April 25, 2018, 09:10:20 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: New Membership Currently Closed.
 
   Boards Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2]
  Print  
Author Topic: Competing Chronologies  (Read 34813 times)
Ronald L. Hughes
Newbie
*
Posts: 47


« Reply #15 on: February 19, 2010, 10:25:32 PM »

A small note concerning "chevrons", and especially those shown in the Egytian stone carvings!  Since I have written most of what I have presented above, many months of years ago, I shall merely state that if the "reproductions" of these stone cut panels are correct, then it seems the artist(s) recognized some differences between the players?  Why should I suggest thus?  

Well if one can find a site that displays the "reproduction" of these stone murals to a great degree, then you will notice that the number of "chevrons" seems to vary from warrior (kinght?) to warrior!  That is some seem to display as many as six chevrons and the number seems to go down to a minimum of two or so!  In that case it might well be assumed that these "marks" determine "rank!"  E.g., the more chevrons, the higher the rank of the individual depicted!  Since some histories have described these invaders as "barbarians", since they were determined to be the Philistines, then the obvious significance of both their apparel and their arms, and the wearing of "rank" seems to  seperate these warriors from marauding bands of barbarians, and since I.V. also proposed the very same thing, I concurr with his opinion!

In past historical accounts of this invasion of Egypt in the 12th century BCE, a lot was written about the "bagggage train" of these "vagabond" invaders, a "train" that not only included their foodstuffs, and other provisions, but also their "wives?" or "concubines?", etc., all supposedly pulled by Oxen!

Certainly one must consider that "every" army, at all times, had to have such a "train", and sometimes, in some places, and in some works, it was / is called a "laager!"  A look at this word is certainly in order, as well as a search of times where various historians have used this term!

Now the entire point of this particular post is to remind you that I.V. made the above points in order to connect these invaders, not to some "hord" of "vandals", but to an organized invading force of some great degree of development and sophistication!  Thus I.V. connected the invasion of the so called Philistines in the 12th century BCE to the more recent historical invasion of Egypt by the Persians!

Thus the 800 year movement!  But I.V. also recognized that if his theory was correct then the entire cohesiveness of Egyptian chronlolgy must also fall!  And it would be a "great crash!" indeed! Because everything in Egyptian chronology is connencted!  All history and chronology books would have to be destroyed and re-written!

So, let's see?  If you were a currently accepted "specialist" in Egyptian history, and you had been trained by one of the "great" Egyptian experts" and if you had already written numerous "peer reviewed" articles, and even books, or text-books on the subject, and you were faced with a "great slap in the face", would you be willling to come out and suport such a change?  Would you "turn the other cheek/"

Regards,

Ron
« Last Edit: February 20, 2010, 08:09:49 PM by Ronald L. Hughes » Logged

"Most of history is bunk"  Henry Ford
Ronald L. Hughes
Newbie
*
Posts: 47


« Reply #16 on: February 19, 2010, 11:37:20 PM »

Concerning the lack of respect given to any idea that is outside of current historical thought, I would again refer you to my "reply no. 4" above and the reply given by one of the moderators of the Wikipedia article, thus it was said;  

"Regards,69.92.23.64 (talk) 03:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)Ronald L. Hughes

I think you misunderstand verifiablity, look at WP:Verify - we aren't verifying the idea but checking the source. This is basically an insignificant (eg not taken seriously by academics) fringe view and should only be in articles about Fomenko and his (and associates) ideas. See WP:NPOV and WP:Fringe. Dougweller (talk) 11:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)}"

Thus you can clearly see that the moderators of Wikipedia, will not consider "verification" but merely the "reliability of the source(s)!"  As I have written earlier, if your source is something as clear as the Sun in the sky, it is not even considered!  It seems that more credence is found in the words of what they consider as "reliable" sources rather than "Common Sense!", which was a famous series of articles written by Thomas Paine, during the American revolution!  Thank God the defenders of Wikipedia and every other recognized historical site in the world, seems to have considered that the works of Paine, must have had, "reliable sources!"  chuckle!

Regards,

Ron
« Last Edit: February 20, 2010, 08:11:21 PM by Ronald L. Hughes » Logged

"Most of history is bunk"  Henry Ford
Ronald L. Hughes
Newbie
*
Posts: 47


« Reply #17 on: February 26, 2010, 12:44:00 AM »

Perhaps some of you need to see and hear this?

http://video.yahoo.com/watch/136483/660945

Please take the time to watch all of the vids?

Regards,'

Ron
Logged

"Most of history is bunk"  Henry Ford
Ronald L. Hughes
Newbie
*
Posts: 47


« Reply #18 on: March 17, 2010, 09:53:23 PM »

By the way, I just thought I'd let any of you who would actually read my posts here that according to the Fomenko theory, in most of ouir past whenever you see the word "Greek", you are seeing a reference to the Byzantine ones!  And, whenever you see the word Macedonian, you are seeing a reference to the Othmans!

Logged

"Most of history is bunk"  Henry Ford
Truth Seeker
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 56


« Reply #19 on: March 19, 2010, 01:58:39 AM »

Hey Ron, I read your posts.

A person that reads Herodotus will realize that many of the persons discribed, saw themselves of different races and peoples other than what us modern folks call "The Greeks". Of course your gonna tell me that that was written by a Bryantine in 1324? Just being sarcastic here but seriously... just because something isn't "red" dosent mean it has to be "blue".
Logged
Ronald L. Hughes
Newbie
*
Posts: 47


« Reply #20 on: April 05, 2010, 01:13:51 AM »

Sorry to be so long in replying!  I feel really bad that I am unable to respond to the post by Charles!  My reasoning, which is directly related to my I.Q., means that on many points, I feel that anything I might say, would be worthless since Charles is by far one of the most articulate, and knowledegable persons I have ever conversed with!

I am most honored just for him to devote some space to my views!

I really don't know just what to say?

You wrote in your last post;

"A person that reads Herodotus will realize that many of the persons discribed, saw themselves of different races and peoples other than what us modern folks call "The Greeks". Of course your gonna tell me that that was written by a Bryantine in 1324? Just being sarcastic here but seriously... just because something isn't "red" dosent mean it has to be "blue"."

My answer has to be, that I agree with you!

But, since this site makes anything with overa five ot ten lines pop in and out makes it very hard for me to type, as well as think at the same time!

Sos, as much as I hate to do so, I will have to try and respond on the next post!
Logged

"Most of history is bunk"  Henry Ford
Ronald L. Hughes
Newbie
*
Posts: 47


« Reply #21 on: April 05, 2010, 01:26:56 AM »

You wrote in your last post;

"A person that reads Herodotus will realize that many of the persons discribed, saw themselves of different races and peoples other than what us modern folks call "The Greeks". Of course your gonna tell me that that was written by a Bryantine in 1324? Just being sarcastic here but seriously... just because something isn't "red" dosent mean it has to be "blue"."

I would suggest that we are almost on the same wave-length?  Certainly, much like "wave-lengths"of light, there seems to exist wave-links of the past!  This is almost exactly what the Fomenko Group found!  That is, they reportedly invesitgated numerous old accounts, and in most cases, it seems that they actually counted all of the words, or in some cases, all of the letters involved in the accounts!  Then, much like a butcher, they "weighed" the evidence!  It seems that sometimes they weighed the number of times a certain action was mentioned, and sometimes, they measured the number of times that a rulers name,etc. was mentioned, etc.!  Then they compared the "volume" as compared to the other sources available that spoke of similar or exact times, and created a new mathematical comparison!

But, I cannot do the Fomenko theory justice via my words, but some of you must actually read them for yourselves?

Regards,

RON
Logged

"Most of history is bunk"  Henry Ford
Truth Seeker
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 56


« Reply #22 on: April 06, 2010, 06:42:10 PM »

I would say that we all are trying to get to the bottom of these chronolgy issues, at least at this site. So we can place timelines and events in a proper sequence. Even though we may have our own bias, I see it as a evolutionary process, of which we all can benefit from.

What may be sometimes an annoying prospective for me here at D.O.M. still continues to open my eyes and adds to my knowledge base.  I am still learning how to articulate points I see, with more clarity. It is easier to demostrate problems than to truly present something that is irrefutable, especially in the area of chronolgy. One thing that is important to me, is to not let just one prospective become like a religon for me! Unless of course I learn that there is just only one way to see it. Then I will declare that "I've seen the light".
Logged
terrence77
Guest
« Reply #23 on: November 17, 2010, 03:02:44 AM »

There are several competing chronologies for the kings, but the farthest they are ever off from each other is about 10 years...You can find more information about Competing Chronologies from here www.oldtestamenthistorytimeline.com...
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC

Clear Mind Theme, by burNMind with modifications by: WebDude
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.028 seconds with 15 queries.