the stories at home in Greece from Persian immigrants. It would be no wonder if they got their facts confused. But the Jewish traditions regarding this period originated in the Babylonian and Persian communities and were passed down directly until they found their way into the Babylonian Talmud. Local history is much less likely to be misunderstood than stories, often taken out of context, about somebody else's history.

So there's more reason to believe the jewish traditions because they are trustworthy, while the mongrel greeks were just passing along stuff and got their facts confused. Well, that's one way to look at it, and I'm sure you do. But by the same token, the greeks were not locked into a framework that must squeeze the evidence into the a priori conclusion based on a tradition that relies upon such a conclusion being inerrant. The motive for spinning evidence to fit the fixed facts of your ideology is far greater than someone who takes the evidence as the primary determinant.

The greatest immediate value of Heifetz's work, however, is to demonstrate to Jews who are troubled by the conflict between the history books and Chazal that the conventional chronology of the Persian period is none too well grounded; that the evidence of archaeology and even that of the. Greek historians, when analyzed correctly, supports 421 BCE as well if not better than 587 BCE as the date of the destruction of the First Temple. Heifetz's work brings home sharply the lesson that even when the consensus of historical scholarship says that the tradition of Chazal, or the Bible itself, is non-historical, this is only a matter of interpretation. Time after time, the tradition of Israel has been borne out by the inspired work of scholars such as Dr. Heifetz.

Well, there's the apologetic motive laid out bare. It's the same one used by the Christians when they continue to insist that the NT is historical in the face of an enormous mountain of evidence demonstrating it is not. Just the fact that he says "even when the consensus of historical scholarship says the tradition of the chazal and the bible are non-historical" shows that far from there being no problems in the account or evidence against, just as with the Christians, there is a lot of evidence against the inerrant historical view. You may not agree with their findings because, well, you cannot agree with their findings, but you cannot say that those findings don't exist.

Others who do not share your orthodox constraints and do not need to squeeze all evidence into an approved format and reject all that does not fit this orthodox jello mold might not be so quick to reject the mounting mountain of evidence and pretend it doesn't exist. This is the case with the continuing crumbling of the evangelical inerrant stance and it is also becoming common for many Jews to reject the historicity of the OT as well. Hell, for all your screaming about pagan dopes, a lot of the work at the sites being excavated looks like it's being done by nice jewish universities by jews themselves.
Dr VIP 1

User ID: 72874558
Israel
08/29/2016 08:00 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The role of myth in the bible
regarding the 164 (mess by herodotus)

google: Fixing the History Books

Dr. Chaim S. Heifetz's Revision of Persian History

By Brad Aaronson

if you are interested.
 Quoting: Dr VIP 1


At the start, this stuck out:

There is a school of thought which holds that it is best in such circumstances to simply ignore the findings of scholars and historians. After all, we know that Chazal are right; why bother with the errors of non- Jews and their Jewish imitators? Others have tried to reconcile the two views of history by explaining how Chazal could have gotten confused or how they might have deliberately obscured this period of history for reasons we can only guess at.[5]

That first bit seems to be your take. When there is a dispute, trust the home team above all. Note the last bit, "for reasons we can only guess at." I'm sure those reasons were part of the efforts to reconcile the dispute, but this little brush off is a standard ploy in running down the other side to make them seem silly. I recognize this playbook in your own posts. So be it.

But then there's another interesting part at the end:

What chance does Heifetz's revision have of being accepted by mainstream scholarship? It depends. As Heifetz himself is the first to admit, his is a work in progress. More work needs to be done before a detailed, year-by-year picture of this period can be presented to the scholarly community at large, with attention given to every scrap of archaeological and historical evidence. As little as that is relative to other periods in history, it is still a considerable undertaking. It is certainly not a one-man project.

So you are leaning on the argument that "is still a work in progress," but it's that "attention given to every scrap of archaeological and historical evidence" that is going to carry the day or not. You seem to be putting undue reliance on something and characterizing a work in progress by one guy as amounting to a done deal. What about the detractors to this reckoning? Are their points valid or just dismissed because they are evil pagan heretics that piss you off like you say?

Strictly on its merits, Heifetz's revision should be given at least as much credence as the Greek chronology. For Torah Jews, who possess emunat chachamim, there is no question that Chazal are more trustworthy than Herodotus and company. But even on a more empirical level, there is much reason to see Jewish historical traditions as more reliable than the Greek histories. The Greek historians picked their stories up as they passed through the lands of Persia, Mesopotamia, and Asia Minor. Sometimes they heard the stories at home in Greece from Persian immigrants. It would be no wonder if they got their facts confused. But the Jewish traditions regarding this period originated in the Babylonian and Persian communities and were passed down directly until they found their way into the Babylonian Talmud. Local history is much less likely to be misunderstood than stories, often taken out of context, about somebody else's history.

So there's more reason to believe the jewish traditions because they are trustworthy, while the mongrel greeks were just passing along stuff and got their facts confused. Well, that's one way to look at it, and I'm sure you do. But by the same token, the greeks were not locked into a framework that must squeeze the evidence into the a priori conclusion based on a tradition that relies upon such a conclusion being inerrant. The motive for spinning evidence to fit the fixed facts of your ideology is far greater than someone who takes the evidence as the primary determinant.

The greatest immediate value of Heifetz's work, however, is to demonstrate to Jews who are troubled by the conflict between the history books and Chazal that the conventional chronology of the Persian period is none too well grounded; that the evidence of archaeology and even that of the. Greek historians, when analyzed correctly, supports 421 BCE as well if not better than 587 BCE as the date of the destruction of the First Temple. Heifetz's work brings home sharply the lesson that even when the consensus of historical scholarship says that the tradition of Chazal, or the Bible itself, is non-historical, this is only a matter of interpretation. Time after time, the tradition of Israel has been borne out by the inspired work of scholars such as Dr. Heifetz.

Well, there's the apologetic motive laid out bare. It's the same one used by the Christians when they continue to insist that the NT is historical in the face of an enormous mountain of evidence demonstrating it is not. Just the fact that he says "even when the consensus of historical scholarship says the tradition of the chazal and the bible are non-historical" shows that far from there being no problems in the account or evidence against, just as with the Christians, there is a lot of evidence against the inerrant historical view. You may not agree with their findings because, well, you cannot agree with their findings, but you cannot say that those findings don't exist.

Others who do not share your orthodox constraints and do not need to squeeze all evidence into an approved format and reject all that does not fit this orthodox jello mold might not be so quick to reject the mounting mountain of evidence and pretend it doesn't exist. This is the case with the continuing crumbling of the evangelical inerrant stance and it is also becoming common for many Jews to reject the historicity of the OT as well. Hell, for all your screaming about pagan dopes, a lot of the work at the sites being excavated looks like it's being done by nice jewish universities by jews themselves.
 Quoting: As I am 72868799


first point: yes... we know we are right, I am not ashamed to admit it, to the contrary I am proud.
but... you see, we are right and the greeks are wrong.
after all is this not the whole point of our discussion? to see who is right... the Jews or the pagans.
and you can not say that I dont show you the respect of providing evidence for why I am right and the pagans wrong.
because you are suggesting that I am saying "we are right pagans are wrong end of story, bye"
which I am not, I am sumbitting myself to this trial and inquiry where I provide evidence which you are allowed to cross examine and you provide evidence (though you only claim lack of them) and allow me to cross examine them.

second point: there is reason to believe the Jews because see above point.
there is reason to doubt the pagans because they themselves admit their chronologies are a mess and not accurate.
so if you rock my boat for these reasons you find, dont be surprised when I find the same reasons to rock your boat that being this pagan ideology you are coming from.

and... what is left is to resolve who is right and who is wrong, my boat or your boat... again the whole point of our discussion, (see above point)

third point:
again the scent of trying to sell emotion, trying to prove there is something wrong because some people say there is something wrong.

dont sell emotion, prove it with facts and evidence and dont be surprised when I retaliate, prove you wrong and show the superiority of my position (see above points)

and frankly, I dont care for christians, I prove them wrong just as I prove you wrong.
equating between us doesnt really prove any of your claims.

fourth point (but really should have been second point because I missed a paragraph): yes, it is a worn in progress that has not been perfected, but need I remind you the same is true for the pagans (accepted academia) chronolgies who themselves admit their chronolgies are not perfect and still in need of much work??? (greater work than what is needed for the research you just read)
oh and dont be confused that work in progress is not perfecting our chronology, no I maintain ours is perfect, the work in progress is dont forget synthesizing pagan chronolgies (admitted by them to be faulty) and Jewish chronology which I maintain is perfect, through exhibiting the faults and errors in these pagan chronolgies, and that after that is done not only is the bible going to be recognized as accurate but those very pagan chronolgies make much more sense and be much more harmonious regardless of the bible.


reasons to rock my boat? from my pov, it is your boat that is sinking... and again, what remains is to show whose boat is superior (see points 1 and 2) (franky this is KO by now, Judaism has shown itself superior of everything that has been thrown at it over the last 3000 years, what makes you think this modern science (which is highly flawed and not that scientific) is going to be any different?

Last Edited by Dr VIP 1 on 08/29/2016 08:20 PM
Truth shall spring out of the earth; and righteousness shall look down from heaven.
Psalms 85:11

There is no solution to the Jewish problem.
There is no answer to the Jewish question.

Judaism is the solution, Judaism is the answer.
The Messiah

User ID: 72882841
Israel
08/29/2016 08:14 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The role of myth in the bible
Sorry to interrupt.
Great discussion!
I don't like Christianity but there are very many fine human beings who are Christians.They have faith in the personality cult of Jesus but don't equate Jesus to God.
It is time that the Vatican recognize Israel as the fulfillment of the Hebrew Prophets prophecies concerning
the return of the Children of Israel to the land flowing with milk and honey.
Carry on.
The Messiah
As I am
User ID: 72868799
United States
08/29/2016 08:54 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The role of myth in the bible
regarding the 164 (mess by herodotus)

google: Fixing the History Books

Dr. Chaim S. Heifetz's Revision of Persian History

By Brad Aaronson

if you are interested.
 Quoting: Dr VIP 1


At the start, this stuck out:

There is a school of thought which holds that it is best in such circumstances to simply ignore the findings of scholars and historians. After all, we know that Chazal are right; why bother with the errors of non- Jews and their Jewish imitators? Others have tried to reconcile the two views of history by explaining how Chazal could have gotten confused or how they might have deliberately obscured this period of history for reasons we can only guess at.[5]

That first bit seems to be your take. When there is a dispute, trust the home team above all. Note the last bit, "for reasons we can only guess at." I'm sure those reasons were part of the efforts to reconcile the dispute, but this little brush off is a standard ploy in running down the other side to make them seem silly. I recognize this playbook in your own posts. So be it.

But then there's another interesting part at the end:

What chance does Heifetz's revision have of being accepted by mainstream scholarship? It depends. As Heifetz himself is the first to admit, his is a work in progress. More work needs to be done before a detailed, year-by-year picture of this period can be presented to the scholarly community at large, with attention given to every scrap of archaeological and historical evidence. As little as that is relative to other periods in history, it is still a considerable undertaking. It is certainly not a one-man project.

So you are leaning on the argument that "is still a work in progress," but it's that "attention given to every scrap of archaeological and historical evidence" that is going to carry the day or not. You seem to be putting undue reliance on something and characterizing a work in progress by one guy as amounting to a done deal. What about the detractors to this reckoning? Are their points valid or just dismissed because they are evil pagan heretics that piss you off like you say?

Strictly on its merits, Heifetz's revision should be given at least as much credence as the Greek chronology. For Torah Jews, who possess emunat chachamim, there is no question that Chazal are more trustworthy than Herodotus and company. But even on a more empirical level, there is much reason to see Jewish historical traditions as more reliable than the Greek histories. The Greek historians picked their stories up as they passed through the lands of Persia, Mesopotamia, and Asia Minor. Sometimes they heard the stories at home in Greece from Persian immigrants. It would be no wonder if they got their facts confused. But the Jewish traditions regarding this period originated in the Babylonian and Persian communities and were passed down directly until they found their way into the Babylonian Talmud. Local history is much less likely to be misunderstood than stories, often taken out of context, about somebody else's history.

So there's more reason to believe the jewish traditions because they are trustworthy, while the mongrel greeks were just passing along stuff and got their facts confused. Well, that's one way to look at it, and I'm sure you do. But by the same token, the greeks were not locked into a framework that must squeeze the evidence into the a priori conclusion based on a tradition that relies upon such a conclusion being inerrant. The motive for spinning evidence to fit the fixed facts of your ideology is far greater than someone who takes the evidence as the primary determinant.

The greatest immediate value of Heifetz's work, however, is to demonstrate to Jews who are troubled by the conflict between the history books and Chazal that the conventional chronology of the Persian period is none too well grounded; that the evidence of archaeology and even that of the. Greek historians, when analyzed correctly, supports 421 BCE as well if not better than 587 BCE as the date of the destruction of the First Temple. Heifetz's work brings home sharply the lesson that even when the consensus of historical scholarship says that the tradition of Chazal, or the Bible itself, is non-historical, this is only a matter of interpretation. Time after time, the tradition of Israel has been borne out by the inspired work of scholars such as Dr. Heifetz.

Well, there's the apologetic motive laid out bare. It's the same one used by the Christians when they continue to insist that the NT is historical in the face of an enormous mountain of evidence demonstrating it is not. Just the fact that he says "even when the consensus of historical scholarship says the tradition of the chazal and the bible are non-historical" shows that far from there being no problems in the account or evidence against, just as with the Christians, there is a lot of evidence against the inerrant historical view. You may not agree with their findings because, well, you cannot agree with their findings, but you cannot say that those findings don't exist.

Others who do not share your orthodox constraints and do not need to squeeze all evidence into an approved format and reject all that does not fit this orthodox jello mold might not be so quick to reject the mounting mountain of evidence and pretend it doesn't exist. This is the case with the continuing crumbling of the evangelical inerrant stance and it is also becoming common for many Jews to reject the historicity of the OT as well. Hell, for all your screaming about pagan dopes, a lot of the work at the sites being excavated looks like it's being done by nice jewish universities by jews themselves.
 Quoting: As I am 72868799


first point: yes... we know we are right, I am not ashamed to admit it, to the contrary I am proud.
but... you see, we are right and the greeks are wrong.
after all is this not the whole point of our discussion? to see who is right... the Jews or the pagans.
and you can not say that I dont show you the respect of providing evidence for why I am right and the pagans wrong.
because you are suggesting that I am saying "we are right pagans are wrong end of story, bye"
which I am not, I am sumbitting myself to this trial and inquiry where I provide evidence which you are allowed to cross examine and you provide evidence (though you only claim lack of them) and allow me to cross examine them.

second point: there is reason to believe the Jews because see above point.
there is reason to doubt the pagans because they themselves admit their chronologies are a mess and not accurate.
so if you rock my boat for these reasons you find, dont be surprised when I find the same reasons to rock your boat that being this pagan ideology you are coming from.

and... what is left is to resolve who is right and who is wrong, my boat or your boat... again the whole point of our discussion, (see above point)

third point:
again the scent of trying to sell emotion, trying to prove there is something wrong because some people say there is something wrong.

dont sell emotion, prove it with facts and evidence and dont be surprised when I retaliate, prove you wrong and show the superiority of my position (see above points)

and frankly, I dont care for christians, I prove them wrong just as I prove you wrong.
equating between us doesnt really prove any of your claims.

fourth point (but really should have been second point because I missed a paragraph): yes, it is a worn in progress that has not been perfected, but need I remind you the same is true for the pagans (accepted academia) chronolgies who themselves admit their chronolgies are not perfect and still in need of much work??? (greater work than what is needed for the research you just read)
oh and dont be confused that work in progress is not perfecting our chronology, no I maintain ours is perfect, the work in progress is dont forget synthesizing pagan chronolgies (admitted by them to be faulty) and Jewish chronology which I maintain is perfect, through exhibiting the faults and errors in these pagan chronolgies, and that after that is done not only is the bible going to be recognized as accurate but those very pagan chronolgies make much more sense and be much more harmonious regardless of the bible.


reasons to rock my boat? from my pov, it is your boat that is sinking... and again, what remains is to show whose boat is superior (see points 1 and 2) (franky this is KO by now, Judaism has shown itself superior of everything that has been thrown at it over the last 3000 years, what makes you think this modern science (which is highly flawed and not that scientific) is going to be any different?
 Quoting: Dr VIP 1


Yes, both are a work in progress. But the difference is that all your progress must lead in a single direction and land at a single spot. That's not a scientific method, but a priori wish-fulfillment. History changes as its refined, but the refinements of the evidence lead the way, not some shoe-horning of evidence to fit an a priori mold dictated by something other than history.

I am reading a counterpoint to Haifetz and though I haven't finished it yet, this jumped out as laying out the problem neat:

Historical science does not pay the traditional Jewish version as such any particular attention, and this is mainly due to the latter's insufficient corroboration. Indeed, the Jewish version is founded solely on its own claims, ignoring a plethora of facts and, for two millennia, making no attempt to adjust to external data. On the other hand, the scientific reconstruction of ancient history was a product of painstaking labor; as it emerged, it underwent numerous modifications, particularly in the last two fruitful centuries and in principle, it is open to further revisions -- provided that they are duly argued and corroborated. The mere fact that Jewish or other sources, however ancient, make a different claim does not constitute an argument where science is concerned; at the most, this is raw material that merits further study to a larger or smaller degree -- especially since historical science has had to deal with every possible kind of singular assertion, some of them far-fetched in the extreme.

It is in this light that we should examine the theory put forth by Heifetz. Aimed at the Jewish religious audience, it is not properly scientific in the common sense of the word. . . . What is important about this theory is that its true purpose was educational rather than scholarly; by virtue of its appearance, it was intended to encourage and console that part of Jewish religious public that is equally steeped in Jewish orthodox ideology and European education. One of the admirers of Heifetz's work remarked that it would be no big tragedy if this work were eventually found to be imperfect; what matters is that for the first time, it provided an alternative to the "non-Jewish" historical reconstruction, whose very divergence from Jewish tradition undermines the Sages' authority. In the view of the Jewish religious world, the total disagreement of modern science with the silent, meekly acquiescent Jewish historical tradition compromised Jewish orthodoxy itself, which had good reason for calling itself rabbinical Judaism. The very idea that the Jewish Sages could be wrong was inconceivable.

The method resorted to by Heifetz was entirely determined by the objective he had set for himself. Heifetz acted like an ER doctor rather than a scholar -- save the patient and damn the details. As far as the true problems of Jewish history, he simply ignored them. All he knew was that it was essential to force 208 years of Persian history into the 52 years allotted to it by Jewish tradition.


That may make great apologetic fodder for the wobblers in your camp, but it's shitty science/history. You may not care for Christians, but you are still playing the same game as they are--prove the faith at all costs, never mind the facts that go against it. Again, that works for the believers, but it doesn't work for science/history.
Dr VIP 1

User ID: 72874558
Israel
08/29/2016 09:08 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The role of myth in the bible
scientific theory works on the basis of proving said theory.

and read the response.
Truth shall spring out of the earth; and righteousness shall look down from heaven.
Psalms 85:11

There is no solution to the Jewish problem.
There is no answer to the Jewish question.

Judaism is the solution, Judaism is the answer.
As I am
User ID: 72868799
United States
08/29/2016 09:35 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The role of myth in the bible
scientific theory works on the basis of proving said theory.

and read the response.
 Quoting: Dr VIP 1


I don't know what response you are referring to, but I am still reading the response to his tinkering and it seems it is as I said it would be at the start. If you want to move something 150 years or whatever, you have to make it fit with what is around it, and you have to take everything that it is fitted with before moving it along with it. You can't just move isolated incidents and keep everything else as it was. In short, you have to account for the missing years you sliced out of the overall picture.

The problem with that is that when it gets to the parts of history that are nailed down by multiple sources to exact years, the historical math doesn't add up and someone is wrong. Given that he has a definite agenda to cram the evidence into as opposed to adjusting the theory to fit the evidence, the chances are much greater that he is the one off base. This is especially so since at some point, the two date streams have to come together because there are many, many events that are not at all in question as far as their dating down the precise day.

For example, July 4th, 1776 is carved in stone. There is no case for it happening in the mid 19th century. So like I've been saying all along, at some point in order for your case to have merit, those missing years have to be accounted for. Given the tight dating of events in the 5th century bce on in Greece, it would appear your guy is going to crash upon the rocks of established history. We shall see.
Dr VIP 1

User ID: 72874558
Israel
08/30/2016 09:31 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The role of myth in the bible
scientific theory works on the basis of proving said theory.

and read the response.
 Quoting: Dr VIP 1


I don't know what response you are referring to, but I am still reading the response to his tinkering and it seems it is as I said it would be at the start. If you want to move something 150 years or whatever, you have to make it fit with what is around it, and you have to take everything that it is fitted with before moving it along with it. You can't just move isolated incidents and keep everything else as it was. In short, you have to account for the missing years you sliced out of the overall picture.

The problem with that is that when it gets to the parts of history that are nailed down by multiple sources to exact years, the historical math doesn't add up and someone is wrong. Given that he has a definite agenda to cram the evidence into as opposed to adjusting the theory to fit the evidence, the chances are much greater that he is the one off base. This is especially so since at some point, the two date streams have to come together because there are many, many events that are not at all in question as far as their dating down the precise day.

For example, July 4th, 1776 is carved in stone. There is no case for it happening in the mid 19th century. So like I've been saying all along, at some point in order for your case to have merit, those missing years have to be accounted for. Given the tight dating of events in the 5th century bce on in Greece, it would appear your guy is going to crash upon the rocks of established history. We shall see.
 Quoting: As I am 72868799


instead of giving an example from the independence of the US... why not give an example relevant to the actual revision we are talking about?
Truth shall spring out of the earth; and righteousness shall look down from heaven.
Psalms 85:11

There is no solution to the Jewish problem.
There is no answer to the Jewish question.

Judaism is the solution, Judaism is the answer.
As I am
User ID: 72865828
United States
08/30/2016 11:22 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The role of myth in the bible
scientific theory works on the basis of proving said theory.

and read the response.
 Quoting: Dr VIP 1


I don't know what response you are referring to, but I am still reading the response to his tinkering and it seems it is as I said it would be at the start. If you want to move something 150 years or whatever, you have to make it fit with what is around it, and you have to take everything that it is fitted with before moving it along with it. You can't just move isolated incidents and keep everything else as it was. In short, you have to account for the missing years you sliced out of the overall picture.

The problem with that is that when it gets to the parts of history that are nailed down by multiple sources to exact years, the historical math doesn't add up and someone is wrong. Given that he has a definite agenda to cram the evidence into as opposed to adjusting the theory to fit the evidence, the chances are much greater that he is the one off base. This is especially so since at some point, the two date streams have to come together because there are many, many events that are not at all in question as far as their dating down the precise day.

For example, July 4th, 1776 is carved in stone. There is no case for it happening in the mid 19th century. So like I've been saying all along, at some point in order for your case to have merit, those missing years have to be accounted for. Given the tight dating of events in the 5th century bce on in Greece, it would appear your guy is going to crash upon the rocks of established history. We shall see.
 Quoting: As I am 72868799


instead of giving an example from the independence of the US... why not give an example relevant to the actual revision we are talking about?
 Quoting: Dr VIP 1


But that's just it, doc. You want a date that is relevant to the actual revision, but my point is making the revision changes the dates that lie outside its focus as well, so they, too, become relevant. It seems that Haifetz was only concerned with jiggering the persian kings dates, but by doing so, he seems to ignore what was going on in Greece to a large extent, which cause havoc in the time line in general. Take the battle of Marathon for example. We find this in wiki:

Astronomical computation allows us to derive an absolute date in the proleptic Julian calendar which is much used by historians as the chronological frame. Philipp August Böckh in 1855 concluded that the battle took place on September 12, 490 BC in the Julian calendar, and this is the conventionally accepted date.[54] However, this depends on when exactly the Spartans held their festival and it is possible that the Spartan calendar was one month ahead of that of Athens. In that case the battle took place on August 12, 490 BC.[54]

It's that kind of detailed focus that gets scuttled when you automatically say, oh, no, that didn't happen then, but 164 years later or whatever, then it throws the entire time line off and myriad events nailed down to the year get rooted up and displaced in order to make a single speculation that is recognized to be problematic from the jump.
Dr VIP 1

User ID: 72874558
Israel
08/30/2016 11:26 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The role of myth in the bible
scientific theory works on the basis of proving said theory.

and read the response.
 Quoting: Dr VIP 1


I don't know what response you are referring to, but I am still reading the response to his tinkering and it seems it is as I said it would be at the start. If you want to move something 150 years or whatever, you have to make it fit with what is around it, and you have to take everything that it is fitted with before moving it along with it. You can't just move isolated incidents and keep everything else as it was. In short, you have to account for the missing years you sliced out of the overall picture.

The problem with that is that when it gets to the parts of history that are nailed down by multiple sources to exact years, the historical math doesn't add up and someone is wrong. Given that he has a definite agenda to cram the evidence into as opposed to adjusting the theory to fit the evidence, the chances are much greater that he is the one off base. This is especially so since at some point, the two date streams have to come together because there are many, many events that are not at all in question as far as their dating down the precise day.

For example, July 4th, 1776 is carved in stone. There is no case for it happening in the mid 19th century. So like I've been saying all along, at some point in order for your case to have merit, those missing years have to be accounted for. Given the tight dating of events in the 5th century bce on in Greece, it would appear your guy is going to crash upon the rocks of established history. We shall see.
 Quoting: As I am 72868799


instead of giving an example from the independence of the US... why not give an example relevant to the actual revision we are talking about?
 Quoting: Dr VIP 1


But that's just it, doc. You want a date that is relevant to the actual revision, but my point is making the revision changes the dates that lie outside its focus as well, so they, too, become relevant. It seems that Haifetz was only concerned with jiggering the persian kings dates, but by doing so, he seems to ignore what was going on in Greece to a large extent, which cause havoc in the time line in general. Take the battle of Marathon for example. We find this in wiki:

Astronomical computation allows us to derive an absolute date in the proleptic Julian calendar which is much used by historians as the chronological frame. Philipp August Böckh in 1855 concluded that the battle took place on September 12, 490 BC in the Julian calendar, and this is the conventionally accepted date.[54] However, this depends on when exactly the Spartans held their festival and it is possible that the Spartan calendar was one month ahead of that of Athens. In that case the battle took place on August 12, 490 BC.[54]

It's that kind of detailed focus that gets scuttled when you automatically say, oh, no, that didn't happen then, but 164 years later or whatever, then it throws the entire time line off and myriad events nailed down to the year get rooted up and displaced in order to make a single speculation that is recognized to be problematic from the jump.
 Quoting: As I am 72865828


???

as I am... the astronomical computation derives the date of the DAY AND MONTH not year.

the year is already a presupposition according to the account of herodotus.

who Chiefetz explains completely messed up the chronolgy by adding a bunch of perso-median kings who never existed.
Truth shall spring out of the earth; and righteousness shall look down from heaven.
Psalms 85:11

There is no solution to the Jewish problem.
There is no answer to the Jewish question.

Judaism is the solution, Judaism is the answer.
Dr VIP 1

User ID: 72874558
Israel
08/30/2016 11:29 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The role of myth in the bible
where exactly were you reading the counterpoint?
couldnt find it in the article I mentioned or the reposnes to that article.

maybe you encountered a different webpage?
Truth shall spring out of the earth; and righteousness shall look down from heaven.
Psalms 85:11

There is no solution to the Jewish problem.
There is no answer to the Jewish question.

Judaism is the solution, Judaism is the answer.
As I am
User ID: 72865828
United States
08/30/2016 11:45 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The role of myth in the bible
where exactly were you reading the counterpoint?
couldnt find it in the article I mentioned or the reposnes to that article.

maybe you encountered a different webpage?
 Quoting: Dr VIP 1


Yeah, it was a different page. I read the one you sent and then saw something stating the case against. I'm still in the process of reading it, but it is presenting serious difficulties for your theory.
Dr VIP 1

User ID: 72874558
Israel
08/30/2016 11:48 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The role of myth in the bible
where exactly were you reading the counterpoint?
couldnt find it in the article I mentioned or the reposnes to that article.

maybe you encountered a different webpage?
 Quoting: Dr VIP 1


Yeah, it was a different page. I read the one you sent and then saw something stating the case against. I'm still in the process of reading it, but it is presenting serious difficulties for your theory.
 Quoting: As I am 72865828


please link it or tell me what to google search so I could also study it.
Truth shall spring out of the earth; and righteousness shall look down from heaven.
Psalms 85:11

There is no solution to the Jewish problem.
There is no answer to the Jewish question.

Judaism is the solution, Judaism is the answer.
As I am
User ID: 72865828
United States
08/30/2016 11:54 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The role of myth in the bible
as I am... the astronomical computation derives the date of the DAY AND MONTH not year.

the year is already a presupposition according to the account of herodotus.

who Chiefetz explains completely messed up the chronolgy by adding a bunch of perso-median kings who never existed.
 Quoting: Dr VIP 1


Never existed according to him, yes, but who else? Where is the supporting evidence that shows this to be the case?

But what is the year for marathon, then, according to you?
Dr VIP 1

User ID: 72874558
Israel
08/30/2016 12:09 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The role of myth in the bible
as I am... the astronomical computation derives the date of the DAY AND MONTH not year.

the year is already a presupposition according to the account of herodotus.

who Chiefetz explains completely messed up the chronolgy by adding a bunch of perso-median kings who never existed.
 Quoting: Dr VIP 1


Never existed according to him, yes, but who else? Where is the supporting evidence that shows this to be the case?

But what is the year for marathon, then, according to you?
 Quoting: As I am 72865828


what never existed?
do you disagree with my claim that the researchers already presupposed the year was 490bc but used astronomy and info that the battle was around a festival (which is according to stars alignments/equinox/solstice etc) to simply find when was this star formation in the year 490bc?



if according to Heifetz there were only two Darius (mede and persian), and after eliminating the extra dariuses artaxerxeses and cyruses the greeks added by not understanding the complexity of monarchial rotation that was going on between babylon - persia - and mede.
then we are left with Darius the mede who reigned at 369 BC

thats IF and thats a very big IF, the greeks got it right the emperor of persia during the battle of marathon was indeed a Darius.
Truth shall spring out of the earth; and righteousness shall look down from heaven.
Psalms 85:11

There is no solution to the Jewish problem.
There is no answer to the Jewish question.

Judaism is the solution, Judaism is the answer.
Dr VIP 1

User ID: 72874558
Israel
08/30/2016 12:15 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The role of myth in the bible
and remember that there really is no reference point to determine the years other than the supposed order of kings the number of years they reigned and their succession, and then calculating backwards from a known year.

but then we reach the disagreement which list of kings to trust, that provided by the greeks or that provided by the Jews.
Truth shall spring out of the earth; and righteousness shall look down from heaven.
Psalms 85:11

There is no solution to the Jewish problem.
There is no answer to the Jewish question.

Judaism is the solution, Judaism is the answer.
As I am
User ID: 72865828
United States
08/30/2016 12:18 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The role of myth in the bible
who Chiefetz explains completely messed up the chronolgy by adding a bunch of perso-median kings who never existed.
 Quoting: Dr VIP 1


It's looking like your boy only half-way hates herodotus' dating. When it works for him, he seems ok with it:

On page 136 of his work, in footnote 159, Heifetz writes the following:

Moreover, Thucydides' assertion that the retreat of Xerxes and the start of the Peloponnesian War were separated by 50 years fits quite nicely with the figures cited by Jewish historical tradition, as well as by Herodotus in his account of the conquest of Egypt.
Dr VIP 1

User ID: 72874558
Israel
08/30/2016 12:20 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The role of myth in the bible
who Chiefetz explains completely messed up the chronolgy by adding a bunch of perso-median kings who never existed.
 Quoting: Dr VIP 1


It's looking like your boy only half-way hates herodotus' dating. When it works for him, he seems ok with it:

On page 136 of his work, in footnote 159, Heifetz writes the following:

Moreover, Thucydides' assertion that the retreat of Xerxes and the start of the Peloponnesian War were separated by 50 years fits quite nicely with the figures cited by Jewish historical tradition, as well as by Herodotus in his account of the conquest of Egypt.

 Quoting: As I am 72865828


so now you are taking the stance of christians who say the NT is good for Jews when it says Jewish things and not good for Jews when it says other things?

it doesnt work that way... if some things the greeks got right... well... good for them.

now please link that article you are reading I want to study it too.

Last Edited by Dr VIP 1 on 08/30/2016 12:35 PM
Truth shall spring out of the earth; and righteousness shall look down from heaven.
Psalms 85:11

There is no solution to the Jewish problem.
There is no answer to the Jewish question.

Judaism is the solution, Judaism is the answer.
As I am
User ID: 72865828
United States
08/30/2016 12:37 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The role of myth in the bible
as I am... the astronomical computation derives the date of the DAY AND MONTH not year.

the year is already a presupposition according to the account of herodotus.

who Chiefetz explains completely messed up the chronolgy by adding a bunch of perso-median kings who never existed.
 Quoting: Dr VIP 1


Never existed according to him, yes, but who else? Where is the supporting evidence that shows this to be the case?

But what is the year for marathon, then, according to you?
 Quoting: As I am 72865828


what never existed?
do you disagree with my claim that the researchers already presupposed the year was 490bc but used astronomy and info that the battle was around a festival (which is according to stars alignments/equinox/solstice etc) to simply find when was this star formation in the year 490bc?



if according to Heifetz there were only two Darius (mede and persian), and after eliminating the extra dariuses artaxerxeses and cyruses the greeks added by not understanding the complexity of monarchial rotation that was going on between babylon - persia - and mede.
then we are left with Darius the mede who reigned at 369 BC

thats IF and thats a very big IF, the greeks got it right the emperor of persia during the battle of marathon was indeed a Darius.
 Quoting: Dr VIP 1


These kings he says never existed. Who else is down with this theory besides him or folks pointing back to him? Remember, he has a task to pull off--prove the talmud folks were correct at all costs. Fine. But who outside the realm of this apologetic concern also thinks these kings were made up?

The dates arrived at by historians come from varying sources and cross-references and ascertained as best as they can with the available evidence. On the other hand, you have your guy needing to make it all fit with fixed dates that come from a single source and are not cross-referenced with anything else. If something else does not support them, that source is discarded because it therefore must be incorrect. Again, that's not how science/history works.
Dr VIP 1

User ID: 72874558
Israel
08/30/2016 12:45 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The role of myth in the bible
as I am... the astronomical computation derives the date of the DAY AND MONTH not year.

the year is already a presupposition according to the account of herodotus.

who Chiefetz explains completely messed up the chronolgy by adding a bunch of perso-median kings who never existed.
 Quoting: Dr VIP 1


Never existed according to him, yes, but who else? Where is the supporting evidence that shows this to be the case?

But what is the year for marathon, then, according to you?
 Quoting: As I am 72865828


what never existed?
do you disagree with my claim that the researchers already presupposed the year was 490bc but used astronomy and info that the battle was around a festival (which is according to stars alignments/equinox/solstice etc) to simply find when was this star formation in the year 490bc?



if according to Heifetz there were only two Darius (mede and persian), and after eliminating the extra dariuses artaxerxeses and cyruses the greeks added by not understanding the complexity of monarchial rotation that was going on between babylon - persia - and mede.
then we are left with Darius the mede who reigned at 369 BC

thats IF and thats a very big IF, the greeks got it right the emperor of persia during the battle of marathon was indeed a Darius.
 Quoting: Dr VIP 1


These kings he says never existed. Who else is down with this theory besides him or folks pointing back to him? Remember, he has a task to pull off--prove the talmud folks were correct at all costs. Fine. But who outside the realm of this apologetic concern also thinks these kings were made up?

The dates arrived at by historians come from varying sources and cross-references and ascertained as best as they can with the available evidence. On the other hand, you have your guy needing to make it all fit with fixed dates that come from a single source and are not cross-referenced with anything else. If something else does not support them, that source is discarded because it therefore must be incorrect. Again, that's not how science/history works.
 Quoting: As I am 72865828


its a game of telephone, everybody is relying on what others have said.
it doenst have that big a variety of sources has you claim.

in fact, most of the dating of greek histories dont come soley from greece but by CONFORMING greek events with egyptian chronologies.

its a daunting task to really go into everything and allocate where are the mistakes.
but are there not any mistakes... there are plenty admitted academia.

please give me the other sources for this list of kings which are not traced to sourced out of the testimonies of herodotus and his friends.
Truth shall spring out of the earth; and righteousness shall look down from heaven.
Psalms 85:11

There is no solution to the Jewish problem.
There is no answer to the Jewish question.

Judaism is the solution, Judaism is the answer.
As I am
User ID: 72865828
United States
08/30/2016 12:47 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The role of myth in the bible
who Chiefetz explains completely messed up the chronolgy by adding a bunch of perso-median kings who never existed.
 Quoting: Dr VIP 1


It's looking like your boy only half-way hates herodotus' dating. When it works for him, he seems ok with it:

On page 136 of his work, in footnote 159, Heifetz writes the following:

Moreover, Thucydides' assertion that the retreat of Xerxes and the start of the Peloponnesian War were separated by 50 years fits quite nicely with the figures cited by Jewish historical tradition, as well as by Herodotus in his account of the conquest of Egypt.

 Quoting: As I am 72865828


so now you are taking the stance of christians who say the NT is good for Jews when it says Jewish things and not good for Jews when it says other things?

it doesnt work that way... if some things the greeks got right... well... good for them.

now please link that article you are reading I want to study it too.
 Quoting: Dr VIP 1


No, I'm not taking that stance. I have no interest in any of that bullshit you guys like to squabble about. It's not even on my radar, so please don't mix me up with any of that.

I am saying when it comes to dates and known events, it's tough to say the guy got it all wrong, making a new revision necessary, and then turn around and use the guy who supposedly got it all wrong as part of your support for the revision. That's all.

Search the title of the one you cited and it will appear right below it. It's called fixing the brain. But please don't drag in side issues you have with the guy, the site or any of that stuff. I'm only interested in the particular problems he cites with the revisionism and couldn't care less about whether you think he's an atheist pagan evil christian whatever. Let's just stay with what is on the page.
As I am
User ID: 72865828
United States
08/30/2016 01:05 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The role of myth in the bible
as I am... the astronomical computation derives the date of the DAY AND MONTH not year.

the year is already a presupposition according to the account of herodotus.

who Chiefetz explains completely messed up the chronolgy by adding a bunch of perso-median kings who never existed.
 Quoting: Dr VIP 1


Never existed according to him, yes, but who else? Where is the supporting evidence that shows this to be the case?

But what is the year for marathon, then, according to you?
 Quoting: As I am 72865828


what never existed?
do you disagree with my claim that the researchers already presupposed the year was 490bc but used astronomy and info that the battle was around a festival (which is according to stars alignments/equinox/solstice etc) to simply find when was this star formation in the year 490bc?



if according to Heifetz there were only two Darius (mede and persian), and after eliminating the extra dariuses artaxerxeses and cyruses the greeks added by not understanding the complexity of monarchial rotation that was going on between babylon - persia - and mede.
then we are left with Darius the mede who reigned at 369 BC

thats IF and thats a very big IF, the greeks got it right the emperor of persia during the battle of marathon was indeed a Darius.
 Quoting: Dr VIP 1


I don't see a date for the battle here, but since you have 369 as the closest thing to one, here's a list of stuff you have to reconfigure because according to the model you are championing, it's all wrong. This is what I mean by the "solution" creating more problems than the "problem." That's an enormous amount of rejiggering, so I can understand how your guy is not making traction, especially since his agenda is set up a priori and he is forced to find a way to make shit fit at all costs.

490 Themistocles and Miltiades, Athenians, defeat Darius at Marathon, Phidippides runs with news.
484 Aeschylus, Athenian playwright wins his first victory at the City Dionysia.
480 Leonidas, Spartan, sacrifices 300 Spartan soldiers at the Battle of Thermopylae so main force can escape; Xerxes son of Darius is commanding the Persians.
480 Simultaneous with Thermopylae, the Greeks and Persians fight to a draw in the naval Battle of Artemisium.
480 Battle of Salamis: Themistocles, Athenian general, lures Persians into Bay of Salamis, Xerxes loses and goes home, leaves behind Mardonius.
479 Pausanias, Greek general routs Mardonius at the Battle of Plataea.
479 Battle of Mycale frees Greek colonies in Asia. After the Battle of Salamis, Athens initiated the Delian League, with treasury initially on island of Delos, a confederacy of cities around the Aegean Sea. It was intended as a military defense association against Persia but became controlled by the Athenians, who collected tribute and decided policy. Sparta formed rival Peloponnesian League.
476–462 Cimon elected general each year, he was victorious over Persia and then enforced military power on Delian League.
474 Pindar, Greek poet relocates to Thebes (in Greece) from court at Syracuse.
471 Themistocles ostracized.
468 Sophocles, Greek playwright, defeats Aeschylus for Athenian Prize for drama.
461 Cimon ostracized.
457 Pericles, Athenian statesman begins Golden Age, he was taught by Anaxagoras, who believed in dualistic Universe and atoms.
456 Aeschylus dies.
449 Herodotus, Greek Historian, writes History of Greco-Persian War from 490–479.
448 Ictinus and Callicrates, Greek architects rebuild Acropolis from Persian destruction.
441 Euripides, Greek playwright, wins Athenian prize.
440 Heraclitus, Greek philosopher, teaches that everything is mutable.
435 Phidias, Greek sculptor, completes statue of Zeus at Elis, 1 of 7 wonders of the world.
433 Corinth, Sparta, Megara and Aegina ally against Corfu, Athens, Rhegium, and Leontini.
432 End of "Golden Age", Athens under Pericles blockades Potidaea (Battle of Potidaea), Corfu declares war on Corinth (Battle of Sybota).
431 Sparta commanded by King Archidamus II prepares to destroy Athens thus starting the Peloponnesian War.
431 Empedocles, Greek doctor, believes body has Four Temperaments.
430 Failed peace mission by Athens, bubonic plague year, Sparta takes no prisoners.
430 Leucippus, Greek philosopher, believes every natural event has natural cause. Athenian Plague begins in Athens.
429 Phormio, Athenian admiral, wins the Battle of Chalcis.
429 Pericles dies of Athenian Plague, possibly typhus or bubonic plague.
429 Hippocrates, Greek doctor, believes diseases have physical cause.
428 Plato born.
428 Mytilene rebels, chief city of Lesbos.
427 Archidamus II dies, Alcidas, Greek admiral sent to help Lesbos, raids Ionia and flees after seeing Athenian might. Athenian Plague returns.
427 Mytilene surrenders to Athens, Plataeans surrender to Athens.
427 Aristophanes, Greek playwright, wins Athenian Prize.
426 Corfu secures island for Athens.
426 Demosthenes, Athenian general, and Cleon, Athenian demagogue, revitalizes Athenian forces, makes bold plans opposed by Nicias, his first military campaign barely succeeds.
425 Athenian fleet bottles up Spartan navy at Navarino Bay, Nicias resigns.
424 Syracuse sends Athenians home.
424 Pagondas of Thebes (in Greece) crushes Athenian army at the Battle of Delium, Brasidas a Spartan general makes a successful campaign, Cleon exiles Thucydides for 20 years for arriving late.
423 Truce of Laches supposed to stop Brasidas but doesn't, Nicias commands Athenian forces in retaking Mende.
422 Cleon meets Brasidas outside of Amphipolis, both are killed (Battle of Amphipolis).
421 Peace of Nicias brings temporary end to war, but Alcibiades, a nephew of Pericles, makes anti-Sparta alliance.
420 Quadruple alliance of Athens, Argos, Mantinea, and Elis confronts Spartan-Boeotian alliance.
419 King Agis II of Sparta attacks Argos, makes treaty.
418 Battle of Mantinea, greatest land battle of war, gives Sparta victory over Argos, which violated treaty, Alcibiades thrown out, alliance ended.
416 Alcibiades makes plans, is restored to power.
416 Massacre of the Melians.
415 Hermai statues are mutilated in Athens, Alcibiades accused, asks for inquiry, told to set sail for battle (Sicilian Expedition), is condemned to death in absentia, he defects to Sparta.
414 Lamachus, Athenian commander killed at Syracuse.
413 Nicias and Demosthenes killed at Syracuse.
412 Alcibiades is expelled from Sparta, conspires to come back to Athens.
411 Democracy ends in Athens by Antiphon, Peisander, and Phrynichus (oligarch), overthrown by Theramenes, Constitution of the 5000, Athenian navy recalls Alcibiades, confirmed by Athenians.
410 After several successes, Athenian demagogue Cleophon rejects Spartan peace offers.
409 Byzantium recaptured by Alcibiades for Athens.
408 Alcibiades reenters Athens in triumph, Lysander, a Spartan commander, has fleet built at Ephesus.
407 Lysander begins destruction of Athenian fleet, Alcibiades stripped of power.
406 Callicratides, Spartan naval commander, loses Battle of Arginusae over blockade of Mitylene harbor, Sparta sues for peace, rejected by Cleophon.
405 Lysander captures Athenian fleet, Spartan king Pausanias besieges Athens, Cleophon executed, Corinth and Thebes demand destruction of Athens.
404 Athens capitulates April 25. Theramenes secures terms, prevents total destruction of Athens, Theramenes and Alcibiades are killed.
401 Thucydides, Greek historian, leaves account of "Golden Age of Pericles" and Peloponnesian War at his death (History of the Peloponnesian War).
400 Democritus, Greek philosopher, develops Atomic theory, believes cause and necessity, nothing comes out of nothing
399 Socrates, Greek philosopher, condemned to death for corrupting youth.
387 Peace of Antalcidas concluded between the Greeks and the Persians.
347 Plato, Greek philosopher, founder of Academy, dies.
Dr VIP 1

User ID: 72874558
Israel
08/30/2016 01:14 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The role of myth in the bible
as I am... the astronomical computation derives the date of the DAY AND MONTH not year.

the year is already a presupposition according to the account of herodotus.

who Chiefetz explains completely messed up the chronolgy by adding a bunch of perso-median kings who never existed.
 Quoting: Dr VIP 1


Never existed according to him, yes, but who else? Where is the supporting evidence that shows this to be the case?

But what is the year for marathon, then, according to you?
 Quoting: As I am 72865828


what never existed?
do you disagree with my claim that the researchers already presupposed the year was 490bc but used astronomy and info that the battle was around a festival (which is according to stars alignments/equinox/solstice etc) to simply find when was this star formation in the year 490bc?



if according to Heifetz there were only two Darius (mede and persian), and after eliminating the extra dariuses artaxerxeses and cyruses the greeks added by not understanding the complexity of monarchial rotation that was going on between babylon - persia - and mede.
then we are left with Darius the mede who reigned at 369 BC

thats IF and thats a very big IF, the greeks got it right the emperor of persia during the battle of marathon was indeed a Darius.
 Quoting: Dr VIP 1


I don't see a date for the battle here, but since you have 369 as the closest thing to one, here's a list of stuff you have to reconfigure because according to the model you are championing, it's all wrong. This is what I mean by the "solution" creating more problems than the "problem." That's an enormous amount of rejiggering, so I can understand how your guy is not making traction, especially since his agenda is set up a priori and he is forced to find a way to make shit fit at all costs.

490 Themistocles and Miltiades, Athenians, defeat Darius at Marathon, Phidippides runs with news.
484 Aeschylus, Athenian playwright wins his first victory at the City Dionysia.
480 Leonidas, Spartan, sacrifices 300 Spartan soldiers at the Battle of Thermopylae so main force can escape; Xerxes son of Darius is commanding the Persians.
480 Simultaneous with Thermopylae, the Greeks and Persians fight to a draw in the naval Battle of Artemisium.
480 Battle of Salamis: Themistocles, Athenian general, lures Persians into Bay of Salamis, Xerxes loses and goes home, leaves behind Mardonius.
479 Pausanias, Greek general routs Mardonius at the Battle of Plataea.
479 Battle of Mycale frees Greek colonies in Asia. After the Battle of Salamis, Athens initiated the Delian League, with treasury initially on island of Delos, a confederacy of cities around the Aegean Sea. It was intended as a military defense association against Persia but became controlled by the Athenians, who collected tribute and decided policy. Sparta formed rival Peloponnesian League.
476–462 Cimon elected general each year, he was victorious over Persia and then enforced military power on Delian League.
474 Pindar, Greek poet relocates to Thebes (in Greece) from court at Syracuse.
471 Themistocles ostracized.
468 Sophocles, Greek playwright, defeats Aeschylus for Athenian Prize for drama.
461 Cimon ostracized.
457 Pericles, Athenian statesman begins Golden Age, he was taught by Anaxagoras, who believed in dualistic Universe and atoms.
456 Aeschylus dies.
449 Herodotus, Greek Historian, writes History of Greco-Persian War from 490–479.
448 Ictinus and Callicrates, Greek architects rebuild Acropolis from Persian destruction.
441 Euripides, Greek playwright, wins Athenian prize.
440 Heraclitus, Greek philosopher, teaches that everything is mutable.
435 Phidias, Greek sculptor, completes statue of Zeus at Elis, 1 of 7 wonders of the world.
433 Corinth, Sparta, Megara and Aegina ally against Corfu, Athens, Rhegium, and Leontini.
432 End of "Golden Age", Athens under Pericles blockades Potidaea (Battle of Potidaea), Corfu declares war on Corinth (Battle of Sybota).
431 Sparta commanded by King Archidamus II prepares to destroy Athens thus starting the Peloponnesian War.
431 Empedocles, Greek doctor, believes body has Four Temperaments.
430 Failed peace mission by Athens, bubonic plague year, Sparta takes no prisoners.
430 Leucippus, Greek philosopher, believes every natural event has natural cause. Athenian Plague begins in Athens.
429 Phormio, Athenian admiral, wins the Battle of Chalcis.
429 Pericles dies of Athenian Plague, possibly typhus or bubonic plague.
429 Hippocrates, Greek doctor, believes diseases have physical cause.
428 Plato born.
428 Mytilene rebels, chief city of Lesbos.
427 Archidamus II dies, Alcidas, Greek admiral sent to help Lesbos, raids Ionia and flees after seeing Athenian might. Athenian Plague returns.
427 Mytilene surrenders to Athens, Plataeans surrender to Athens.
427 Aristophanes, Greek playwright, wins Athenian Prize.
426 Corfu secures island for Athens.
426 Demosthenes, Athenian general, and Cleon, Athenian demagogue, revitalizes Athenian forces, makes bold plans opposed by Nicias, his first military campaign barely succeeds.
425 Athenian fleet bottles up Spartan navy at Navarino Bay, Nicias resigns.
424 Syracuse sends Athenians home.
424 Pagondas of Thebes (in Greece) crushes Athenian army at the Battle of Delium, Brasidas a Spartan general makes a successful campaign, Cleon exiles Thucydides for 20 years for arriving late.
423 Truce of Laches supposed to stop Brasidas but doesn't, Nicias commands Athenian forces in retaking Mende.
422 Cleon meets Brasidas outside of Amphipolis, both are killed (Battle of Amphipolis).
421 Peace of Nicias brings temporary end to war, but Alcibiades, a nephew of Pericles, makes anti-Sparta alliance.
420 Quadruple alliance of Athens, Argos, Mantinea, and Elis confronts Spartan-Boeotian alliance.
419 King Agis II of Sparta attacks Argos, makes treaty.
418 Battle of Mantinea, greatest land battle of war, gives Sparta victory over Argos, which violated treaty, Alcibiades thrown out, alliance ended.
416 Alcibiades makes plans, is restored to power.
416 Massacre of the Melians.
415 Hermai statues are mutilated in Athens, Alcibiades accused, asks for inquiry, told to set sail for battle (Sicilian Expedition), is condemned to death in absentia, he defects to Sparta.
414 Lamachus, Athenian commander killed at Syracuse.
413 Nicias and Demosthenes killed at Syracuse.
412 Alcibiades is expelled from Sparta, conspires to come back to Athens.
411 Democracy ends in Athens by Antiphon, Peisander, and Phrynichus (oligarch), overthrown by Theramenes, Constitution of the 5000, Athenian navy recalls Alcibiades, confirmed by Athenians.
410 After several successes, Athenian demagogue Cleophon rejects Spartan peace offers.
409 Byzantium recaptured by Alcibiades for Athens.
408 Alcibiades reenters Athens in triumph, Lysander, a Spartan commander, has fleet built at Ephesus.
407 Lysander begins destruction of Athenian fleet, Alcibiades stripped of power.
406 Callicratides, Spartan naval commander, loses Battle of Arginusae over blockade of Mitylene harbor, Sparta sues for peace, rejected by Cleophon.
405 Lysander captures Athenian fleet, Spartan king Pausanias besieges Athens, Cleophon executed, Corinth and Thebes demand destruction of Athens.
404 Athens capitulates April 25. Theramenes secures terms, prevents total destruction of Athens, Theramenes and Alcibiades are killed.
401 Thucydides, Greek historian, leaves account of "Golden Age of Pericles" and Peloponnesian War at his death (History of the Peloponnesian War).
400 Democritus, Greek philosopher, develops Atomic theory, believes cause and necessity, nothing comes out of nothing
399 Socrates, Greek philosopher, condemned to death for corrupting youth.
387 Peace of Antalcidas concluded between the Greeks and the Persians.
347 Plato, Greek philosopher, founder of Academy, dies.
 Quoting: As I am 72865828


I cant.
Truth shall spring out of the earth; and righteousness shall look down from heaven.
Psalms 85:11

There is no solution to the Jewish problem.
There is no answer to the Jewish question.

Judaism is the solution, Judaism is the answer.
Dr VIP 1

User ID: 72874558
Israel
08/30/2016 01:31 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The role of myth in the bible
so yes... I cant work it out, I lack the needed sources and studies.

but as for now one thing is clear, the Judaic chronolgy is on equal grounds as the greek one.

what I mean is this, if the Jews are right in their chronology then they are right regarding the order of persian kings.
and the greeks are wrong, and it is their chronolgies which need revisioning not the Jew's

but if the greeks are right, then they are right regarding the succession of persian kings, and the Jews are wrong, and is the Jewish chronology that needs to be revised.

Academia has chosen to side with the greek chronolgy (which is highly twisted to conform with egyptian chronolgy)

the crux lies in the choice which chronolgy to accept and which needs to be revised.

because... we dont have the persian chronologies to settle the score.
Truth shall spring out of the earth; and righteousness shall look down from heaven.
Psalms 85:11

There is no solution to the Jewish problem.
There is no answer to the Jewish question.

Judaism is the solution, Judaism is the answer.
Dr VIP 1

User ID: 72874558
Israel
08/30/2016 01:33 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The role of myth in the bible
so to ask the Jews to explain why then there are problems with greek chronologies when the Jew's revise the succession of persian kings, is based on circular reasoning because it is these greek chronolgies which have been used to determine the succession of persian kings in the first place.
Truth shall spring out of the earth; and righteousness shall look down from heaven.
Psalms 85:11

There is no solution to the Jewish problem.
There is no answer to the Jewish question.

Judaism is the solution, Judaism is the answer.
Dr VIP 1

User ID: 72874558
Israel
08/30/2016 01:40 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The role of myth in the bible
see the argument works like this.

Jews say the temple was destroyed at 422bc which fits nicely with the rest of their chronology.

but then, it doesnt fit with what the greeks say regarding the persian kings... so lets move the date of the destruction to fit with the greeks, it skews the rest of the Jewish chronolgy but who cares.

which is EXACTLY as the greeks say there were this number of persian kings, so lets change it, and when we do it doenst fit with the rest of greek chronolgy... but who cares.

there is no reason why academia chose to determine the problem lies with the Jews and not the greeks.
Truth shall spring out of the earth; and righteousness shall look down from heaven.
Psalms 85:11

There is no solution to the Jewish problem.
There is no answer to the Jewish question.

Judaism is the solution, Judaism is the answer.
As I am
User ID: 72865828
United States
08/30/2016 01:58 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The role of myth in the bible
The dates arrived at by historians come from varying sources and cross-references and ascertained as best as they can with the available evidence. On the other hand, you have your guy needing to make it all fit with fixed dates that come from a single source and are not cross-referenced with anything else. If something else does not support them, that source is discarded because it therefore must be incorrect. Again, that's not how science/history works.
 Quoting: As I am 72865828


its a game of telephone, everybody is relying on what others have said.
it doenst have that big a variety of sources has you claim.

in fact, most of the dating of greek histories dont come soley from greece but by CONFORMING greek events with egyptian chronologies.

its a daunting task to really go into everything and allocate where are the mistakes.
but are there not any mistakes... there are plenty admitted academia.

please give me the other sources for this list of kings which are not traced to sourced out of the testimonies of herodotus and his friends.
 Quoting: Dr VIP 1


I meant the dates historians come up with as a general premise. Sorry if that was unclear. As to the specifics under discussion, what you are calling conforming, I am calling cross-referencing. This kind of synchronization across sources is how the time lines get established and refined.

But the kind of revision your guy is speaking of creates problems that cannot be easily brushed aside, as the article mentioned relates:

Heifetz was still unable to avoid the predictable clash with Greek history which is chock full of meticulously recorded events -- events, moreover, that are not alien, Persian, and in his opinion poorly documented, but those familiar to Greek historians from their personal experience, and to modern scholars from several sources at once. In other words, Heifetz must not only defend his highly dubious castling moves (to be discussed below), but also force events -- that took place, according to historical science, during 149 years of dense Greek history replete with Persian, Egyptian, and Roman synchronisms -- into the span of the 92 years he has managed to reclaim.

One of the ways he goes about doing this is by claiming that two different battles at Mantinea separated by 56 years are really the same battle.

In terms of substance and historical context, these events have nothing in common; on the other hand, 56 is almost the same as 57. Thus Heifetz immediately proposed to declare these two events one, thereby shortening Greek history by 56 years. . . .

We are talking about two battles that have nothing in common except for their location. . . . The first Mantinean battle ended in a decisive victory for the Spartans, who reestablished their hegemony over the peninsula; at that historical moment, they were halfway to the greatest victory in their history, a victory that 14 years later would make them masters of all Greece. In the other battle, they were once again defeated by the Thebans.
As I am
User ID: 72865828
United States
08/30/2016 03:25 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The role of myth in the bible
so yes... I cant work it out, I lack the needed sources and studies.

but as for now one thing is clear, the Judaic chronolgy is on equal grounds as the greek one.

what I mean is this, if the Jews are right in their chronology then they are right regarding the order of persian kings.
and the greeks are wrong, and it is their chronolgies which need revisioning not the Jew's

but if the greeks are right, then they are right regarding the succession of persian kings, and the Jews are wrong, and is the Jewish chronology that needs to be revised.

Academia has chosen to side with the greek chronolgy (which is highly twisted to conform with egyptian chronolgy)

the crux lies in the choice which chronolgy to accept and which needs to be revised.

because... we dont have the persian chronologies to settle the score.
 Quoting: Dr VIP 1


No, doc, they are not on equal footing at all, at least outside your world. You, like those doing the revising, are interested in the persian king thing seemingly to the exclusion of all else. The academic view seeks to put everything into a systematic framework taking all evidence into account as best it can. The apologetic view seeks to make shit fit in accordance with a view that is not accepted as reliable in the outside world because it creates more problems than it solves.

The academic time line is accepted in the main, while the apologetic time line is rejected outside its narrow band of those who follow it. One goes by the evidence in toto, while the other disregards such evidence and insists the time line be forced into support of the claims that are not rooted in the larger history, but only in the narrow confines of s specific theological pov that isn't even accepted by all Jews, let alone the wider world.

So as it stands, this detour into the issue of a revised chronology hasn't been the sure thing it was advertised as, since you yourself cannot answer the problems raised by such a revision, one that has little or no support in the wider world.





GLP