Larsguy47

I saw that and this chart is not talking about "density". It simply compares two things:

"RELATIVE PROBABILITY" VS "BCE DATE"

The "Relative Probability" scale is expressed in terms of 0.0 to 1.0. This scale is meant to compare the "relative probability" of certain dates against each other. Such as 925 BCE versus 871BCE. This helps archaeologists and chronologists coordinate or check their dating for this level against their own dating based upon this methodology.

However in this case, since this is short-lived cereal and it is associated with the destructive level, it is presumed that the age of the cereal is close to the "true date" for this event. Of course, an "error margin" is presumed here but it is thought to be "much less than 10 years."

When we test this agaist the historical dating for this event based upon the Bible's chronology coordinated with three astronomical text references (i.e. VAT4956 for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar to 511BCE, KTU 1.78 for year 12 of Akhenaten in 1375BCE, and Assyrian eponym eclipse in 709BCE), that coordinated astro-Biblical dating shows this event c. 872-871BCE, both dates falling near the very center of the highest range of dates of .95-1.0. 0.95-1.0 are converted to percentages of 95-100%.

Therefore, it works. That is, the highest "relative probability" dates are closest to the "true date", which is 872-871BCE based upon Biblical dating.

LG47

Larsguy47

NO! You are misquoting both me and the chart. "probability" is not "relative probability." If that is what everybody is trying to tell me, then I got it. Thanks. RELATIVE. RELATIVE is a flexible and "relative" term.




Exactly. I agree! Wow!


You are misquoting. You're supposed to be comparing RELATIVE probability. So if you inserted the correct words into your sentence, you'd get:

This does not mean there is a 100% RELATIVE PROBABILITY the actual date is 870 and a 50% RELATIVE PROBABILITY it's 907. Surely you have to agree that makes no sense.

You'd have to explain if this statement is true if you insert RELATIVE.

The chart speaks for itself.

I might do that! But in the meantime all this chart shows is the results of that sample and the highest averaged dates. Because the higher average is believed to be closer/closest to the "true date" it is expressed by the authors in terms of "relative probability," that is, relative to the highest average vs lowest average.

There's no need. What choice does he have. If I asked him what was the dates corresponding to the highest position on Y axis he'd have to say the dates c. 874-867 BCE. And that would be it.

Yes but RELATIVE "1" is highest to relative 0.0. Since 1 is the higest possible number, you can make it equivalent in precentages to 100%, thus 0.0-1.0 is the same as 0-100%. If he recognizes 1.0 as the higest absolute then he'll understand that would be equivalent to 100%.


LG47

Larsguy47

[QUOTE=3DJay;4356945]
1 Kings 12:20 When all the Israelites heard that Jeroboam had returned, they sent and called him to the assembly and made him king over all Israel. Only the tribe of Judah remained loyal to the house of David."

This is the de facto kingship time, but would not affect the "regnal" dating if Jeroboam began counting his kingship from the time of his divine appointment, which apparently he does, since it matches the rule as counted by Rehoboam. So if you absolutely wish, as in the case with Rehoboam, where he becomes king as "co-ruler" first for 6 years and then as sole ruler after Solomon dies, I suppose you could technically claim Jeroboam was co-ruler in absence, and became sole ruler over his 10 tribes the same time Rehoboam became sole ruler. But I wouldn't call his first six years in absence a strict "co-rulership" unless forced to. Maybe I'll label it "legal rulership" year or "regnal year."

I know it's hard to understand but that's how the Bible protects it's chronology by making it complex. But if you don't see it that way, then I understand if you disagree. "Interpretation belongs to God." But there are other examples of this that demonstrate it is deliberate. Where a statement is made to suggest a succession after the death of a king when other comparative texts demonstrate a co-rulership.


.

Wow! Thanks! I didn't. So it is firstborn son! THANKS! I hadn't read that. I appreciate the refinement! But that has nothing to do with the implied co-rulership.

ANSWER THIS: If there was war between Judah and Israel from the time Solomon died, then how is it that Rehoboam influces "all Israel" in this disobedience of his such that Shishak ends up punishing the lands of the "princes of Israel" who are then repentant with Rehoboam? And where is Jeroboam during this? We know the princes of Israel were attacked because they are repenting with Rehoboam. Shishak's inscription shows his campaign was against the northen kingdom cities as well as Judah. So if the princes of Israel were not following Rehoboam any more, how are you explaining that what Rehoboam decided to do, sometime well into his reign, his 5th year no less and also the 5th year of Jeroboam, that he manages to influce the princes of Israel in this folly as well?

By the way, I had to drop the "daughter" theory any way. When re-reading carefully it seems as though the King of Babylon is mourning a princess of Babylon who had become the wife of the pharoah who had recently died. So it was a false call. Now that I know specifically it says "firstborn son" (thanks to you!), we're back to whether Amenhotep III's eldest son was was still alive or not. I'm exploring two possibilities though:

1. Whether Akhenaten was actually his eldest son.
2. Whether this "Merymose" who was viceroy over Kush and sometimes called the "son" of Amenhotep III was his eldest son. As close as I could tell, the numbers don't work out but that's not the first time. Even so it seems he is stated to have died around 1350BCE, which is around the time Amenhotep III dies per Sothic dating. But that may be a guesstimate.

What are your comments on MERYMOSE being the true son of Amenhotep III?

Thanks!

LG47

Larsguy47

OH! I think I finally think I know what you guys are trying to tell me!!!

You're saying that since the 1.0 is assigned to the highest average that this is just comparing the highest average like in a test where you produce a grading "curve". But who is at the top may not have really gotten 100%, they just assign 100% to the highest score achieved so that improves the odds.

IS THAT IT? I think so!!!

If so, then there has just been a miscommunication!!!

What you say is TRUE! The 100% dates do not represent 100% absolute dating for those dates. Otherwise, you have several dates that are 100% absolute. That would not be a practical application! So if that's what you're trying to say, then I see why and I thank you for being so patient.

But what makes this different is presumption that the highest averages point closer to the "true date" with multiple analyses. If that's the case then the highest averages should be considered to have a higher probability "RELATIVE" to the higest averages. Thus the chart shows, in that case, where the highest "relative probability" is presumed based upon those averages.

But because of that, indeed the chart implies the highest averages would be the highest probability dates. Since my dating of that event is 872-871BCE which falls in the highest range of "relative probability" then it suggest the weighted average method is quite accurate and is effective for pinpointing dates to within 7 years per this case, unless you also factor the middle of any given range as significant being closer to the "true date". That is, a plateau of dates all above 98% fall in an 8-year range between 874-867BCE. The middle of the range is the same as the middle of the range of 918-823BCE, which is 870.5. That may be a coincidence but it would be basically there give or take a year. Thus it turns out in this case that the very middle of highest averages is indeed closer to the "true date" of 872-871BCE.

But even if you presumed a 10-year accuracy margin, this reference is extremely specific for dating purposes, since, ostensibly, it only gives you about a 10-year range to date Shishak's invasion at the most, between 876 and 866 BCE (i.e. 875.5-866.5).

So the chart is effective in showing us where we should date this event within 10 years. So I don't see what the fuss is about.

What you CANNOT use this chart for is to estalish a range greater than 10 years for any dates that have some hit. like 925BCE is just as likely as 870BCE to be the "true date." Sorry, that's not how it works.

LG47

Sven

Yup, exactly. The most sensible reading of the passage indicates exactly the opposite of what he needs: That there actually isn't any evidence. I pointed this out earier, but got ignored.

And kudos for your patience with explaining the chart! I already gave up on it.

I remember quite well that I had problems to understand the concept of probability density charts when I was first taught about them. But the many posts devoted to the subject really should have been enough to clear up any misconception!

Sven

That's what we've been telling him for pages and pages. Nevertheless, he still claims that we are all wrong and he's right.
*sigh*

Sven

You've got it. Finally. It would have helped greatly if you'd simply have listened the first time. Or the second time. Or the tenth time.

Written in a very confused way, but I cautiously agree.

Only that this "highest probability" is about 1.7%. Which leaves you a 98.3% percent chance that it's wrong. How does this help you exactly?`

And there you go off again, blathering something completely unrelated and unsupported.

I snipped all of the rest since you still show no understand of confidence intervals. Although it was explained almost as often as relative probability.

-Jay-

Ignoring things is the one thing Larsguy47 does very well. Well, that and quote mining.

He's not interested in learning. I don't believe is worldview allows it. He's managed to incorporate some new words into his vocabulary, then they go through the Larsinization filter, and get worked into his delusion.

What I take extreme exception to is his abuse of the math. The class of techniques that underpin that chart is used to make life or death decisions in medical, military, and other applications all the time, and they're used because they work. His arrogant refusal to understand them is an insult to all the people working in those fields.

regards,

NinJay

3DJay

NO text demonstrates a co-rulership. You're reading what isn't stated. And, what you're making up, contradicts what is specifically written. Even the way you read the Bible comes out as gobbledygook.

It has to do with who was the firstborn son, that died during the plague. It doesn't fit with your chronology.

1. Jeroboam was setting up altars to other Gods, during that time...so, technically, "all Israel" was disobeying the laws. The Bible doesn't state much of anything about Jeroboam's first 18 years. So what?

2. Kings doesn't state "all Israel", it states "Judah", just before the invasion.

The Viceroy of Kush


Peace

Larsguy47

It does to me, but of course, you avoided the specific references I asked you to comment on. I see I have to be extremely specific. After the chronology worked out and showed an overlap between Rehoboam and Solomon I rechecked the sciptures and found this at 2 Chronicles 12:1

1 And it came about that, as soon as the kingship of Re·ho·bo´am was firmly established and as soon as he was strong, he left the law of Jehovah, and also all Israel with him.

Would you please comment on this specific verse?

Then when the invasion takes place we find Jeroboam and the princes of ISRAEL repenting with Rehoboam. The account continues:

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

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.”

Based upon the above, all the princes of Judah and Israel were gathered together at Jerusale with Rehoboam and they all "humbled themselves" at the same time. Now the presence of the princes of ISRAEL in this situation shows they were attacked also. Shishak's invasion was focussed on many northern 10-tribe cities.

Also please notice the ABSENCE of any mention at all of king Jeroboam. So where was he? If this was a general rebellion of both Judah and Israel after Jeroboam began to rule, then it is reasonable to believe that he would have repented as well along with the princes of Israel.

Thus a co-rulership is suggested because of the absence of Jeroboam in this scenario. This is specifically focussed on Rehoboam and "all of Israel" which fits a time when he was still king over all 12 tribes. Since we know he could have begun a co-rulership after being appointed as king it could have occurred during this interval from his appointment until the death of Solomon, which had not happened as yet.

This action by Shishak also helped to weaken the power of Rehoboam in the north, making it easier for Jeroboam to take over.

The above shows that Rehoboam was still over the princes of Israel and that they considered him their king, not Jeroboam officially at this time. This must have been before the death of Solomon.

But beyond that, once we establish the chronology showing the invasion occurring in 871BCE via the Assyrian eclipse contrasted to the Exodus dated to 1386BCE there is an overlap between Solomon and Rehoboam of 6 years.

That is, the 709BCE eclipse is 54 years later than 925BCE which downdates the invasion to 871BCE. 1386BCE as the date of the Exodus dates Solomon's rule from 910-870BCE. That means the invasion occurs during his 39th year. The Bible does not contradict this because:

1) We know he was appointed as king before Solomon's death as was Jeroboam.

2) We see him still interacting with the princes of Israel showing he is still king over them.

3) Jeroboam is nowhere mentioned in connection with this invasion.

4) The repentance on the part of the princes of Israel confirms they were attacked, but the Bible says Shishak attacked the "fortified cities of Judah." Shishak's invasion of cities in the north is well established. To harmonize the text with the facts, the northern cities were still considered belonging to Judah because Solomon was still ruling.

Thanks for your comments, though it seems clear we will be agreeing to disagree on this one, right? Which is fine. It's a subtle detail the Bible purposely separates out from the rest of the history for some reason (beyond its general use of complex history).

Well if this was a united effort of disobedience by both Rehoboam and Jeroboam, why isn't he mentioned? And why are the princes of Israel back at Jerusalem repenting with Rehoboam? This was punishment of Rehoboam's actions, specifically. Your insinuation of Jeroboam into this text is not consistent with those directly involved with this invasion and it shows that Rehoboam influenced "all Israel." He would not have had that influence after the kingdoms were split.

So, 2 Chronicles does and is more specific. This underscores what I was saying before. This wasn't just a straightforward history. The Bible gives to versions of its history, two comparative texts that hide details of specific chronology, including and especially the co-rulerships.

Thanks for the info on the Viceroy of Kush.

Peace[/QUOTE]