Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerry Pitts
"Cuneiform scholars have identified the date on this tablet as equivalent to September, 11, 3 BC."
The above is very intersting. First it stipulates that the identification was made by "Cuneiform scholars", not necessarilly experts in archaeology or in the pseudoscience of 'carbon dating'. Irony exists within the given date, as a possible connection between that date and the date of 9/11/01. People have been known to be swayed by personal agendas of others without having the benefit of conclusive proof of anything.
Just because these people are 'speculating' on an "equivalent" date, does not necessarilly add any degree of importance to that date of 3 BC or of any correlation to that date and 9/11/01.
Just my personal opinion.
Jerry
|
A welcome note of caution. However I had confirmed in my own mind the date of 9/11/03 BCE years ago. And that from hints given by the Order (also attached).
Regards,
David Merrill.
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/key.jpg
P.S. I note a problem calculating:
Quote:
|
The world was transfixed by the year 2000--worried about the'Y2K' bug in computers, millennial madness in cult groups, political union in Europe, and a proposal to make Mary "co-redemptrix" in the Catholic Church. While Rome flirted with blasphemy, few realized that the true 2000th lunar anniversary of the birth of Jesus was August 22, 1998, or on September 11, 1998 by the solar calendar dating we now use.
|
This happens a lot crossing the "0" mark between BC and AD. It was September 11, 1997, not 1998.
http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/sui...elCalendar.jpg