Larsguy47

Maybe, but if you have a large sample for RC14 dating, then results can be very specific. It should be, right? The chart speaks for itself. It gives 99% "relative probability" for just a 7-year period! It's amazing. And the chart speaks for itself. That is the RESULT of that sampling, plain and simple. If the results are that specific, they should be used to refine the dating and chronology. You know it must be real when archaeologists don't use the strong references and try to water it down. But either way it is a strong indication for a few years! Either my simply finding the middle of a range if a range is apparent or in this case the highest probability. No questions asked, no adjusting for historical opinions or anything. Just direct dating: THIS GRAIN IS THIS OLD based upon RC14 dating; do with it what you wish. I love it. Zero opinion. Zero adjusting for the most part.

I believe some things are great indicators and maybe others are not as good, for instance, dating burned timber used in a building is not nearly as good for dating as grain stores burned at the destructive level of a city.

RC14 dating has nothing to do with archaeology other than relying upon where the sample was obtained. But a good sample turns up great and consistent dating. It's amazing!

Further, I think archaeologists themselves have gotten pretty good with dating things. For instance Kathleen Kenyon dated the fall of Jericho by the Israelites between 1350-1325BCE. That means the Exodus at its earliest would fall in 1390 BCE. Solomon's rule would be dated based upon that between 914-874BCE, very, very close to where the fall of Rehov is dated for City IV. So basically, once Solomon's rule is corrected by the right Assyrian eclipse (709BCE) that dates Shishak's invasion to 871BCE, then RC14 dating and all the archaeology all the way back to the fall of Jericho is right on target. The general dating RIGHT NOW IN PLACE is very good and reaffirmed by RC14 dating.


LG47

Larsguy47

I am. Are YOU? There is more here than just the chosen ranges you know. The chart speaks for itself.



OOOOH, is that how you're reading the chart? No wonder you don't understand what's going on.

Look. You know the 95.4% range of 918-823BCE? If you add 918 + 823 you get 1741. Divide that by 2 and you can determine the very center of this range: 1741/2=870.5, that is 871 BCE. So if you wanted to move to the center of the highest probability range you'd start at 871 BCE and move in either direction with decreasing probability.

Now just to show you how interestingly accurate this is.

If you use the 709BCE eclipse to redate Shishak's invasion instead of 763BCE, that invasion falls 54 years from 925BCE to 871BCE. Or, if you use the KTU 1.78 BCE eclipse to date the 1st of Akhenaten to 1386BCE, or you use 1947 to do so, then Solomon's reign falls between 910-870 BCE. 871BCE is his 39th year, which is consistent with the Bible's timing for this invasion.

Israel Finkelstein though, I just discovered, tries to move this more toward the lower right edge to get a reasonable fall for this city around "mid 9th century". That's because he wants to explain the destruction of this level more reasonably by Hazeal! But because of the FIXED chronology he uses for the Assyrian Period based on the 763BCE eclipse he has no choice, Hazel doesn't appear until around the 14th year of Shalmaneser. Karkar occurs specifically 853BCE and 8 years later in his 14th year falls in 845BCE. So he really needs to push quite a bit past the center of this range in 871BCE.

But the FACTS show this city would have fallen before quite a bit before even when the battle of Karkar took place. But as I said,using 709BCE to redate Shishak's invasion, everything lines up right on the button to 871BCE.

What YOUR PROBLEM is, is taking this chart and moving away from the center of the 95.4% range. I'm using the exact center of that range as a reference.

Interesting that I'm quite sure if I were the one pushing for dating some 35 years past the end of the center of this range you'd be all over me about manipulating the evidence and not accepting reality. Well I must say, it's nice to have the shoe on the other foot for a change!

LG47

jess

neat, yeah.

Get this, your god made me without the ability to believe and made you with it.

I am damned because of God's wishes. You are saved by them.

Neither through any choice or fault of our own.

Again, nice guy there...

Larsguy47

No. You choose first to be an unbeliever, then God pushed you away. For those seeking him, though, he draws near. Thus he trips up the non-belieers after the fact of their choice. Thus God nor Christ judges no one, but each judges themselves.

LG47

spin

Yes, it does. Why don't you read it?

Oh, chr*st, stop fiddling with numbers to hide the fact you don't know anything about the topic.

You know the 54.8% range of 885-845BCE? If you add 885 + 845 you get 1730. Divide that by 2 and you can determine the very center of this range: 1730/2=865, that is 865 BCE.

Anyone can twiddle numbers. This is your technique. Fit it into your system.

All you've done is found the midpoint of the range. Nothing more. It has no added significance.

The reason why the curve has the shape you see is that known carbon 14 levels for given years vary. While raw c14 data is measured in years before present (BP) and that is a simple component of c14 in the sample compared with the decay rate of c14, this value is calibrated to the real quantities of c14 found in ice cores, quantities which vary from year to year, meaning that the curve has peaks and troughs as it decreases with time, so there is a jagged curve. A horizontal line for a given BP value cuts this jagged curve (perhaps in more than one point, as the 68.2% probability value does). The line cuts the curve and provides a date range. No single point has a greater probability than any other single point within that date range.


spin

Dean Anderson

So if I extend the graph in both directions - say from 4.567 billion years BCE to the present (which allows for all the time since the Earth was formed) - then I will arrive at a 100.0% range. After all, the destruction of the city must have been since the formation of the Earth and before now.

According to your criteria for how to interpret the graph, the best date is in the exact centre of the range with the highest probability.

Since the extended range of 4.567 billion years BCE to the present has the highest possible probability (100%), then according to YOUR criteria for how the graph should be interpreted, the correct date for the destruction of City IV is 2.2835 BILLION YEARS BCE.

-Jay-

You keep using that chart. I do not think it means what you think it means.


Several people - people who use statistics professionally, I might add - in several threads have done an excellent job of explaining to you why you can't just grab the tallest place in the range and declare it to be the most probable. Probability density functions are integrals. Nothing more, nothing less. Remember integrals? It's the area under the curve that's important, and in this case, while the total area (probability) under the curve integrates to 1 (100%), the area under increasingly narrow slices is much smaller.


Misunderstanding the chart once is excusable. Continuing to misinterpret the chart after it's been repeatedly explained is, at best, willful ignorance and at worst deliberately misrepresentative.


Likewise your continued claims here that a couple of million people camping in the desert for 38 years wouldn't leave any evidence. It's been explained to you repeatedly what would be left and why, yet you continue to ignore the opinions of at least one professional archaeologist and several other well-read individuals.


You have chosen to dive into areas of study that have occupied thousands of scholars across many disciplines for centuries, and have displayed the audacity and hubris to assume that you know their fields of expertise better than they. The only justification you can offer for your actions appears to collapse to an assertion that the Bible is historically true and accurate, so the accumulated knowledge and study of all those other scholars is just, well, wrong.


So - I ask you:


1) Are all of the mathematicians and statisticians who use probability density functions every day, in their work and/or research wrong? If so, why, and what qualifies you to make that determination?


2) Are all of the archaeologists, anthropologists, and related specialists who have reached very different conclusions regarding the origins of the early Israelites as part of their professional work wrong? If so, why, and what qualifies you to make that determination?


3) If your answers to the above involve any variation on "the Bible says so" or "God has told me", please be prepared to explain why your interpretation of the Bible (which Bible?) is more accurate than anyone else's, or what makes you think that God is telling you things He isn't telling anyone else.


regards,


NinJay

Larsguy47

It's "keystone cops" time in the world of archaeologist "minimalists vs maximalists" when it comes to Solomon and David. That's because the archaeological evidence supported now by consistent radiocarbon14 dating shows that the palaces found, allegedly built by Solomon belong to the early 9th century!

For instance a typical quote from Israel Finkelstein in The Bible Unearthed notes (page 142) "Finally, a series of samples from destruction of a stratum at Tel Rehov near Beth-shean, which is contemporary with Megiddo's supposed Solomnic city, gave mid-ninth century dates--long after its reported destruction by Pharoah." On page 343 he is even more specific about his conclusions as to who destroyed the Solomonic gate level at Megiddo: "The city of ashlar palaces at Megiddo was destroyed in the mid-ninth century, probably by Hazael, and not in 926 BCE by Shishak."

So what have were here? We have a confirmation that the palaces claimed in the Bible to be built by Solomon were actually found for the most part, only about a 1/2 to 3/4 century later. Of course, as you note, Finkelstein understands that 926BCE is far removed from the RC14 dating found at Rehov which he describes as "mid-ninth century." But actually one wonders if that is the most accurate reference to this dating. The highest probability found for the specific level Finkelstein is talking about is City IV. Here's the Groningen chart showing "relative probability" dates for that destructive level.




I have made my own notation in the above chart in Red here for more specific comparison:



If you will note, mid-9th century, which is give or take ten years on either side of 850 BCE (i.e. 960-940 BCE) is not the highst "relative probability" dating for this level. The higest probability as you can see from the chart is closer to 870BCE. This is important because the Assyrian Period is fixed by a single eclipse dated to 763BCE. Thus the Battle of Karkar in year 6 of Shalmaneser is fix-dated to 853BCE, 90 years earlier than the eclipse. Thus to justify a destructive level by Hazeal, who doesn't show up until around the 14th year of Shalmaneser III, that is some time around or after 845 BCE, you have to claim this city was destroyed near the mid 9th century for that to work. But please note that is not the best RC14 dating available for this city which is more probable 20-25 years earlier in 870 BCE.

But aside from that detail, Mazar and others who want to find some archaeological substantiation for dating Shishak's invasion c. 925BCE, or even worse, Jehovah's witnesses who want to date that event some 67 years earlier (c. 992 BCE) are in big archaeological trouble, since 870BCE is an even longer stretch!

WHY THE STRICT BIBLICALISTS ARE LAUGHING: But the reason we strict Biblicalists (those following Martin Anstey's chronology) are laughing is because we know the Bible doesn't date Solomon's rule where Mazar, Finkelstein or even Jehovah's witnesses are dating that event. Based upon the 1st of Cyrus falling in 455BCE as the Bible requires, Shishak's invasion must be dated specifically to 871BCE. Of course, as you can see by the chart, that's very much within the highest "relative probability" range for that event based upon our best scientifically available dating for the destruction date for that city level. Thus there is no need to presume someone other than Shishak destroyed the city at this time, and no need to stretch the best dating available down some 20-25 years to try to reach down to the reign of Hazaeal has Finkelstein so desperately needs to do to explain why Rehov is being destroyed c. 870 BCE if not by Shishak.

It all boils down to the "weakest link" in the chronology chain. That weak link is the misdated eclipse in 763BCE, which actually should be dated to 709BCE. When that occurs, then Shishak's invasion drops down to where it belongs c. 872-871BCE.

Now here is why Finkelstein and Mazar, as archaeologists get some archeo-bashing! It's because there are at least two critical references that point to a later dating for Solomon and Shishak that is ignored by them:

1) One is Manetho's reference to Joseph being appointed vizier in the 17th year of Apophis. When the 1st of Apophis is dated to 1590BCE, then his 25th year falls in 1566BCE. That would have been the second year of the 7-year famine, the likely year that Jacob comes into Egypt to dwell in Goshen, the land owned by the Rameses family (i.e. the "land of Ramses"). But that is specifically 215 years from the Exodus. Thus by this historical reference, even though there are various opinions as to dating the Egyptian timeline, we can at least determine which king died the year of the Exodus. 215 years from 1366 BCE marks the end of the reign of Amenhotep III. Thus using the 1st of Akhenaten to date the Exodus, archaeologists could have used one of three dates for the 1st of Akhenaten to date the 4th of Solomon. Either 1386BCE based upon the KTU 1.78 eclipse text, or two popular dates of 1378BCE or 1351BCE. Shishak's invasion is exactly 515 years from the Exodus, which dates Shishak's invasion in either 871BCE, 863 BCE or 836BCE. Of course, the closest date to the RC14 dating is the earliest dating for the Exodus, 1386BCE. Still, all these dates are far later than 926BCE where the archaeologists insist upon making their comparison.

2) Of course, the second reference and clue is purely archaeological and based upon the fall of Jericho. After Jericho was destroyed per the Bible it remained a desolate, abandoned city for the next 400 years, thus the last destructive level was logically associated with the Israelites by Kathleen Kenyon who dated that event sometime between 1350-1325 BCE:

Now based upon this dating, the Exodus would have fallen 40 years earlier, sometime between 1390-1365BCE. That would date Shishak's invasion 515 years later somewhere between 875-850BCE. So why didn't the archaeologists, if they believed this was good dating for the fall of Jericho, use that to extrapolate an alternative dating for Shishak/Solomon? They didn't do it.

So as a result, their whole arguments are based on just their own preference for the dating of Solomon and Shishak when more than one dating is certainly implied. What is critical here, though, is that the above two references would both date Shishak's invasion near when the the scientific dating for that event would most likely have occurred, c. 870BCE.

This ultimately that not only does the Bible specifically date Shishak's invasion to 871BCE, but that you can arrive at this dating using Manetho's historical reference about Joseph during the reign of Apophis, or extrapolated from the dating for the fall of Jericho; all four references point to the same general time for this event c. 870BCE.

So it's quite funny that these esteemed archaeologists trying to figure out what happened can't do so because they base their entire argument on the weakest link in their comparison, that one ill-dated eclipse in 763BCE from the Assyrian Period, a date even common references are laughing at and suggesting as being wrong in the first place, such as this Wikipedia subtle diss:

See, allis solved when you use the right 709BCE eclipse to date the Assyrian Period!!! Simple, easy, absolute!

HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!!!!

:redface: :redface: :Cheeky: :wave:

BUT... with all due respect, we still thank the archaeologists, especially Finkelstein for linking City IV Rehov with the Solomonic gates and palace level at Megiddo, Gezer, Hazor and Jezreel, by which we can confirm the correct timing for this event! Thanks, Israel!

Larsguy47

Oh really? I did't realize that the tallest peak meant the LEAST LIKELY date rather than the most likely. Geez! How did I miss that!!! :huh:

Forget all that. This is not about densities. This is a SIMPLE CHART. It is labeled quite clearly. One side is DATES. One side is labelled "RELATIVE PROBABILITY." That is numbered from 0.0 to 1.0, which when expressed in terms of percentages 1.0 would be 100%.

Therefore, for any given date indicated, you can look in a straight vertical line up through the graft to see where the fill in for that year ends. You then look immediately across horizontally to the "relative probability" on a scale of 0-1. Wherever that is, it is the "relative probability" in the 0-1 scale. If that is close to 7, then that would be relative to 70% "relative probability".

This has nothing to do with the disclaimers that this is a very general reference and not meant to be specific but just as a general "guide" based upon the dating they found at that level from RC14. So I'm not misreading the chart and it says nothing about density. This is NOT a density chart. This is after the density curves and every other curve and adjustment has been factored in and then expressed in this "relative probability" comparison in terms of dating. Whatever "relative probability" means or however you want to water it down, THIS is the result for THIS level. What this chart is basically saying, therefore, is that dates sometime between 874-867BCE had a greater than 9.5 "relative probability" based upon the samples. I'm not precluding that you have a responsible right to add 500 years in either direction here!!! That's just what the results were in terms of "relative probability." This is not a density chart, so there's no point in bringing that up.


Hello. You have not explained how to read this chart. Are you saying that the highest peak means nothing? Why not HELP ME HERE THEN. Why not just tell me to shut up for a moment. And then EXPLAIN to me in the most direct manner possible, what the high peack c. 871BCE means in relation to the lower levels c. 950 BCE mean.

This is SUPPOSED to be a chart showing us the "relative probability" for the dates connected with the destruction of this level of City IV. They are showing you the "relative probability" dates. The higher the the probability, the higher the darkened area. It's just that SIMPLE.

So, PLEASE! Let's cut to the chase! When are you saying this chart is suggesting we should date the DESTRUCTIVE LEVEL of CITY IV? I'm sorry, I was looking in the region of the higest peak? MY STUPID MISTAKE! Sorry. So if it's not 871BCE, then when is it? Tell me, what was I supposed to see? Please give me the non-871BCE most "relative probability" date that I seem to be missing.

Thanks, soooo much.


No it hasn't and you're not telling me here. This is an old style debate trick to claim someone told me something a million times before or proved this or that long ago and don't mention it again. What was supposed to have been found? I'm ASKING! Let's go through this:

Okay, they were living in tents using wodden tent posts. What's supposed to be left after 3000 years?

Okay, they buried people with no jewelry because they weren't pagans and gold jewelry was scarce and they didn't want people robbing the graves. So what is left? Bones distingrate over 3000 years. "Dust to dust".

Okay, what else? They had metallic utensils. Maybe it was ALL metallic. They would hardly be dropping it all over the place since they would have been valuable. A lot of gold bowls were part of the imports into Egypt and the Egyptians gave the Jews lots of treasure. So I suppose over time they should have have left behind plenty of gold and silver bowls in the desert for archaeologists to find after 3000 years? Plus metallic and wooden bowls seem far more practical than pottery, far lighter too. But just what if they did in fact break a pottery jar? They were isolated. It might likely have been replaced. But maybe they ground it up to use for something else? Maybe they repaired it. Maybe they buried it in a pit rather than leaving it strewn around. Maybe they crush it into dust first and let it blow in the wind. Maybe the archaeologists, therefore, should check for pottery dust in Philadelpia that got blew over there 3000 years ago if they were were serious about finding out about the Jews while they were in the wilderness. So WHAT did they leave behind? in great enough quantities that we'd expect to find lots of evidence of it now? I heard that a couple of boys from the tribe of Dan were mechanics and left lots of car parts lying around, but that's an unstantiated rumor. Don't go there! The Jews were the first people to have cars. But they were made out of wood so that's why there's no evidence of them now. Also some of them had spontaneous birth without father or mother! Ever hear of "Joshua, the son of NONE"?

Who cares? I'll argue with every single one of them! You don't think I haven't talked with various authors already about this? Or written the British Museum?

Listen. It's very simple. They found grain stores at City IV level and took them to the best scientists and tested it. They posted the results for us in relation to DATING. That is, what can we understand in terms of what this would mean as far as dating the destruction level of this city. Now they do not give us an ABSOLUTE DATE. They expressed this in a scale of "relative probability" showing us the highest to the lowest "relative probability" on a sale of 0.0 to 1.0. The HIGHEST RELATIVE PROBABILITY in the chart is a very narrow range of dates at over 9.5 (95%). I merely am noting that the critical Biblical dating for Shishak's invasion falls within the 95-99% "relative probability" range. That's all! If someone thinks that any date 50 years in either direction is still a viable application, then fine!

What I'm being accused of, basically is putting out a fake chart. But I didn't put the chart out. The Groningen dating people did. I'm just showing everyone here where the highest "relative probability" turned out. It doesn't mean that 925BCE isn't the right date! In fact, this chart supports that date!!! It says there's a 5% "relative probability" that 925BCE is when this city got burned down! 5%!!! Don't sniff at that! That's more interest than most banks are paying on their savings accounts! You'd be surprised what some people can do with 5%!!!!

So - I ask you:

Listen. This is not a "probability DENISTY" chart. Do you see the word "density" anywhere on this graph? No! What they did was used all those different kinds of curves and comparisons and everything that is involved with RC14 dating, including the density comparisons and then translated that in the most direct terms as far as dating this city's destructive level. They summed up all those parameters and calculations and called it "RELATIVE PROBABILITY". And simply contrasted that with the timeline. "Relative probability"takes into consideration "density".

Paleezze! Don't make me laugh. No archaeologist or anthropologist who have generally good eyesight can come up with any other rsult than this chart. The very center of the 95.4% range is 870.5 BCE. That's not going to change. If they are reading something entirely different than that date or excluding it per chance, then it is clear their degree didn't do them much good, now did it?

GET REAL! The chart shows you the highest "relative probability". Why can't you just accept that? Archaeologists and anthropologists might be biased but they're not blind!

You're not listening. I don't have to bring in the Bible here. I just note there are some interpretations of the Bible that include this timeline. Let me go through this for you one more time:

1) MANETHO. He's the guy supplying us the Egyptian Dynasty timeline. He gives two references relative to the Exodus. One is Joseph's appointment as vizier in the 17th of Apophis. That means Jacob would have come into Egypt 8 years later in the 25th of Apophis. Using one timeline that dates the 1st of Apophis in 1590 BCE, his 25th year falls in 1366 BCE. The Exodus is 215 years after Jacob comes into Egypt. 215 years from 1366 is 1351BCE. We simply look on this same timeline chart to see which pharoah was ruling at this time. Lo and behold! It's the 1st of Akhenaten and the last year of Amenhotep III! Another reference says that Moses adoptive mother was the sister to Tuthmosis III. Really? Ahem! Well what does that tell us? Since we can date back 80 years from the Exodus at the 1st of Akhenaten, let's see what happens? 80 plus 1351 gives us 1431BCE. We now simply check to see whose reign this is. Guess who? THUTHMOSIS III, 1479-1425. So it points to the 1st of Akhenaten. There are three dates for the 1st of Akhenaten: 1351, 1378 or 1386BCE. 1386BCE the very earliest of any of these dates would date the 4th of Solomon to 906BCE and his 40-year rule from 910-870BCE. Shishak's invasion occurs near the very end of his reign in 870BCE. So we simply check 870BCE against the "relative probability" for Rehov and we get 99% "relative probability". 925 BCE is only 5% "relative probability."

2) The second reference is the fall of Jericho dated by Kathleen Kenyon between 1350-1325 BCE. That means 40 years earlier the Exodus would have occurred at it's EARLIEST in 1390BCE. So the very earliest relative dating for the 4th of Solomon 480 years later is 910BCE and his last year falling in 874BCE. 874BCE is now compared to the "relative probability" scale and it also shows 95-99% "relative probability".

See. No Biblical magic. Just adaptations to historical or archaeological events that can be inserted into the Biblical timeline. No "prophecies" are involved or anything. Just direct "relative" Biblical chronology.

So again, I can use Manetho or the fall of Jericho to come up with dates in the 95-99% range for the fall of Rehov at the time of Shishak. I don't need a Bible prophecy.


Thanks NinJay.

But can you do me JUST ONE LITTLE TEENSIE WEENSIE FAVOR?

Since I am allegedly misreading this chart. Could you please tell me, based upon the chart, if any DATING is inferred, implied or suggested by the chart, just WHEN would be responsibly date this event within 10 years, 20 years or 30 years? What "guidelines" if not specific dating implications is thus presented here for dating purposes. The way people are talking here, it's as if 871BCE is one of the dates absolutely excluded as possibly occurring in relation to the fall of Rehov City IV!!

LG47

Larsguy47

Well, what do you know! GREEK LOGIC!

[/QUOTE]

No. Not 2.2835 BILLION YEARS BCE, but the middle date between 2.2835 BILLION YEARS BCE and 2.2835 BILLION YEARS AD sans 871BCE, which is 871BCE. Remember I'm focussing ont he MIDDLE of the range of 4.5670 BILLION YEARS BCE, which is still 870.5 BCE, that is 871BCE.

MIDDLE RANGE, not END RANGE.

LG47