mP: So if Solomon was great, where are the ruins ? How come they cant be found ?
mP, not all cities have a complete history. Cities like Megiddo does, and it shows the massive buildings and signs of "full statehood" that represents a wealthy time and administration in Israel. Massive buildings projects in remote cities means a very large and wealthy administration. So the confirmation of Solomon's great building works are found at Megiddo, Gezer and Hazor. But Jerusalem was a very ancient city. So it has a very ancient foundation. So when Jerusalem was built, it was built on the ancient foundation already there. When it was destroyed, it was destroyed down to that original foundation level again and then rebuilt from there. So historically, you don't find evidence of that level. Some cities are destroyed, then covered over and the next level built on top of that, so that a mound or "tel" is built up. Thus you can dig down through the various levels and the entire and complete history of that town is revealed. But not all cities are built on top of the previous level. If you have a city with an ancient foundation, sometimes each city destroyed is destroyed back down to that level, so you don't have a continuous history for that city. So whereas there is not lots of evidence left at Jerusalem for all its history, the history at Megiddo, which tells the whole story, shows us how great Solomon was.
Now when Shishak came through, he also destroyed a city called Rehov. There was found at that destructive level a sample of short-lived grains that is used to date the year of that destruction. C14 has a range of dates but with new methods the mid-point date is the obvious date within "less than 10 years." City IV of Rehov is matched to the so-called "Solomonic level" at Megiddo, that is, the level where you have the massive buildings and palaces. The C14 points to c. 871 BCE. When that is applied to the 39th of Solomon (co-rule year 5 of 6 for Rehoboam) then year 4 falls in 906 BCE, the year the temple was completed. That points to 1386 BCE for the year of the Exodus. That means Jericho falls 40 years later in 1346 BCE. That is within the range archaeology from Jericho shows that city fell, that is, between 1350-1325 BCE!!! So there is lots of archaeological reasons to challenge the current timeline! But archaeologists know tha tmeans changing the NB timeline and uncovering the revisions by the Persians and they are too lazy or too dishonest to do so, so they make excuses. Israel Finkelstein has decided to claim David and Solomon didn't exist, and therefore, Christ must be a fraud. He's anti-christian and anti-Bible. But he has always had the choice to simply down-date David and Solomon to where the archaeology is pointing, which is a half century later! But he doesn't do it.
How does the VAT4956 affect all this. SIMPLE. The VAT4956 shows 511 BCE was the original year 37 of Neb2. That means a 57-year reduction in that entire period. The Assyrian Period is dated by a single eclipse, now dated to 763 BCE. When we look for another match close to 57 years later, we find a better match in 709 BCE. Using that eclipse, the date for Shishak's invasion drops from 925 BCE to 871 BCE, the precise year the C14 dates his invasion! That in turn dates the Exodus to 1386 BCE. Per 1947 as the 70th jubilee, 1386 BCE is the Biblical date for the Exodus!
Per the Bible, the NB Period is 26 years too short and the Persian Period is some 82 years too long, but these 82 years are easily removed! Likewise the Grecian Period has to be reduced. But as I've pointed out, the removal of the extra years corrects some impossible history. Case in point, Plato being consulted in year 2 of the Peloponnesian War, now dated to 430 BC. But Plato was not born until 428 BCE. When the correct year is estabalished, which is 403 BCE, Plato is 25. See what removing those extra years does? But also, note how much history is convoluted when you move events around and add years to the timeline! It's ALL there. You just have to look. In the end, the Bible is vindicated!!!
The more you learn, the better it is for the Bible. People who call me "crazy" are people who simply don't want you to learn anything more about what is actually out there that supports the Bible. It's the same as witnesses claiming I'm an "apostate" and refusing to even listen to what is said, instead of defending their position, which the Bible requires. If they have the truth, they should be able to defend their position. They avoid that by labeling people as apostates and thus they remain in their ignorance.