Larsguy47

Just a technical note on how and why Shishak's invasion occurs specifically in year 39 of Solomon.

It has to do with the coordination of two astronomical events when applied. The first, is the KTU 1.78 applied to year 12 of Akhenaten, dated 1375BCE which dates the 1st of Akhenaten to 1378BCE, which would be the year of the Exodus. This dates the 4th of Solomon to 906BCE and his 40-year rule from 910-870BCE.

The Groningen RC14 dating from Rehov, of course, gives a 99% "relative probability" for the fall of Rehov at City IV between 874-867BCE. The traditional dating for that invasion in 925BCE. This is based though upon the 763BCE eclipse mentioned in the Assyrian eponym list that causes the entire Assyrian Period to be FIXED by an absolute eclipse dated reference. What we do is look for a better eclipse to match the RC14 dating. We find that eclipse in 709BCE, notably a more naturally occurring "third month" eclipse and also a rare predictable eclipse.


Note this Wikipedia cop-out of the 763BCE eclipse, for instance:

Wikipedia eclipse 763 BC eclipse reference.

The 709BCE eclipse would be the more customarily dated third month event, that is, in a year that begins after the spring equinox.

If we replace the 753BCE eclipse by the 709BCE eclipse, which is 54 years later, then Shishak gets reduced exactly 54 years and 925 becomes 871BCE. Thus are new eclipse-coordinated event date falls specifically to 871BCE, which does fall within the RC14 scientific dating for this event at 99% probability between 874-867BCE. Thus we have scientific absolute dating in agreement with a good eclipse match.

But based upon our KTU 1.78 dating that requires the reign of Solomon to occur between 910-870 BCE, 871 BCE falls in year 39 of Solomon.

That's where that reference comes from.

This is no problem, Biblically, of course, since it is clear that Rehoboam, even in his fifth year was still king over the northern tribes. He is said to have misled "all of Israel" and when repenting, the "princes of Israel" were right there with Rehoboam. No mention at all is there of Jeroboam, who took the 10 tribes away from the house of Solomon. Therefore, year 5 of Rehoboam must be equal to year 39 of Solomon.

2 Chronicles 12:1 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.

12: 5 "...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.”

As you can see, the princes of Israel were repenting from this invasion by Shishak, certainly including them as part of the attack which fits Shishak's known invasion of many cities in the northern kingdom. Also we note no mentionof Jeroboam here and "the king" in reference for the princes of Israel is Rehoboam at the time.

As some have noted, if Shishak was such a good friend of Jeroboam, why was the focus of his attack in the northern kingdom area? Why is he attacking his friend? But if this was while Rehoboam was still over the 10 tribes, now co-ruler with Solomon, that attack and destruction of those fortified cities was actually a help to Jeroboam since it would weaken the stronghold Rehoboam could exert in the north. Further, the punishment for misleading "all of Israel" would have affected the entire 12-tribe kingdom area. Thus the attack of the northern cities was a direct attack of Rehoboam, not Jeroboam.

This establishes a 6-year co-rulership between Solomon and Rehoboam and establishes that both Rehoboam and Jeroboam began to count their parallel reigns from the time of their divine appointment and announcement as kings when the coat was divided up, and not when the 10 tribes were physically taken away from Rehoboam.

The loose read scenario is thus that once Rehoboam was identified as the successor, he probably wanted to institute some of his own false worship ideas and likely set up some type of idolatry recognition of himself and his favorite god or goddess in all of these cities. Shishak was sent to destroy the cities exhibiting this false worship and so Rehoboam and the princes of Israel repented. What choice did they have? Shishak had conquered the entire region.

Then when Solomon died the year after, Shishak was happy to hand over the northern kingdom area to his friend Jeroboam as promised by Yahweh.

This harmonizes thus not only the Egyptian references to Shishak's invasion, but also the Biblical context that Rehoboam was still king over the 12 tribes at the time and the coordination by two eclipses that this specifically occurred in his 39th year,


Larsguy47

pharoah

Wait a minute here, it looks as if you're trying to pull a fast one. Where do you come up with this co-regent idea, other than a desire to harmonize dates? There is no biblical justification whatsoever for the notion that Rehoboam was a co-regent with Solomon.

I Kings 11
42 And the time that Solomon reigned in Jerusalem over all Israel was forty years.

43 And Solomon slept with his fathers, and was buried in the city of David his father: and Rehoboam his son reigned in his stead.

2 Chronicles 9
30 And Solomon reigned in Jerusalem over all Israel forty years.

31 And Solomon slept with his fathers, and he was buried in the city of David his father: and Rehoboam his son reigned in his stead.

The clear intent of both of these passages is that Solomon ruled for 40 years, died, and that Rehoboam began his reign. Nowhere in the text can you support the notion of co-regency.

Clivedurdle

P 183 Barbarians

There has been a temple at Palmyra, for instance, for 2000 years before the Romans ever saw it. It's form, a large stone walled chamber with columns outside, is much closer to the sort of thing attributed to Solomon than to anything Roman. It is mentioned in the Bible as part of Solomon's Kingdom. In fact, it says he built it. (2 Chronicles 8 v 4.)

Larsguy47

I agree totally. But there are two factors to consider in this case.

1) When you are compartmentalizing the records overlapping records are going to seem to automatically seem to start one after the other without overlap.

2) The Biblical history is designed to be complex and confusing to outsiders, likely to protect it's internal chronology. This is not the only example where clearly a certain record that occurred at a certain time is compartmentalized and put out of order. Thus the Bible's chronology is considered to be complex.

A testimony to this is the parallelism in the history. It repeats some of the same history in a parallel account but with a few differences. This affords a better chance to camouflage not necessarily the history but the chronology and absolute timeline, so that it takes comparisons and coordination to actually tell what's going on.

Case in point during the divided kingdom period, Edwin Thiele was able to coordinate nonspecified co-rulerships for the Judean kinglist removing 49 years from the timeline. I agree with those comparisons. But other Bible readers an scholars, such as Jehovah's witnesses, didn't follow this at all and just end-to-ended the kingships as you are suggesting with David and Solomon, so that their timeline is some 49 years longer, but they have interregnums in the rulerships on the Israel side, sometimes up to 12 years where it's presumed no kings ruled.

So it's by no means easy and seems to be designed to protect against easy revisionism or suppression. After all, if you're presented a confusing history then its not specifically threatening.

So definitely in this case, I wouldn't defend at all that you are misreading the intent of the scripture, which is to distract from the 6-year co-rulersihp. That would be determined by a more critical comparison of different texts. The direct reading in the parallel accounts would not lead to an easy conclusion regarding the co-rulerships. The Bible takes advantage of the title of "king" which was given to the co-ruler and same as the primary ruler to make a misleading statement to the casual reader. For instance, "became king" would apply to both the co-rulership coronation and the sole rulership coronation. Critical comparisons of other texts though is where the co-rulerships start to show up.

We can discuss specifics but say the 6-year co-rulership between Ahab and Jeroboam becomes "apparent" by comparison his two kingship dates. He became king once in the 18th of Jehoshaphat and then again in the 2nd of Jehoram of Israel!! Oops! Contradiction? Or co-rulership. If this is a co-rulership then the latter date would be the date the father-king dies. Jehoram of Judah became king in the 5th of Jehoroam of Israel. Therefore, Jehoram of Israel became king a second time in his own 6th year. This establishes a 6-year co-rulership between Ahab and Jehoram which is not clearly apparent. Yet when we check this for any contradictions we don't get them. For instance, as soon as Ahab died, Mesha rebelled. The account shows Rehoboam dealing with this immediately, rather than Ahaziah, who ruled for 2 years before him. The actual account thus would support that Jehoroam was the king immediately after the death of Ahab.

Or you have two dates for Ahaziah of Judah, he becomes king both in the 11th and 12th years of Jehoroam is Israel. Our only concern here is whether or not Jehoram of Judah dies in the year of the later reference, the 12th of Jehoroam of Israel. Of course, he does since he begins an 8-year rule in the 5th of Jehoroam of Israel:

1/5
2/6
3/7
4/8
5/9
6/10
7/11
8/12

So Ahaziah, who ruled 1 year, became co-ruler late in the 11th rule of Jehoram of Israel (JOI) and after his father died early during the 12th year of JOI, he became king again in his 12th year. Thus when you can clearly establish out of two dates for any king, the latter date is the sole-rulership date and the earlier the co-ruleship.

So no, absolutely not, the chronology of the Bible is not made easy and that's intentional.

Larsguy47

Larsguy47

Wow. Thanks!

Larsguy47

Sauron

Protect it? From what?

How would stating the chronology in a straightforward and accurate manner expose the bible to any risk? ?

Complex?

No, when events are placed out of order the chronology is considered to be mistaken - not complex.

Your rationalization of basic errors reminds me of the excuse I used to hear at Microsoft when inattentive software developers made mistakes in their code, but were too conceited to admit it during a code review: "It's not a bug - it's a feature."

pharoah

So you're basically stating that when you see two conflicting dates you should automatically assume a co-rulership as the explanation for the first date and sole rulership as the explanation for the second date. That's a very odd concept that you wouldn't apply to any other text.

If you read a textbook that in one place said that George W. Bush started his presidency in 2001 and in another place stated that he started in 1999, wouldn't you automatically assume that at least one of these statements is in error? Would you try to harmonize the two statements by claiming that he shared a co-presidency with Bill Clinton?

Why is it intentional?

Larsguy47

Because the Jews were often subject to other empires and they often changed their own history. The books of Ezra/Nehemiah and Daniel, for instance were suppressed during revisions during the Persian Era for political reasons. The Jews gladly cooperated and put out a revised version of Ezra/Nehemiah in Estras 2 and 3 and also "Esther" in "Esdras IV."

This is a common Jewish practice as well, even employed by Jesus. That is, you speak in parables or in a cryptic manner to transmit information you don't want your enemies or outsiders to have privy to.

I totally appreciate your opinion. But again, a good example are the co-rulerships understood by Thiele, which reduces that part of the timeline by 49 years, but when read without that complication, as did Jehovah's witnesses in their chronology timeline, they didn't include those co-rulerships, so their timeline is 49 years longer. But at least for Thiele, there's no interruption of any rulerships, each kingdom have continuous kings. If you don't include the co-rulerships and do as you say, simply take this directly, then you have lots of gaps in the Israel kingships.

So it depends on your own interpretation. My criticial analysis based upon chronology and astrochronology and checking the Biblical references where co-rulerships are implied in the context but completely not implied otherwise has led me to believe that this was deliberate. That the Bible in general deliberately wanted to confuscate the co-rulerships, that they are understood only by comparison and method, but not by simple direct history.

The consistent parallel records that vary is another huge clue this is not straightforward history. We have duplicate records of the same events and the gospels follow suit with 4 accounts of the same matierals, but with seeming minor variations. But that is how the details are hidden, when you find a what appears to be a contradiction between two accounts and it really is a splitting of the account. But that is intention.

For instance, in one place we read where Peter denied Jesus three times before a rooster crows once. In another place we find where he says Peter will deny him three times before a rooster crows twice. On simple reading, one would presume a scribal error perhaps. But if you read all four gospels, you can identify at least seven specific different denials. Therefore, Jesus must have told Peter he would deny him three times before a rooster crowed one and again another three times before the rooster crowed a second time. And that is precisely what you can extract from the comparison.

But we might ask, why on earth didn't one of the gospels just say that? The reason is because it was meant to be hidden, and the varying accounts are carefully written to hide details like this. But having noted that, this is typical Biblical camouflage. The history is not straightforward or written in a simple direct manner. It appears to do that, but if you follow the "contradictions" you get another timeline.


Yes, I can understand the skepticism, generally, but when you actually check it out, there's a pattern to it! For instance, Ahaziah is said to have become king in one place in the 11th of Jehroam and in another in the 12th. Is that an error? Well, not if there was co-rulership and not if his father dies in the 12th of Jehoroam. Which he does. Thus you can't say this is an error.

Same with the co-rulership for Jehoroam and Ahab. If he "became king" in the 2nd of Jehoroam of Judah then he became king in his own sixth year! Is that an error? Well, not if Ahad didn't die until the 6th year of Jehoram. So the question is, is there anything that suggests that Jehoram was already ruling at the time of Ahab's death? The answer is yes! When Mesha rebelled right after the death of Ahab, Jehoram felt he was rebelling against him and immediately started to deal with it.

Further, the Mesha stele claims that he himself rebelled halfway through the rule of Omri's son, that is, his ruling descendant. The Bible says he rebelled when Ahab died. Is that a contradiction? Not if Jehoram was co-ruler and he ruled for a total of 12 years. If Jehoram became king in the 2nd year of Jehoroam of Judah, meaning his own 6th year, then Ahab would have died that year. Jehoram ruled for 12 years and half of 12 is six. So when Mesha claimed he rebelled half way through the reign of Omri's son, he was talking about the 12-year rule of Jehoram, with the Bible confirming that Ahab died in his 6th year.

See!

But why didn't the Bible just come right out and explain all that in the first place?

My theory is that the Bible is somewhat exclusive and hostile to casual outside readers and gives one story to the casual reader but hidden details for the Jews and others looking to more detail.

So indeed, the simple reading gives you one thing but there's a potential alternative reading that gives you something else. It believe this was intentional; either to just generally confound outsiders or to ultimately protect the history by making it too confusing to be openly contradictory in any specific way. Quite ingenious, actually.

Larsguy47

Larsguy47

Right. But not only is there no other choice, but it always checks out! Again and again! As I said, in the case of Ahaziah, he "becomes king" in both the 11th and 12th year of Jehoram of Israel. Yet he is only attributed one year of rule. Now that works out if this is defining his co-rulership and only if his father dies in the 12th year of Jehoroam of Israel. Which he does. Thus if you can manage to determine two specific dates for any given king, you can align the death of the father with the latter date and go from there to align another aspect of the timeline!

But if you do just a simple reading, like Jehovah's witnesses did, then you can easily end-to-end the rulerships in one kingdom, but the other kingdom will be a big mess with lots of gaps.

So basically, and I don't mean this personally, but simply deciding that everything should be direct and simple because that's how we like and expect it generally, doesn't mean that is at al the case. If the Jews thought a very complex history was the safest thing then why not?

You're absolutely correct. You don't presume an error. You try and resolve it with a scenario that fits. In this case, for instance, we may discover that George bush became president of his oil company in 1999. Thus his becoming "president" that year was not the US Presidency but that of his company, so both statements work for the term "presidency." But if you wanted to be deceptive, you would use the word "presidency" and not mention it wasn't the US presidency even though you knew that your audience would presume precisely that!

Likewise with the Bible. IF the exact chronology of the Bible was to be preserved and perhaps there was the idea it might be suppressed by outsiders who were changing their own chronology, hiding the precise chronology would be a smart thing to do. Since "king" and "became king" could relate to either the co-rulership coronation and/or the sole rulership coronation, they utilized that to help camouflage the co-rulerships and thus the precise chronology and timeline. So when it says "he beame king" in a certain year, you don't know if this is when he became co-ruler or sole ruler. Further, by relating the history as if it follows in chronological order, the casual reader gets the idea that the total reign began at the end of one rulership, when it doesn't.

So you basically have the choice of presuming the Bible is a confusing book with lots of contradictions, which is fine with the Bible writers since that is disarming as well, or you can try to see if there is a pattern of consistency for every reference so that it is completely harmonious.

This is done by Jews all the time in their histories. That is, rather than being censored and suppressed, they know that if they are "ridiculous" and not taken seriously, that nobody will care what they say and thus they will get published. It is a way of transfering secretive information "in plain sight" without being challenged. It's ingenius.

For instance, Josephus knew quite well that the NB Period chronology was revised. IF he gave the precise information about the rulerships, in later times his works would be suppressed or changed. But if he seems ridiculous, it tends to disqualify his entire reference and nobody cares about the details. Thus he gives for the reign of Evil-Merodach in his "Antiquities" a period of 18 years! Right after that he gives a history for the 4-year rule of Niglasser forty years! Everybody knows Niglasser only ruled for 4 years and certainly not forty! But the subjective effect of that ridiculous reference means they don't care about the 18-year reference for Evil-Merodach, which is a critical reference for the original chronology of the NB Period. Thus Josephus has transferred this critical reference without it being taken seriously. The "forty years" was just a decoy.

Same with the Rabbinical timeline! That's a totally RIDICULOUS timeline that no Jews actually believe. It, for instance, claims that the 6th of Darius, the year the second temple was completed occurs in 352 BCE! Normally that's the 6th year of Artaxerxes III! Alexander the Great was already born! No way is that the right date.

The correct date is 434BCE, though. The revised date is 82 years earlier in 516BCE for year 6 of Darius. But note, 352BCE is exactly 82 years after the original dating of 434BCE! So you see, the 352BCE date was never meant to be taken seriously. It's completely ridiculous. No one cares about this timeline. But at the same time, it confirms the Jews knew what the original timeline truly was, and it's just mocking the revisions made during the Persian Period. So they have their cake and eat it too. They basically tell outsiders that their timeline is wrong and that there are "too many Persian kings" but then they give their ridiculous dates that nobody believes, and thus while contradicting the timeline and calling them liars, they don't give the true chronology either. Thus they don't care if the Christians or anybody else have the wrong dates. They keep their secrets to themselves and that is a long-time Biblical position, that they owe little to outsiders and deceiving them is no big deal.

I think the "conspiracy theorists" utilize this also! They want to publish information about secret things going on, but they know if they are taken seriously the government or whomever has the power to shut them down and not allow them to say a thing. Or if they do publish, in later years they can be suppressed. So one way around that, it is to make yourself ridiculous and unbelievable. So while you talk about the Illuminati details and everything, which if you were convincing might make a difference, you simply claim there are aliens from another planet being hidden somewhere. That makes people not take you seriously. In the meantime, those who know the details about the Illuminati have some truth, find out these things in these same books. It's a way of manipulating the public. A way of "hiding in plain sight" via clever deception. But it's effective.

It's like knowing you have to tell the truth when you get on the stand about a certain event but so that you're not believed, you court a reputation for being unreliable and a liar, so that nobody believes you, even if you are telling them the truth.

The Bible specifically is geared to do precisely the same thing to keep out the nonbelievers. God leverages what is "believable" and "logical" against the truth:

Acts 13: 41 ‘Behold it, YOU scorners, and wonder at it, and vanish away, because I am working a work in YOUR days, a work that YOU will by no means believe even if anyone relates it to YOU in detail.’”

You see, ultimately the Bible doesn't really care about self-decided outsiders, it would just as soon deceive them. But ultimately it makes the truth so hard to believe for those who don't want to believe, that even if someone gives them the precise explanation and details of something, they still won't be able to accept it because of their own prejudices.

But this works out for God because he technically has to warn people before he destroys them. But he will send the message via a very unlikely source to meet that technical criteria. Then later that person can't claim they were not told about something or warned.

God to the evildoer: "Didn't a cross-dressing mental patient come up to you and tell you I was going to destroy the world unless you bought an "I believe in Miracles!" button?"

Evildoer: "Yes"

God: "And didn't he claim he was my messenger?"

Evildoer: "Yes."

God: "Then why didn't you buy a button to save your life? Didn't you have a dollar?"

Evildoer: "Yes, but I didn't believe him."

God: "Well, you can't say I didn't warn you, now can you?"

Evildoer: "Well no, but..."

God: "So now just to get this straight. Your eternal death in the lake of fire is whose fault?"

Evildoer: "Mine."

God: "Right. Bie-bie!"

Larsguy47

Sauron

*sigh*

1. If they were trying to hide their chronology or protect it from being re-written, then how does re-writing it themselves rescue them from that threat?

2. They didn't remove the negative comments about other nations, or the judgements of God / condemnations. If they were trying to protect their book from being re-written, then they missed some big, obvious chunks that would attract the attention of the conquering powers.

3. In point of fact, the Jews were almost ALWAYS subject to other empires. Yet their entire chronology is not wrong; only certain sections of it. If there was some kind of threat to the texts by virtue of being a conquered nation, then you'd expect them to consistently change all the chronological references -- not just some of them.

But parables are not what we see here. The parable contains the original truth, camouflaged with different actors. What we see here are mistakes in the chronology, not an attempt to camouflage actors under different names.

Which have no basis in fact.

So Peter denied Christ six times, total? Is that your argument? You probably also believe that Judas died once by hanging, and then was resurrected so he could die again, by falling headlong into a field.

No, that is what happens when someone has decided that they will do anything, say anything, take any position no matter how silly or indefensible, in order to preserve their doctrine of biblical infallibility. That is not science, nor research, nor historical examination.