PDA

View Full Version : Problems with Biblical Chronology per Fomenko



bsbray
30th May 2016, 07:33
I finally got the chance to start reading volume 1 of Fomenko's 7-volume historical/statistical work, and the problems with the conventional chronology (or "Scaligerian chronology," named after its early proponent, Joseph Scaliger) are systematic and very damning. The "New Earth" videos are largely based off of Fomenko's work, but Fomenko is a professor of mathematics at Moscow State University and has compiled his evidence in a very thorough and scholarly way that Sylvie's work unfortunately has yet to equal.

Problems with biblical chronology are among the first issues discussed and include the following facts:


The three oldest "more or less complete" manuscripts of the Bible all appeared after 1400 and were dated to the late 300's AD by the style of handwriting alone. (Ie, a very subjective way of dating something, and prone to error.)

As Fomenko notes, dating these manuscripts by handwriting implies that there is an established and reliable chronology to compare different styles of handwriting to in the first place. If the Scaligerian chronology has major flaws, as Fomenko and many others have argued in the ~500 years since its creation, then this method of dating is also automatically flawed. You cannot compare a newly-discovered text to a handwriting sample from 300 AD if the sample itself has been erroneously dated to begin with.


The oldest manuscripts of individual books of the Bible are said to be those of Zechariah and Malachi, from the 500's AD, in Greek (not Hebrew), and were also dated to these early centuries by handwriting alone.
The three oldest surviving manuscripts in Hebrew are said to be from 859 AD, 916 AD, and 1008 AD. Because of an ambiguity in the dating of the first text by the original scribe himself, it could date itself to 1228 AD.
In the case of the Qumran scrolls, academics could not even agree upon the dating (based once again on handwriting style), and they arrived at dates from the 2nd century AD to the era of the Crusades during the medieval period.

The Dead Sea Scrolls and Nag Hammadi library are not discussed here, but they are just as suspect as the rest. In the case of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Israeli government gained possession of them before they were ever revealed to the public, and held onto them for decades before displaying anything to the general public. In the case of both discoveries, the dating techniques used on them assumed the veracity of the Scaligerian chronology.



"It is supposed that the Biblical canon was agreed upon by the Laodician Council in 363 A.D., but no edicts of this council remain in existence, and the same concerns the previous councils.... The canon was really made official by the new Trident Council called in 1545, the epoch of the Reformation, and continued until 1563. ... A great many books were destroyed by the edict of the Trident council -- the ones considered apocryphal, namely, the Chronicles of the Judaic and Israeli Kings. We shall never be able to read these books, but there is one thing that we can be perfectly certain of. They were destroyed, since they had described history differently from the books approved by the winning faction of Scaligerite historians."

This last point is interesting because "Chronicles" and "Kings" represent two books each in modern Christian canon, and are historical in nature. The "Chronicles of the Judaic and Israeli Kings" must have contained significantly different information in order to be forbidden and burned, though the title of the text implies that it should be discussing the very same things as the books that are printed in every modern Bible.


Quoting I.T. Sunderland, Holy Books as Regarded by Science: "The first steps of our research into the primordial language of the Old Testament brings us to the fact of paramount importance, which is that written Hebrew neither had signs for vowels originally, nor any other signs to replace them... The books of the Old Testament were written in nothing but consonant." Fomenko: "Imagine how precise the kind of writing that consisted of nothing but consonants would be today, when the combination of BLD, for instance, could mean blood, bled, bold, build, boiled, bald, etc.; ... The vocalization aleatory quotient in ancient Hebraic and other old languages is exceptionally high. Many consonant combinations may be vocalized in dozens of ways."
"T.F. Curtis also noted that 'even for priests, the meaning of the scriptures remained extremely doubtful and could only be understood with the aid of the tradition and its authority' ... Robertson Smith adds that 'the scholars had no other guide but the actual text, that was often ambiguous, and oral tradition. They had no grammatical rules to follow; the Hebraic that they wrote in often allowed for verbal constructions that were impossible in the ancient language.' ... Scaligerian history considers this status quo to have prevailed for many centuries."
"The common opinion used to be that the vowels were introduced to the Hebraic text by Ezra in the V century B.C. ... When Levita and Capellus proved this wrong in the XVI and XVII century France, demonstrating that the vowels have only been introduced by the Massorets, the discovery made a great sensation in the entire Protestant Europe. Many were of the opinion that this new theory might lead to the complete dethronement of religion. If the vowels weren't received in an Epiphany of divine inspiration, being merely a human creation, and a relatively recent one, at that, how could one rely on the text of the Holy Writ? ... The debate that followed had been amongst the most heated in the history of the new Biblical criticism, and had carried on for over a century."
Fomenko suggests that the Masoretic text may itself have been created in the 1400's-1500's, since this is when it first became discussed, though it was later placed back in the 700's-800's, "so as to give the Biblical text the authority of antiquity."

modwiz
30th May 2016, 19:22
Unraveling history and getting it right may be close to impossible until Vatican archives are public. Fomenko's work will at least let us know that our past looks differently than we are being told about. Thank you for a good summary of his first volume.

Jengelen
30th May 2016, 20:32
If you listen to the Catholic church: The Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia is the first printed edition of the Masoretic text, derived from the "Leningrad Codex of 1008 AD", which is the original text of reference of the Bible for the Roman Catholic Church, for the Bible of the Christian Protestant Churches and the King James Version, oh and for the Torah of the Jewish religion.

My understanding from school is that all the infighting during what we today would call the forming years of the "Holy Roman Empire" was over the correct translation/interpretation of these writings. This at around when Charlamagne was ordering a new state religion again as I recall, 600AD roughly. I think it is obvious to any researcher that vowels were added to the consonant only original writings. These vowels were not there until men added them and they enhanced meaning to suit a leaning one way or the other in most cases which means they changed the original meaning or the original so called words of "GOD"!

So either way you look at it the only true way to read it is to go back to the original consonant only text with no men added vowels to it to fit their own control agenda. The various schools fighting are what burned the Alexandria library down all over which men had the correct meaning when none of them did and none of them were ever interested in truth of the text but what they could do with it if the public believed this over this.

So in the end the school that won of the various schools in the debate to form the new state religion won that debate because in the end they were the one allowing the easiest and best control of the people! To add to this it was outlawed for the longest time in various sects of the public lands under the umbrella of the kingdom for anyone to read. The only reading was done by the holy men and you had to take their word for what they told you was there. The Tiberius school won, and soon went out after the leaders of the other schools, (Palestinian, Samaritan, Babylonian, Gnostic, and more smaller schools of thought) and these were soon beheaded or burned if not killed by crowds running them down by order of the bishops after the edict from the Pope.

So you have a whole new church set up and a book to back up their claims, a people that couldn't read it, and a bunch of generations that will still kill you over informing them their religion was a tool designed to get all the empire on the same page and just pay their fricking taxes!

According to Mario Biglino, a biblical scholar, "In reality the bible we own, the bible we work on, that which I am to tell you something about, is a bible fixed between the 7th and 9th century A.D. -that is to say in the years 600 to 800 A.D. In short it is when the Merovigs first, and then the Carolings ruled over Europe.

I mean that while Charlemagne was busy building his Holy Roman Empire, by the lake of Galilee, one family, which Moshez ben Aaron ben Asher's family, defined the bible as we know it! This family was in conflict with other families.: they represented the Tiberias School."

bsbray
30th May 2016, 21:09
Unraveling history and getting it right may be close to impossible until Vatican archives are public. Fomenko's work will at least let us know that our past looks differently than we are being told about. Thank you for a good summary of his first volume.

I've only just read the beginning of the book so far. What I posted in the OP is how he's opening the discussion on the Bible in particular, but as more information pops up later in the volume I'll post that here too. Volume I alone is over 500 pages, so if I don't take a few notes here and there I'm never going to remember it.




I mean that while Charlemagne was busy building his Holy Roman Empire, by the lake of Galilee, one family, which Moshez ben Aaron ben Asher's family, defined the bible as we know it! This family was in conflict with other families.: they represented the Tiberias School."

I've skipped ahead through some charts of Fomenko and his colleagues' statistical analysis later in the book and the beginning of the "Holy Roman Empire" is a history that is either derived (forged) after a similar text about a different period, or else it was used to derive forged histories of "ancient Rome." So their statistical analysis of numerical data (that they derived from the primary source texts) showed that the earliest histories of the ancient Rome Empire and the medieval Holy Roman Empire are actually referencing a single actual historical period, at least so far as we can say that any of it ever "really happened" at all.

Aianawa
30th May 2016, 21:25
Thank-you, simply thank-you, as I feel you will do a great job putting the info here and I am hugely interested in Fomenko's work and unable to download it myself ATM.

bsbray
31st May 2016, 06:52
So this is a chart illustrating Fomenko's method of statistical analysis, which he also explains in greater detail in the books:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/07/Fomenko_-_Roman_Empire_parallelism.jpg


If you turn this graph sideways, and just look at the graph above the middle line, you see something like this:

http://s33.postimg.org/jp6go1ccf/Fomenko_Roman_Empire_parallelism2.jpg


This is a representation of the number of years that a succession of rulers, in chronological order, are said to have ruled according the oldest primary source materials. The other side of the graph is the same statistical analysis applied to a (supposedly) totally different list of rulers from another time and place. What this shows is that it's almost statistically impossible for these texts to mirror each other so closely by chance, so it implies that both texts were derived from a common source and describe the same subject. This type of analysis was done to a good number of times and places, including modern times. Fomenko says that pretty much everything after 1600 which is said to be an original source document, is verified as an independent source document by the exact same statistical analysis. But before 1600, and especially before 1100/1000 AD, so many old primary source documents were duplicated and pasted over legitimate history with changed names and places that it amounts to forgery and misconstruing of most of our history, committed by the Catholic Church until around 1600 AD.

The graph above is comparing lists of rulers from ancient Constantinople (eastern Roman Empire) to Jewish kings. They mirror each other to a degree of exactness that is beyond what random chance should produce, and this is recurrent for many periods of history. These two lists of rulers that are supposed to be completely unrelated to each other seem to actually have been derived from a common source document.

This also happens to be the case with rulers of the ancient Roman Empire and the Holy Roman Empire of the medieval period. Some interesting supporting evidence here, outside of the text analyses, includes depictions of knights in medieval armor on the walls of ancient Pompeii (buried after a volcano eruption until excavated by archaeologists), the peculiar habit of medieval artists to depict "ancient" events with the fashion and crafts of their own time without explanation (we are told that the artists were not ignorant but intentionally putting ancient scenes in medieval clothing as an unspoken artistic "style"), and the habit of the Catholic Church of forging ancient documents.

If the history of ancient Rome were moved forward in time and was superimposed over the "Dark" and "Middle Ages," not only would the lists of rulers have matching data, but it would also imply that before the resurgence of the Catholic Church in the medieval period, Europe was still mostly "pagan." These indigenous religions were probably inherited from the same original "Indo Europeans" that all of the Indo-European languages all descend from, from Ireland to India. There were similar mythological pantheons from Ireland to India too. Conventional chronology struggles with relating the development of all of the Indo-European languages in any meaningful way. For example, the oldest IE language is supposedly Sanskrit from at least 1500 BC, but Sanskrit has great similarity in word roots and grammar to Latin from 0 CE, much moreso than English does to German today even though modern English and German are both from the same time period and not 1500 years apart. Some basic noun declensions between Latin and Sanskrit are identical, and noun declensions aren't something that all languages have to begin with.

If Europe was predominantly still practicing indigenous religions in the period now called the "Dark Ages" (~400 AD to ~900 AD), mirroring the pre-Christian Roman Empire (also practicing the same kinds of indigenous pagan religions), this implies that Christianity and the Church were not in power in Europe for nearly as long as they claim to have been. We know that the winners write the history, so we might never know exactly how and when the Church came to wield so much power over Europe in the medieval period. Petrarch is credited with first coming up with the idea of the "Dark Ages" in 1450 AD, during the Renaissance that also matches the development of ancient knowledge in Greece and Rome and which we are told was inspired by those earlier discoveries and fueled by them.

Frances
31st May 2016, 09:00
I am enjoying the greater understanding & the summary of Fomenko's research.
Thank you bsbray.
Frances.

Jengelen
31st May 2016, 11:28
So this is a chart illustrating Fomenko's method of statistical analysis, which he also explains in greater detail in the books:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/07/Fomenko_-_Roman_Empire_parallelism.jpg


If you turn this graph sideways, and just look at the graph above the middle line, you see something like this:

http://s33.postimg.org/jp6go1ccf/Fomenko_Roman_Empire_parallelism2.jpg


This is a representation of the number of years that a succession of rulers, in chronological order, are said to have ruled according the oldest primary source materials. The other side of the graph is the same statistical analysis applied to a (supposedly) totally different list of rulers from another time and place. What this shows is that it's almost statistically impossible for these texts to mirror each other so closely by chance, so it implies that both texts were derived from a common source and describe the same subject. This type of analysis was done to a good number of times and places, including modern times. Fomenko says that pretty much everything after 1600 which is said to be an original source document, is verified as an independent source document by the exact same statistical analysis. But before 1600, and especially before 1100/1000 AD, so many old primary source documents were duplicated and pasted over legitimate history with changed names and places that it amounts to forgery and misconstruing of most of our history, committed by the Catholic Church until around 1600 AD.

The graph above is comparing lists of rulers from ancient Constantinople (eastern Roman Empire) to Jewish kings. They mirror each other to a degree of exactness that is beyond what random chance should produce, and this is recurrent for many periods of history. These two lists of rulers that are supposed to be completely unrelated to each other seem to actually have been derived from a common source document.

This also happens to be the case with rulers of the ancient Roman Empire and the Holy Roman Empire of the medieval period. Some interesting supporting evidence here, outside of the text analyses, includes depictions of knights in medieval armor on the walls of ancient Pompeii (buried after a volcano eruption until excavated by archaeologists), the peculiar habit of medieval artists to depict "ancient" events with the fashion and crafts of their own time without explanation (we are told that the artists were not ignorant but intentionally putting ancient scenes in medieval clothing as an unspoken artistic "style"), and the habit of the Catholic Church of forging ancient documents.

If the history of ancient Rome were moved forward in time and was superimposed over the "Dark" and "Middle Ages," not only would the lists of rulers have matching data, but it would also imply that before the resurgence of the Catholic Church in the medieval period, Europe was still mostly "pagan." These indigenous religions were probably inherited from the same original "Indo Europeans" that all of the Indo-European languages all descend from, from Ireland to India. There were similar mythological pantheons from Ireland to India too. Conventional chronology struggles with relating the development of all of the Indo-European languages in any meaningful way. For example, the oldest IE language is supposedly Sanskrit from at least 1500 BC, but Sanskrit has great similarity in word roots and grammar to Latin from 0 CE, much moreso than English does to German today even though modern English and German are both from the same time period and not 1500 years apart. Some basic noun declensions between Latin and Sanskrit are identical, and noun declensions aren't something that all languages have to begin with.

If Europe was predominantly still practicing indigenous religions in the period now called the "Dark Ages" (~400 AD to ~900 AD), mirroring the pre-Christian Roman Empire (also practicing the same kinds of indigenous pagan religions), this implies that Christianity and the Church were not in power in Europe for nearly as long as they claim to have been. We know that the winners write the history, so we might never know exactly how and when the Church came to wield so much power over Europe in the medieval period. Petrarch is credited with first coming up with the idea of the "Dark Ages" in 1450 AD, during the Renaissance that also matches the development of ancient knowledge in Greece and Rome and which we are told was inspired by those earlier discoveries and fueled by them.

There is a lot to concur with this twisting of time frames in history. The date we live by for example is a con. They lied and cheated to again better control the masses. That was their true objective, to subjugate the people into a nice controllable mass of minions. As history again shows us they did the papal appointment thing which leads us to bloodline real royal lineages being diluted by influxes of mudblood from the papal appointees which were now kings and dukes, earls and what not all making wives of the legit matriarchs of the bloodline so they could make their mudblood status legit by birthing children that were legit! Then these children went out polluted in the soul by these demon mudbloods and all their bad sociopath and psychopathic tendencies reproduced with this of course.

Then of course we can't forget the stories can we! The tales of damsels in distress in the tower! Sleeping Beauty, Rapunzel, The Princess and the Pea, Snow White, Cinderella, these are all tales of matriarchs of the royal lines being abducted by the papal appointees and drugged, imprisoned, raped and used to steal the throne and then they lied about how long they had been there, hid the history of the ring lands and how the old system had the ring lands mapped out so one ring at the top or tip, ruled them all! This was the top ring! Hell. Then the next ring land was Helvatsia, then the next Helena, then the next so on and so on each usually with a "Hel" for the beginning and all bloodline to the first royal family at the tip or top that was the one that ruled them all just like Lord Of The Rings! and this is where it comes from. Tolkien was turning on to this history and discovered that the royals running things were infiltrators and not even royal!

They stole the throne and should be as violently removed from this position as they were when they took it in my opinion. I also predict we'll see this in our lifetime. They are falling now as we type and speak about this and they know this and it scares them! It should. Germans are running everything from the Lichensteins out and its in England where it doesn't belong and never belonged! But that is fortunately seeming to take care of itself. There are those aware of this in power now and things are being done. The Lichensteins have some explaining to do with their apparent take over of the world which is what it appears they have been secretly doing with the help of other royals in the Dutch and Spanish circles. This goes clear back to Hitler and before though and you'd have to watch several shows to catch up on that for where we are.

Rumor has it that the Germans through this family run the show not the ones we see on the TV all the time.The real power hides their faces leaving others to be blamed for their doings.

Aianawa
31st May 2016, 12:34
Mudblood denoting DNA and/or consciousness?.

Jengelen
31st May 2016, 12:52
Mudblood denoting DNA and/or consciousness?.

Yes sorry. Like mongrel vs pure blood. The mongrel being the infiltrator placed there by the pope and then these appointees of mixed races and blood lines mingled with the royals.

Aianawa
31st May 2016, 12:58
Consciousness then ? And DNA probably playing a part also ?.

bsbray
31st May 2016, 17:07
I don't know what advantages being of "pure blood" is supposed to give, but just about any line of rulers I've ever heard of has always experienced corruption and incompetence at one point or another. I tend to think that bloodlines make little difference at this point (everyone is more or less related today, it's just a question of how far back you have to go), but maybe were originally distinguishing lines of rulers who were not totally human, or not human at all. A lot of ancient texts indicate as much, even if they are misattributed to the wrong times and places.

I don't think a lot of people are aware of this, but before the supposed era of Charlemagne (~800), when modern France and Germany were still divided into little independent regions, these people elected their chiefs/kings. They had some form of representative government, even if it was feudal and only represented the nobles or aristocracy. Absolute monarchy was an idea that only developed much later with figures like Louis XIV (1638 -- 1715). The beginnings of the union that later became France, before 800 AD in the conventional chronology, appears to have occurred largely due to diplomatic cooperation between separate tribal regions who voted for their leaders. The church was responsible for the later idea that "God" (ie the church itself) picked our rulers and there's nothing we can say or do to override "God," but things seem to have been somewhat more democratized before that.

Jengelen
31st May 2016, 17:50
I think it has to do with the long heads quite frankly and lineage to them. A book, which I have in my collection, the 1931-32 Illinois State Blue Book accounts for the spending documenting the digs funded by the University up and down the Mississippi and even into Wisconsin. The articles with pictures are quite detailed and written by the archaeologists that did the digs for the colleges involved. They make note that the 'original' occupant of the land known as North America was a long head species. This as opposed to the later 'round heads' found higher up in mound dig sites. Further these long heads exhibit features not seen in anatomy in humans and have greater cranial capacity among other things. The long heads, (their words) are always found deeper, and were obviously below ground level even when the mound was first built. They are buried as royals always, in typical fashion with other known royal burials.

Based on past experience I no longer loan the book. The last author and presenter that I loaned it to to copy gave it back with a picture missing! So I don't loan it now but it is quite revealing that a royal blood line of long heads once existed here in north America and in South America. It appears they were in Egypt, and in Russia or what is today that area and the Caucasus and that further later studies revealed DNA unlike human, and they had additional cranial nerves to that of a human, meaning it had 13 not 12 for the total number in the head.

Most of this was known about in the 20s I found out by these books. This was a subspecies of something else not exactly a man. Brian Forester finds these in Paracus and they too are all seeming to be royal burials. I think it is probably why so many cultures did head binding and why the ones with these heads were usually the royal lines from Bavaria to Africa to China. That was the advantage, being able to say you had the right to rule because you related by blood to these ones. Supposedly where haplogroup x originated from if the tales are correct.

bsbray
31st May 2016, 18:22
Thanks for the reference, Jengelen.

Is this your book?: http://www.idaillinois.org/cdm/compoundobject/collection/bb/id/19158

If you can point me towards the relevant sections of the book, I'll download the jpeg files for those pages and put them into a pdf.

Jengelen
31st May 2016, 18:30
Thanks for the reference, Jengelen.

Is this your book?: http://www.idaillinois.org/cdm/compoundobject/collection/bb/id/19158

If you can point me towards the relevant sections of the book, I'll download the jpeg files for those pages and put them into a pdf.

Yes. The section 'Rediscovering Illinois' is like nothing you would ever imagine being in such a book and I highly recommend the read. I doubt it will have all the pictures. The actual book had a centerfold in it of one of the long head digs and the head was profound on it. They are certainly not as honest about these long heads today as they were in these articles.. Later years have more also if you look. They are in obscure places well hidden but the documents are quite revealing and not just for Illinois. MO, TN, all have similar docs.