spamandham

He's too embarrased to address the chart anymore after his asinine claim I hadn't adressed his questions regarding it, while quoting me from the very post in which I directly answered his question!

The boy is whipped and he knows it, so he's now ignoring this point. But I'm not. :devil1:

Larsguy47

Yes, I understand what you're saying, and that's a given. The charts are meant as just a guidepost.

However in the case of this particular chart, it is presumed that all those varying parameters are considered and for the lay person expressed in terms of "RELATIVE PROBABILITY" percentages.

That is, even if every sample tested, has an error margin of +/- 50 years individually, it is presumed that if you have multiple testing of the same sample that shows varying dates, that the weighted average is closer to the "true date."

So what the chart shows is where the weighted averages point to. It shows you where the relative highest averages are which the chart is interpreting as "relative probability". Not absolute dating, but where it falls in terms of relative probability.

As you can see from the chart, though, they have high averages that "peak" out over just a few years, suggesting that the dates with the highest averages are closer to the "true date". Also of note, in this particular case, you have a "plateau" of perhaps 7 years, I'm estimating between 874-867BCE, which the chart would indicate have the highest "relative probability."

In other words, even if you had RC14 built in error margins of +/- 200 years. That would certainly be applicable if you had one small sample. That's because you don't know where it falls in relation to the true date. But if you can test the same sample, over, and over, and over, and over, and compare the weighted average, the presumption is that a greater number of the results would establish a central range or plateau, which is presumed to be closer/closest to the "true date."

What you're telling me then, is to treat that averaged date plateau, between 874-867 BCE the same as any other single reference with a presumed +/- 50-year error margin. Further that that is what the chart is saying. But it is not. A single sample is not treated the same as an weighted average reference.

That is, every single reference basically is presumed to extend 50 years in either direction. But the multiple testing shows you where the center of the range is.

Or, you can presume that for any given large sample you will get variations up to 100 years. But if you test this multiple times, the presumption is that the calculations near the center of the range will be greater than those near the edge of the range, and thus the weighted average will tend to point to the true date. Thus this chart is used to show you the "relative probaiblity" of individual dates for this one sample in degrees of 0.0 to 1.0. Those dates that reach 95% and greater, of course, are considered closer to the "true date."

This type of testing thus is thought to yield more accurate dating with results "much less than 10 years." That won't always be the case, of course, depending on the sample, but as you can see in this case, the plateau reached by dates at what looks like 95% or more is less than 10 years.

Further, that this represents dating close to the "true date" is confirmed because we know what the true date is based upon astro-Biblical-chronology, which is 871BCE. And as you can see 871BCE is within that less than 10-year high plateau range. Further, it is also the center date of the range provided by the researches of 918-823BCE which establishes mid-range date to 870.5 BCE, which falls in 871BCE, of course. So what is suggested is confirmed.

In the chart below, I have pointers to "guesstimate" where 865BCE and 875BCE would fall, halfway between the indicated markers for 860, 870 and 880 BCE. This is indicated by a red square at 865-875 BCE, a 10-year interval. I have also outlined the "plateau" area that is 98-100% based on the "relative probability" scale. The plateau of highest probability is less than ten years when you compare the boxes.

Again, the center of the 95.4% probability range of 918-823 BCE is 870.5 BCE. The "true date" based upon Biblical and corrected astrochronology is 871BCE for year 39 of Solomon/year 5 of Rehoboam, the year of Shishak's invasion. Year 5 of Rehoboam is based upon the redated eclipse of 709BCE in the Assyrian eponym list, reducing 925 BCE by 54 years down to 871BCE. The 39th of Solomon is determined based upon the Exodus dated to 1386BCE and year 4 of Solomon 480 years later to 906BCE. 871BCE falls in his 39th year of Solomon. The Bible confirms Solomon was still ruling at the time of the attack.




Thanks for the references!!!

P.S. the chart is very simple. You compare the shaded area to the "relative probability" scale. Then you compare that with your historical dating to see how close your match is. Not that involved.



LG47

Larsguy47

THANKS FOR THIS, 3DJAY!!! Much appreciated.



I still have a few suspicions but this has just come up:

It comes from an Amarna Letter, EA 11. In Amarna letter (EA11) from the king of Babylon, Burnaburiyas to Amenhotep 4, the Babylonian king comments on the death of one of Amenhotep 3rd wives of plague.

" 9-15 And you yoursef sent Haamassi, your messenger and Mihuni, the interpreter, saying, "...the wife of] my father was mourned [...] that woman [...] she died in a plague."

Therefore, just because this young son was the "eldest" of Amenhotep III, doesn't mean he was the firstborn. The Kings of Egypt were like everybody else! We shouldn't think of them as being any different than us in America or anywhere just because they lived in ancient Egypt. So Amenhotep III probably did like most Americans do which is marry their own sister and make her his wife!

So it's possible the firstborn of pharoah that died was one of his daughters whom he had made his wife, this one dying in a plague per Akhenaten.

Works for me!

Thanks for the info and photos! You're the greatest!!

LG47

Febble

I know nothing about ancient history, Lars, but I know a fair bit about statistics, and this is gobbledygook.

Please tell me what you think:

1. Each data point represents
2. What the Y axis represents
3. What an "error margin" is

Actually, any one of the three will do for starters. I think you have them all wrong.

-Jay-

And keep your answers to the point, Lars. These are very direct questions. You don't have a stellar history of answering those. (There's a few back in post #82 of this thread if you want some practice...)

Febble - excellent use of the word "gobbledygook".

regards,

NinJay

Larsguy47

Hi, same old story.

Here's a CHART.

There are BCE dates at the bottom.

On the left is a vertical line graduated from 0.0 to 1.0. Above each date is an area of shading of different heights. The height of the shading corresponds to that level on the 0.0-1.0 bar. The horizontal bar is labeled "Relative Probability".

This is just a chart comparing "relative probability" with BCE dates. Each is clearly labeled.

What this shows is that the highest average per year.

The "error margin" is thus not relevant because of the averaging. An error margin of say plus/minus 50 years is presumed for each individual date because it is not known where it might fall in that 100-year range of flexibility. But when a single sample is tested multiple times the highest average is presumed to be closest to the "true date". Thus in a chart like this, the "error margin" is the relative percentage.

For instance, 925 BCE had enough hits to rise to about 5%. That means if you choose that date for say Shishak's invasion, you have a 95% error margin of being correct.

Constastly, if you choose any date between 874-867 BCE, you have 99% chance of being correct, +/- 7 years.

But the middle of this range is still presumed to be closer to the "true date" than the fringes. The middle of this range is 870.5 BCE, which is 99-100% "relative probability", theoretically.

Which is, as noted, right on the button since the true date is 871BCE.

Amazing!

LG

3DJay

May I repeat:

Exodus 11:4 So Moses said, "This is what the LORD says: 'About midnight I will go throughout Egypt. 5 Every firstborn son in Egypt will die, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sits on the throne, to the firstborn son of the slave girl, who is at her hand mill, and all the firstborn of the cattle as well. 6 There will be loud wailing throughout Egypt—worse than there has ever been or ever will be again. 7 But among the Israelites not a dog will bark at any man or animal.' Then you will know that the LORD makes a distinction between Egypt and Israel. 8 All these officials of yours will come to me, bowing down before me and saying, 'Go, you and all the people who follow you!' After that I will leave." Then Moses, hot with anger, left Pharaoh.


You know...to argue the Bible's inerrancy, it might be handy to actually know what is in the Bible.

There's no way the Shishak invasion happend during a Solomon co-rule. And, the Bible seems to clearly state, to me anyway, that the plague affected the Pharaoh's firstborn son.


Peace

Febble

You have not answered my questions.

1. You have not told me what you think each data point represents. You have merely told me how to read off its values on the two axes. You have not told me what "it" is.
   
2. You have not told me what you think the Y axis represents. You have merely told me what the label says.
   
3. You have not told me what you think an "error margin" is. You keep using the term. I want to know what you understand by it.

spin

Yup. When you don't seem to know anything about the chart that you are touting and you don't listen to people's complaints on the issue, preferring to repeat yourself, you shouldn't be surprised that you find it the same old story.

Same chart, same bad interpretation.

Hey, shit. You noticed that!

Hey shit, you noticed that too!

Too bad you refuse to notice the probability indications at the top right of the chart. That's most of the story you leave out.


spin

Larsguy47

Apparently. It likely was his firstborn daughter whom he apparently married.

No. The account is set up that way, but the passage about Shishak is separate. The Bible does that often, deliberately complicating the history, especially the co-rulerships. But there are clues to the specifics. The CONTEXT is the clue.

1) No mention of Jeroboam.
2) No reason for Shishak to attack the land of his friend since they were allies.
3) The Bible says he attacked the "fortified cities of Judah" yet Shishak's invasion involved primarily northern kingdom cities. This is only possible if these cities were still under Judean control.
4) Notice that when Rehoboam rebelled, presumably setting up some form of idolatry in these cities, he is said to have done so and "all of Israel" -- he would not have had influence over "all of Israel" after the split.
5) After the repentenance we find Rehoboam repenting with the "princes of Israel" and he is "the king." Again, no mention of Jeroboam.

Here's the account

1 And it came about that, as soon as the kingship of Re·ho·bo´am was firmly established...

This introduces a new historical reference. The kingship was his co-rulership that began as soon as the coat was torn and he was told he would become king. So this is when he became strong in his kingship as co-ruler. Solomon was still alive.


...and as soon as he was strong, he left the law of Jehovah, and also all Israel with him.

Please note, he is still king over all of Israel at this time. When he was appointed, Solomon was still alive and Jeroboam fled to Egypt.

2 And it came about in the fifth year of King Re·ho·bo´am ....

Both Jeroboam and Rehoboam begin their parallel kingships from the time of their divine appointment, not when they became sole rulers. Solomon was still alive in the 5th year of Rehoboam.


that Shi´shak the king of Egypt came up against Jerusalem, (for they had behaved unfaithfully toward Jehovah,) 3 with twelve hundred chariots and with sixty thousand horsemen; and there was no number to the people that came with him out of Egypt—Lib´y·ans, Suk´ki·im and E·thi·o´pi·ans. 4 And he got to capture the fortified cities that belonged to Judah and finally came as far as Jerusalem.

Again note that the cities attacked by Shishak were considered the fortified cities of Judah. That's because "all of Israel" was still under Judah.


5 Now as for She·mai´ah the prophet, he came to Re·ho·bo´am and the princes of Judah who had gathered themselves at Jerusalem because of Shi´shak, and he proceeded to say to them: “This is what Jehovah has said, ‘YOU, for your part, have left me, and I, too, for my part, have left YOU to the hand of Shi´shak.’” 6 At that the princes of Israel and the king humbled themselves and said: “Jehovah is righteous.” 7 And when Jehovah saw that they had humbled themselves, the word of Jehovah came to She·mai´ah, saying: “They have humbled themselves. I shall not bring them to ruin, and in a little while I shall certainly give them an escape, and my rage will not pour forth upon Jerusalem by the hand of Shi´shak. 8 But they will become servants of his, that they may know the difference between my service and the service of the kingdoms of the lands.”

The Bible is not a simple history. It often duplicates some historical references in two accounts that then vary from each other. By doing this, it hides precise chronology such as in this case. The result is often an implied contradiction, but it's not. It's just Biblical style. What is important to note, based upon other similar distractions to the timeline is that this was deliberate. So it's okay you presumed this invasion took place after Solomon died or after some events that took place after this reference. But in this way, it makes it very confusing and complicated for easy revision or easy contradiction with other histories.

But please note. When the Assyrian eclipse dated to 709BCE is used to date the Battle of Karkar in 799BCE rather than in 853BCE, then Shishak's invasion and year 5 of Rehoboam drops down in time 54 years from 925BCE to 871BCE. We get Solomon's rule from the dating of the Exodus in 1386BCE. That establishes his 4th year in 906BCE and his 40-year rule from 910-870BCE. Thus 871BCE is his 39th year. That's consistent with Rehoboam still being over the princes of Israel at the time and misleading "all of Israel" in this folly.

No. This occurs afterward. This account with Shishak is deliberately placed out of order.


No. Again, it appears that way but it is purposely done this way to complicate the history.

I know that's who it reads if you presume the accounts are in chronological order, but they are not in this case.


No. What you have to accept is that the divine appointment is being used as the "kingship" date for both Rehoboam and Jeroboam and the count is from that time. What you have to accept is that co-rulerships were a positive and common thing. Solomon was old and ready to retire. The new king had to start getting ready to take over. He made a bad mistake right off but that's how it's done.

But I understand how you feel. You want it to be simple and easy. But please dampen that presumption by looking at other exceptional ways the Bible is written. It has two accounts of everything. In between those references are the details the Jews wish to hide. The gospels do the very same thing. It hides details between the accounts so that you have to compare closely to get the chronology correct. The Bible thus deliberately misleads the casual reader in some instances and almost makes it impossible to get an easy chronology from the Bible. Edwin R. Thiele did manage to align co-rulerships during the divided kingdom period, reducing that period by 49 years. Jehovah's witness scholars didn't want to follow that for some reason, maybe because they were linking Adam's creation with some future event for when the Christ would come, but they simply end-to-ended the Judean kings. As a result their timeline for this period is about 49 years longer! So it's quite complex with some people not figuring out the co-rulerships or having an aversion to it.

Now, again, as far as the Bible contradicting itself. It doesn't. The way to handle this is simply to establish the chronology first. Establish 871BCE as year 5 of Rehoboam and year 871BCE as year 39 of Solomon. Then, once you establish this precise dating, you go to the Bible to see if there is a contradiction. But there won't be because it is clear that Jeroboam is not mentioned and Rehoboam is still king over the princes of Israel. Then you have harmony.

This is one way that God weeds out the non-believers or those not intent on finding the Bible true. There are apparent contradictions that turn people off who don't bother figuring out how to resolve those contradictions. As a result, those who stay and figure it out, trusting the Bible is true gain faith. Those turned off have the impression the Bible is a self-contradictory book and thus reject it, not knowing they are excluding themselves from eternal life.

Thanks for reviewing this material with me. Appreciated.

Peace, LG47