Jack the Bodiless

At the time that Akhenaten became a monotheist, the Hebrews were still polytheists. Funny how that works.

And what's this nonsense about Akhenaten worshipping an "invisible god"? The Aten, the solar disc, is quite visible (unlike Amun and his buddies).

Furthermore, according to Exodus, the Egyptian gods existed: they empowered their priests to perform miracles of their own, even reproducing several of the "plagues".

Larsguy47

ROFL! :blush: Listen. You can extend that margin of the range as wide as you want to. But the GRAPH was provided for a reason. It is not confusing. This is not about probable density. This is an effort by the scientists to relate the findings in terms of dating. So on one side you have "RELATIVE PROBABILITY" set against the timeline. The graph shows 99% "relative probability" for the dates of 874-867 BCE. You can look at the chart and check the "relative probability" for specific dates. Dates in question are 871 vs 925BCE. 871 BCE is 99% and 925 BCE is 5%. It's very simple. I think the graph was meant to convey precisely what it does!

No. These are just some general averages for randomly selected ranges. For instance, the range given for 95.4% probability, 918-823 BCE. If you add these numbers up and divide by 2 you get 870.5 BCE (871 BCE). As you will note from the graph, 871 BCE falls within the gaphic range on this chart for the 99+% probability. So while that range includes as its center dating that goes above 99% probability, only certain specific dates are actually individually over 95.4% probability, which you can see by just looking at the chart. They could have made any range coparison they wanted and given you the probability. But for individual dates, you can check the "relative probability" against the graph itself. That is, 823BCE and 918BCE are not equally potentially 95.4% probable. Their individual "relative probability" is shown in the chart.

Listen. This is how it's done. You have a GRAPH, a CHART. Now they give thus to us for a reason. For more specific comparison. The chart gives you dates, a timeline. It also gives you percentages of relative probability. That is very basic. So for any DATE you want to compare to "relative probability" you need only get a rule or use your computer to establish a straight line close to the specific date you want and then check the graph to see where the "relative probability" falls. Now the chart has everything from zero to 100%. There is a relative "plateau" of dates that are 99% on this chart. So that is the truest "RANGE" for the highest probability, that is ALL the dates from 874-867BCE can be considered to be 99% probable. But not 925BCE, which is only 5% probable by comparison. Thus comparing individual dates, rather than ranges is more specific for dating. Who would choose a 5% probability date over a 99% probability date?

Learn more here: Probability density function[/QUOTE]

Again, the scientists have TRANSLATED this for us to show how to "read" the density function. It simplies the results in terms of probability and actual dates. This is not about "density" here but "RELATIVE PROBABILITY" vs YEAR.

The chart gives your answers!

QUESTION: I just got here. I was just wondering out of pure curiosity, what the "relative probability" of 925BCE for the destructive level of City IV at Rehov was?

Oh look! Here's a graft! Okay, I see 925BCE and let me go across and check the probability. Okay, about 5%! Okay! Got it!

Hey, lets do that again! Let's try 1977 AD. Hmmm, not on the chart, must be zero probability!

Hmm, how about 874? 99%
Hmm, how about 871? 99%
Hmm, how about 867? 99%
Hmm, how about 823? 25%

Okay, I think I got the hang of it. Try it! It's easy!

Aren't scientists wonderful!!!!



Larsguy

Larsguy47

All your points well taken for as much detail as we can garner from what was left to examine. But some Egyptologists have expressed that "Aten" was indeed not the sun disk itself but the rays from the sun. Aten was considered "a force".

At any rate, Aten specifically was not an animal or a bird like the other gods of Egypt.


Larsguy

Larsguy47

ROFL! You wish. No I'm still here but some of us have "day jobs". Not sure which other thread you are speaking of (no link?), but I can assure you it was "supplemental."

And "historical refutation" is not an option here. Manetho actually gives us the year Joseph became vizier, year 17 of Apophis. That's what we are discussion "historically." It's irrefutable. I didn't invent that reference. It's a fact of history.

Now you may challenge it and dismiss it as credible or any of those things, but that's after the fact. That particular reference, wherever it came from, limits the Exodus to the 1st of Akhenaten. I'm just looking at that scenario compared to other references.

The only thing that could "overwhelm" this reference is if everybody had a huge consensus and confirmed absolute date for the Exodus in some other year. There is no such consensus. This reference is the closest extra-Biblical absolute date for the Exodus available. I'm merely taking a closer look.

This is a ferry ride to a nearby island, not a luxury yatch cruise anchored in the middle of the ocean. If you jump out to take a swim, you're going to get left behind.

Larsguy47

nogods4me

From RED DAVE
Sure we did. It is jut we realized that clothes that don't wear out are a money loser- no repeat business. We invented planned obsolence just after the world's biggest beach party.

Larsguy47

Wow, I just saw this!!!

THANK YOU! PATAPHYSICIAN!!

I didn't know about the adoptive mother of Moses being associated with Thuthmosis III! But that works out perfectly!!! Because Moses would have been born late in the reign of Thuthmosis III!

Very simple comparison. Let's do it!

If Moses was 80 years old at the time of the Exodus and we're presuming that was the 1st of Akhenaten, then we need only back up 80 years from that date to see whose ruling. My references using the Sothic dating where Akhenaten's 1st year falls in 1351BCE but any will do since this is just "relative dating" comparison. 1351 plus 80 = 1431 BCE. By the same list this falls within the reign of Thuthmosis III, who ruled from 1479-1425BCE.

So Moses would have been adopted by the sister of Thuthmosis III 6 years for the death of Thuthmosis III.

If we add 40 years to this to see who was ruling when Moses fled to Midian, which gives us 1391 BCE, we see it would have been during the reign of Thuthmosis IV, who ruled from 1397-1388. Now the only Biblical requirement for a match is that at least one pharoah dies after Moses leaves Egypt so that a he comes to a different pharoah on his return. Of course, obviously when Moses got back 40 years later Amenhotep III was on the throne, having ruled 38 years by now.

So this works out PERFECTLY!!!

This means that even if these references didn't come from Manetho himself and Syncellus was looking at other references, they had figured it all out PRECISELY who was ruling when the Exodus occurred.

So what happened?

My guess is that at some point, archaeology steps in and the dating from the Greek and Neo-Babylonian Period connected with astronomical texts became fixed. Once that happened, the eclipse found in the Assyrian eponym list was dated best to 763BCE, which allowed the Battle of Karkar to be dated to 853BCE. And that sort of became a semi-absolute checkpoint date for the Biblical dating back to Shishak's invasion in the 5th of Rehoboam, which got dated to 925BCE. 5 years were added to the end of Solomon's reign in 930BCE, dating his 4th year in 966BCE and 480 years earlier than that gave the absolute date for the Exodus to 1446BCE. That didn't match in any way the dates for Amenhotep III or Akhenaten. 1446BCE, in fact, falls during the reign of Thuthmosis III himself!

So once that was a clear mismatch, these references to when Moses was born or when Joseph came into Egypt just dropped into obscurity.

But not now. Those refererences are right on point once the chronology is corrected.

Case in point the Rehov dating for Shishak's invasion at 99% "relative probability" for dates between 874-867BCE contradicts the 925BCE dating for Shishak's invasion, which is only 5% probable. Israel Finkelstein will confirm for you that Solomon and David are dated too early! About 60 years too early. The palaces allegedly built by Solomon archaeologists clearly date around 910-870 BCE! But that would be during the time of Omri, not Solomon. But all this is based on the Greek dating! Greek dating, influenced Seleucid Period astronomical text adaptations and the original astronomical texts were destroyed. But this was after the revisionism by Xenophon who added 58 historical years to Greek history, later adjusted down to 56 years to align with the Olympic cycle. These same 56 years get transferred back to the time of Solomon because the 763BCE eclipse was semi-easily substituted for a month 3 eclipse in the Assyrian Eponym list rather than the more likely 709BCE eclipse, which was a rare, predictable solar eclipse from Assyria.

But note when you replace the 763BCE eclipse with the 709BCE eclipse. Shishak's invasion in 925BCE drops 54 years down to 871BCE. Thus you go from the 5% range probability to the 99% range probability for this dating.

At this point, though, the 709BCE eclipse used to date the Assyrian Period, matches the KTU 1.78 eclipse text PERFECTLY when applied to year 12 of Akhenaten. That's because that would date the Exodus to 1386BCE which dates Shishak's invasion to 871BCE, year 39 of Solomon, the same date you get for Shishak's invasion by using the 709BCE eclipse to date the Assyrian Period.

So in effect, for those that actually care, all you have to do is go and remove the extra years from the weakest point in the historical timeline upon which all the chronology from the Greek Period back to the time of Shishak and all is resolved. The extra years are easily removed from the Greek and Persian Period by the time of the lastest revision by Xenophon, that is, by the beginning of the rule of Artaxerxes III. Xenophon made his history during the time of Artaxerxes II.

GREAT!!!

You know. I had my DOUBTS! I wasn't really, really, really, really (thanks Sally Field!) sure the Bible was true. But now, "I feel it!" I truly BELIEVE NOW!!!

The chronology puzzles have been solved!!!

Now. Just one more question. How do I get paid for this?

Hmmmmm.... :devil1:

Larsguy47

Larsguy47

Thanks, for the comment Cege. But as you know a very special embalming process never before done was initiated with Amenhotep III and not done again for centuries. So something was "wrong" or different with his body at the time of embalming. If we superimpose a reasonable Red Sea scenario, it's likely the body was not recovered for a day or two and that delay in embalming, possible early decompensation would have required the extra measures, etc. Furthermore, one of his limbs don't belong to him. It's not logical to believe that after the original embalming after grave robbers stole his original leg the later embalmers replaced it with a new one. Likely, if the original leg was so badly damaged, which makes sense in a Red Sea situation where it might have been severely avulsed or even amputated, that they would have simply given him a transplant for that leg rather than the missing or badly damaged one.

So post-mortem damage is a reasonable and easy claim, but by no means absolute, with suggestions toward definite pre-embalming injury or decompensation. This was not the standard embalming.

Thanks for sharing though. ALL views are nice to hear. Appreciated.

Larsguy47

Larsguy47

I have a different translation than this.

The above is a direct quote from "The Amarna Letters", edited and translated by William L. Moran (1987).

Even so, interesting Tursatta is leveraging the death of 10,000 against the life of the king. Why? Very understandable if this was simply a sympathetic increase in the number whom pharoah died with.

If your best friend and pharoah died in the Red Sea with 1000 of his army, and you were empathizing with his son and now pharoah, of course, you'd suggest that you would have preferred it if 10 times as many of the soilders had died rather than the king himself. And that's all he's saying. He wished more people had died rather than the king himself in this "unfortunate event".

This letter would thus confirm pharoah died with others. We know precisely the details, though, from the Bible!!

PLUS, did you see that Syncellus also claims that the sister of the pharoah who adopted Moses was Thuthmosis III?!!!!!! WOW! That works though because 80 years from the 1st of Akhenaten does place you 6 years before the death of Thuthmosis III. And MOSES is a logical name if the pharoah was also named "MOSIS". MOSIS and Moses are clearly related, don't you think?

Larsguy47

Cege

Lars, the mummy which may or may not be Amenhotep III's almost certainly lost part of it's leg after embalming and burial, due to clumsy grave robbers tossing through coffin boxes in search of treasure, and then clumsy recovery of bones, etc by those who gathered up the mess the robbers had made and put together loose parts that didn't match before moving the whole shebang to another location.

Do you have any source at all that claims that particular mummy is a body's leg was disarticulated before the burial process was initiated, or is it just imagination on your part, much like the 'water breasts'?

The resin embalming technique used on the mummy in question (and again, it may not be the mummy of Amenhotep III at all) does not establish in any way that the mummified person suffered death by violent drowning, or was partially dismembered before death. If it's Amenhotep III's mummy, the alternate technique may have been used because of his being overweight, or for many other reasons that we just don't know.

We can't just superimpose a 'Red Sea scenario' where none exists and no evidence of Amenhotep III having died in the sea. Indiana Jones-type adventuring makes for a great movie character but provides no historical or archeological basis to make claims.

Larsguy47

Yes, thanks! I just saw this. I missed it the first time!!!

Fine, but it doesn't matter at this level of inquiry. Because even if this is an 800 AD reference, it has to be based on something and Syncellus had access to Manetho and other sources. It proves that apparently the specific pharoah of the Exodus was clearly known as Akhenaten! Where did that come from? So it may be "spurious" for Manetho, but it's not spurious for Syncellus and proof that at this time there was no apparent historical question as to aligning the Biblical timeline with that of the Egyptian timeline and they are aligning it with Akhenaten. This is in the context long before his works were discovered or he became known as this famous "heretic king" and "monotheist"! Thus Akhenaten was always the "historical" pharoah who followed the Exodus and Amenhotep III the pharoah who died in the Red Sea, long before we learned so much about Akhenaten!

THAAAAANK YOU! This is amazing and wonderful. But still, whether we have firm ground to presume this is not from "Manetho" and I don't see how it could be, it's still not clear that it absolutely wasn't. They had to base this on something they had. I wonder what. And whatever that was, it was apparently coordinated with Manetho and their current latest kinglist.

So I ask, how and why did they come up with this dating that points to Akhenaten?


I totally agree! In fact, because of the variations in the various reigns from one source to the next, this works out too perfectly for the last timeline given not to be a superimposition. But the question remains is from what point were they working from. It seems perhaps the pharoah who died in the Red Sea, Amenhotep III was the clear reference. I don't think Akhenaten's monotheism or anything was a factor this early. Thus that single reference might have been apparent and historically handed down with sufficient clarity to then calculate from the Bible back to when Joseph would have come into Egypt. So, I agree, this is probably not Manetho's reference to Joseph here.


Again, I agree. It was always suspicious for a direct Manetho reference. I do think it was from what was believed by Syncellus at the time, but the question remains, what did he base this on? Was there a general consensus that Amenhotep III was the pharoah of the Exodus? Akhenaten fascination is a very recent fad and fascination.

Well, that is not exactly true and Josephus, in particular, has to be "qualified" for his reasons for avoiding establishing the pecise dating of the Exodus. Giving that away would affect the entire timeline and cause far too many problems. For further discussion, though, my position for Josephus is that he, in paticular, would have specifically avoided a direct reference to the pharoah of the Exodus.


Who said it was INACCURATE? It is bang on target in fact! Again, I thank you for this reference. That is, 80 years from the death of Amenhotep III places Moses' birth during the reign of Thuthmosis III! So the Joseph and Moses references are quite compatible and coordinated! Moses would have been born 6 years before the death of ThuthMOSIS III and was likely named after him. The Bible says Pharoah's "daughter", however. This would be a correction but Thuthmosis III would have likely had grown daughters this late in his reign, so that general timing works just fine.

Thanks, again, for that reference. The chronology is bang on target for both references!

Larsguy47