spin

But Larsguy47 is a good old jehovah's witness and Finkelstein and Siblerman are emissaries of the devil. This is some kind of evil atheist conspiracy among archaeologists.

Sauron

Then it doesn't qualify as a warning. If I know that you only speak Chinese, and I choose to warn you by flashing a message in binary, what good does the warning do?

If the so-called warning can't be understood by the recipient, then it's just noise and doesn't warn of anything at all.

Checkmate.

Larsguy47

[QUOTE]This is laughable. You must not know why the KTU 1.78 is connected with Akhenaten. I am not doing this so much for you, but for others who might read your misleading comments. It's "circumstantial" but pretty simple.

In one of the Amarna Letters found in EGYPT, EA 151, a letter from Abi-Milku to Akhenaten he mentions a fire at the palace in Ugarit.

Lines 49-58 "The king, my lord, wrote to me, "Write to me what you have heard in Canaan." The king of Danuna died; his brother became king afer his death, and his land is at peace. Fire destroyed the place at Ugarit; (rather), it destroyed half of it and so half of it has disappeared."

This reference is linked to the KTU 1.78 text because its surface was burned and it was found in the ashes of a room that had been burned. It was not, however, the final layer of destruction, but beneath it. In addition, it was the only text with an astronomical reference found at Ugarit. One one side the details of the eclipse is noted and on the other side is a liver reading.

Now my main reference to this is David Rohl who uses this to help date the Amarna Period to a matched eclipse in 1012 BCE. But there have always been considered 3 other candidates, the primary dating to 1375BCE.

Now please pay close attention: The mere dating of this text to 1375 BCE as it had been done by FR Stephenson would automatically connect it to the rule of Akhenaten since his rule began in 1378BCE. This means the eclipse potentially happend during the conventional dating of his reign. David Rohl has assigned this to the 12th year of Akhenaten based upon a contemporaneous king living during the time of Akhenaten. If that is accurate then Akhenaten began his rule in 1386BCE.

Here are two quotes from Johm Bimson on the topic:


WHAT TO THINK: Note, that two of my views, that the "btt" is a reference to the sixth hour, and that the text was a temporary document are shared by scholars discussing the text, and thus are also not new nor unique views. So this is very conventional for me for a change.

Having noted that, consistent with the above, we might ask if this was just a personal note not meant for saving, perhaps written down by a priest-astronomer to be presented to the king with an interpretation of the eclipse event and liver reading for his personal reference, then why was it preserved?

Add to that that there are no other texts like it found at Ugarit and you have another circumstantial suggestion that similar texts were likely discarded shortly after they were written. It was pertinent to that eclipse and what was interpreted with respect to what would happen in the immediate future. There would have been little need to preserve this type of text any more than people wanting to know what their horoscope read 10 years ago. That brings us to the text being charred.

If this text was "in play" at the time, perhaps not read yet, out drying, and a fire occurred, it would explain why it was not discarded. Thus the fire is the proximal reason for why this unusual text got preserved. If so, it would date the fire very close to the eclipse event. It's just that simple.

Being that as it may, it means that this fire took place in 1375BCE. Now it doesn't have to be the fire mentioned in the palace as above. It could have been another local or major fire. But based on the above, the fire would have had to have occurred in 1375BCE. Period.

Now Akhenaten's rule per the Bible begins in 1386BCE, or by conventional dating in 1378BCE, which is a generalized date. The Exodus per Kathleen Kenyon's dating for the fall of Jericho by the Israelites between 1350-1325BCE would date the Exodus between 1390-1365BCE, so that fits this dating.

So what we have here is a reported major fire at Ugarit to Akhenaten burning down half the palace and who knows what else occurring sometime during his rule other than in 1375 BCE, which would date some other fire.

So we know that a fire occurred in 1375BCE, year 12 of Akhenaten because of other means of dating the 1st of Akhenaten to 1386BCE. That is, you can use 455BCE for the 1st of Cyrus to date the Exodus 19 jubilees earlier, 931 years, to 1386BCE. OR, my preference, you can use the jubilee of the 70th week in 1947 to date the Exodus, as the final return of the Jews to Palestine marks their 70th week of the Covenant. That means that the Covenant ends 49 years after 1947 in 1996 and thus begins 3430 years earlier (70 x 49) in 1435BCE. The Exodus is the first jubilee for this period which would occur 49 years later, dating the Exodus specifically to 1386 BCE.

Therefore, the eclipse that happened in 1375BCE did happen in year 12 of Akhenaten, no matter what. So the suggestion is that the fire reported in the palace to Akhenaten might have been the same event, BECAUSE it was a major fire in the same location.

Got it?

Now I know you don't want me to post the RC14 dating for the fall of Rehov by Shishak, right? Dated specifically mid-range to 870.5 BCE? Which dates year 4 of Solomon to 905.5 BCE? Which then dates the Exodus to 1385.5 BCE? Didn't think so.


May be, but lots of people are playing this game and the "scholars" are not always unbiased in their interpretations or views. As I've pointed out, it's quite apparent that Sachs/Hunger in misrepresented star assignments in the VAT4956. They made a reference for the "moon" for a blank part of the text without noting it was a 10-day error, whereas they noted a 1-day error for Line 3. However, the reference was to Venus. That assignment would alter their assignments for three different lines in the text. Their not mentioning this is an "error" suggests this was a deliberate "hand wave" to the problem of the text. So I don't have that high of a regard for all "scholars" once they have shown their biases.


My name is not "Dave" this week, well, at least not in this forum!

See above comment regarding Sachs/Hunger and the VAT4956. Plus Israel Finkelstein, as important as his work is to my own chronology, is a perfect example of scholarly bias if ever there was one. So it depends. But I will say that honest, well-meaning and competent scientists are sometimes limited by faulty theories. For instance, presuming to date by argon gas can be problematic if the argon gas deposits are artificially high, as in the case of a lava flow dating back millions of years when the flow is only 50 years old. So each reference has to be taken independently.

Well, that's me. I like the Bible and so far there's not a single contradiction in the Bible claimed by others that I can't dismiss. I just wave my right hand (my left! my right! my left! my right...nevermind!) and say: DISMISSED! And it's gone.

Thanks for making me look up more quotes, it was worth it!

By the way, Ugarit was under Egyptian influence during the Amarna Period. Period.

LG47

Larsguy47

And you don't realize I care less about this. What is pertinent, taking into consideration that apparently scientists can't use RC14 dating to get a fix on any date within a 12,000 year period (being sarcastic), is that after all is said and done, they still publish their "best guess." You're just qualifying their best guess. Since archaeologists use this to assist in their dating, regardless of the ranges or error margins, those understood variables are taken into consideration. So as long as the primary central date of the City IV Rehov dating falls in 870.5 BCE, it's perfectly okay for me to make that reference. The chart was not put out, however, pointing to 870.5 BCE to imply some other preferred dating apart and opposed to 870.5 BCE. So it doesn't matter. You want to say that other dates close to 870.5 BCE are plausible? Great! You want to tell us there are numerous problems and there may be an "error" in this particular calculation? Great! But as far as they are concerned, this is their "best guess", all considered. If you want to go against their best, be my guest, but how can you? You only have chronology to do that, and I have the absolute edge on the chronology because of the astronomical absolute dating. So I don't see where you have any choice here.


This is not true. Here is a direct quote from the folks who put out the chart:



Groningen Labs say: "The strong point of the Groningen set of dates is the quality control aspect; two independent laboratories, one conventional including a high precision counter for large quantities of single yar sample material, and one AMS. The AMS cannot achieve high precision but triplicate analyses were performed (both pre-treatment and measurement were performed in triplicate!). This enables the calculation of a weighted average of dates in order to increase the precision and possibly also the accuracy, resulting in a measurement that is closer to the 'true age.'" ("The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating" page 266)

Page 269: "The Groningen dates of Tel Rehov come from a detailed stratigraphic series of reliable sequenced contexts, each providing short-lived samples. These are perfect materials for dating from the radiocarbon point of perspective (van Strydonck et al. 1999)... Reproducibility of a radiocarbon measurement on the same sample is both a check and a confirmation of accuracy and reliability. It is, therefore, important that key samples are measured to the highest possible precision, that is, they should be short-lived, large in size and preferably subject to duplicate or triplicate analysis."

So this is state-of-the-art dating, on great samples. Maybe you're confused with samples that are not "short-lived" or older methods? You know, if a burned piece of ceiling timber is being dated, then yes, you have to introduce a potentially very large application date if that is used to date a level. But that's why short-lived grains are the way to go. They are more proximal to the actual dating. But particularly when you have charred grains datable to a destructive level is this good, as at Rehov. This increases even more if these are cultured grains and cereals, suggesting harvesting within a year. That's the case with City IV at Rehov. It has all the elements in line to scientifically date this event within +/1 ten years or less of their "weighted average" dating arrived at from multiple testings of the same sample, reducing the usual curve inserted for RC14 dating when the sample is miniscule.

Well, I already know the right date from astronomy so 871BCE is the correct date. But putting that aside, you're absolutely incorrect to say this 95% range is nearly 100 years. I can't imagine why you'd say that? I guess you just don't know how to read the chart. I've already posted that their results are considered to be "much less than ten years" from the actual date.


No it hasn't been shown to me and that is not what the chart says. The highest relative dating for that event is clearly indicated by the highest peak level. Furthermore, you can't lump all RC14 dating into one. Various samples and the type of sample require different curves. In this particular case the dating is considered very precise, within "much less than ten years" accuracy.

Like I care? I'm the chronologist here. The VAT4956 is enough alone to dismiss the current dating used by archaeologists. They are behind the times. Kathleen Kenyon's dating for the fall of Jericho by the Israelites between 1350-1325 BCE alone would down date Solomon's 39th year to 874 BCE at the earliest. So you can't win the archaeochronology dating. You can make your own choices, but as soon as you use critical RC14 dating or archaeological dating you're going to agree with my dates. There's no choice. Further, it's not as though it's a big mystery where the current chronology came from. Xerxes and Artaxerxes were the same king. Now, if by chance you think you can confirm they were two different kings and ruled when the current chronology says they did, be my guest. And you'll be incorrect. All I can do is keep saying that when the correctly dated Assyrian eclipse in the correct third month is used, which is 709BCE, then Shishak's invasion drops down from 925BCE to 871BCE, and that is in the middle of the 200-year RC14 "best guess" range currently dated for Rehov's City IV level destroyed by Shishak. So all is well.

Please, you have to keep saying this over and over because you have no other choice. The chart speaks for itself. It POINTS to a specific range of date of only 7 years, not 100 years. You can't deal with it. So you just keep posting. But it works for me because I get to do more research and find even more to support this chronology.

But don't you realize you can use any dated event to set up a timeline? Once Kathleen Kenyon dated the fall of Jericho to 1350BCE that locked the date of the Exodus in as well. When you extrapolate that to dating Solomon you get the right dates, confirmed quite effectively by the RC14 Rehov sample. There's no choice. The only reason 925BCE is in place is because of that one misdated eclipse during the Assyrian Period to 763BCE, but should be 709BCE. The VAT4956 confirms the 568BCE dating is fabricated for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar. 511 BCE is the original correct date. This makes the Persian Period 82 years too long, but that is easily remedied by removing 30 years from Darius I, 30 from Artaxerxes II, and combining the 21-year rule of Xerxes with Artaxerxes who was himself. We're done!

Do you have a pen handy? Write this down: "I'm right. You're wrong."

Nah. Just business as usual.

LG47

Larsguy47

[QUOTE=NinJay;4327350]

Regardless of what you say, there is actually a chart with a GRAPH. No matter how large the range RC14 daters want to give, based upon the sample they found for that level the highest probability still is 870.5 BCE. Since that is the correct date, it only means either by expertise or "accident" they are sporting the correct date.

YOUR PROBLEM is finding another date that is more "probable" than the one they are giving. So if you wish, I can use the range but it is clear that dates closer to the center rather than the edge will be preferenced in a show down.

Finally, I hasten to remind you once again, that dating the fall of Jericho between 1350-1325BCE automatically dates Shishak no earlier than 874 BCE. The dating to 871BCE simply concurs with this.

LG47





LG47

spin

Doh! Larsguy47, fires weren't particularly rare. Try again.

You're back to your favorite logical error once again.

X is Y and Z is Y so X is Z.

That's terrible thinking, Larsguy47. If you want to appeal to uniformity you need many examples. One example is certainly too flimsy to hang a hypothesis on.

So you conclude it must have been the fire that Abi-Milku alludes to?

So?

So?

But Rohl is FITH. He has to pretend that Kitchen doesn't exist and didn't writer an exhaustive work on the Third Intermediate Period.

This is ripe coming from someone who seems to exude Attention Deficit Disorder.

Can't you see how you are caught by the necessity to cling to a particular eclipse? That is your undoing. Science can't allow you the luxury of inerrancy.

Bimson is a conservative religious looney, whose only use these days is to bolster the likes of Rohl.

No-one who has translated and published this term in a recognized journal has provided the notion of hours. This is simply you out on a bendy limb all by your lonesome.

I have no problem with the text being a "temporary document", but the notion shoots you in the foot: you want this to be a unique document that was not the work of the Ugaritic culture per se but an Egyptian or Egyptianizing effort. However, if this was a temporary document it is only luck that it has survived and your dependence on its uniqueness has no value, if it ever had it.

It got burnt. Get it? That's why it was preserved. Now don't try to dream up 42, please.

Don't you see that lack of logic? No. You just shoot yourself in the foot because you like it.

As I have pointed out at least two other eclipses have been related to the same text this is another albatross around your neck. You have to live with it and you cannot know that it is right, ie you are in limbo.

I see conjecture is your main staple.

You can dance around repeating this as much as you like. It won't be made more credible.

Gosh a meaningful period. It has to be because that's what you want. Nothing more, and as you say, "period".

The bible says nothing about Akhenaten. You're doing eisegesis.

We've come a long way since the work of Kenyon. The conquest has been repudiated. The population in Canaan didn't get an influx. It was the same population from the bronze age to the iron age. As I've indicated, the language of the Jews is a Canaanite language, ie it came from Canaan. It was not an introduced language and it shows no sign of Egyptian influence. Your apologetics for the exodus has been noted and put back in the closet.

Do you think you could say something new or developmental, rather than repeating yourself for little good reason?

We know that you want it to be, but let's have just a little evidence, huh??

Number twiddlers just don't get this fact: all these numbers have been twiddled many times before and all sorts of different results have been arrived at through apologetic fervor. Number twiddling doesn't work. It is almost always dictated by the a priori beliefs of the twiddler.

In short you are wasting time for no good reason.

Why don't you show me Akhenaten in the bible? What is the Hebrew form of the name?? Thrill us with your inventiveness.

So the eclipse isn't evidence it is a part of your scenario. It has no value in itself. It's just what you use to convince yourself of this frippery.

This is sort of Rohl, but it ain't rock at all. In fact it is merely the same sort of conjecture all of your work has been so far. Remember cutting off thirty years from Darius by ignoring the abundant cuneiform evidence? Remember your confusion with the Rehov C14 data? Remember your purile rubbish about Socrates and Aristotle? Hang on a moment...



That was too much. Have you ever wondered why your such a lonely person?

I think the virus you've got is only transmittable sexually, so no-one's got it -- except you.

It would be nice if knew something about it when you posted it. You are still ignorant about relative probabilities of dating. And any point within the range given has the same probability.

As you don't know the language and all the facts involved, you're in no position to comment. As is so often the case, you are clueless of the basic data and you get inventive of the little you understand, such is the case with the mess you made trying to put Aristotle at the time of Socrates. Pure mayhem on your part.

You've been caught out blundering over Darius, over Aristotle, over Plato, over KTU 1.78, hell is there anything you haven't been caught out blundering about??

Really helpful.

Just how do you consider Finkelstein is biased? What tendencies have you noticed which suggest bias?? I don't think you're in a position to be able to adduce bias regarding Finkelstein. Perhaps you can make serious presentation about this claim...

Well, hell, so do I. But then it's not your likes and dislikes which interest me. It's your commitments which terminally interfere with your being able to make rational judgments about any material you've commented on here on this forum.

Dismissal is not enough. You need reasonable means of dismissing "contradictions".

And that's an example of an unreasonable means of dismissing contradictions. When you can't even face problems, you can't expect to solve them.

I think I need to translate them for you so you can understand what they're about.

I see, so you'll remain clueless to the end... During the Amarna period Shuppiluliuma I of Hatti took control of Ugarit from Egypt around the time he invaded Mitanni. Just try Wikiing "Suppiluliuma" for a kickstart. You get a doh! for your willful lack of knowledge.


spin

spamandham

Ok, so now that we've wasted how much time discussing RC14 dating, you declare it to be irrelevant to your position anyway. How pathetic.

Your entire incoherent nonargument from irrelevant red herrings comes across as "look here's the answer, I'll come up with something to justify it eventually. Oh that one didn't work? Well, let's try this one on for size."

You are the only one convinced by this quackery. You throw out terms and ideas you don't even understand half baked, and seem to actually think you know what you're talking about. You must use a reasonable range of dates. This is not optional. If the 95% error range were only a few years, you could maybe get away with what you are attempting, but it isn't. It's nearly 100 years, and that range makes all the difference in the world to your argument. There is a 1.7% probability that your position is correct. That means there is a 98.3% likelihood your argument is wrong.

Is your purpose here to convince others, or simply to convince yourself? If the latter, you seem to have succeeeded. Perhaps a victory celebration is in order.

(cool! now were so certain, we can even say 870.5 and not just 870 BCE)

It may indeed be the best guess, but it's a piss poor guess. You'd be better off betting that it isn't that date, by about a factor of 50 to 1. If you change your argument to "we can virtually exclude 870.5", you would actually have an argument that holds water, but still not a very useful one.

Who's best? You are the only person here demonstrating a total lack of understanding of the chart you've presented, ...not only here, but in threads all over this forum. The peak of the chart is not the "best guess" in the sense you are trying to use it. There is no single date that is of high enough probability to count as a "best guess" in the sense you are trying to use it. If I weren't having so much fun rubbing salt in this wound, I'd have been infuriated by your obstinant willful ignorance by now.

I prefer to stick to your fundamental misunderstanding of how to use this chart. That's what you've wasted so many people's time on.

...so they used a combination of old and newer technology. That explaines why the 95% range is nearly 100 years. Maybe you should use better source evidence in your arguments next time. But you've chosen source evidence that has a standard deviation of about 25 years. You can not claim the error is less than it actually is.

-Jay-

There's a chart? With a GRAPH? So the English language is another subject you're not very strong with? Here are some more facts about the chart: It's printed in black and white, occupies about 6 square inches of space on the printed page in the book, displays an interesting curve, has two axes perpendicular to one another, and the text accompanying it is presented in an eye-catching and attractive font. Who cherry picked this chart for you, Larsguy47? Go back to them and ask them to teach you how to read it.

Nope. I understand what the chart is telling me, and I have the intelligence and basic reasoning skills to correlate that information with the information presented by the authors. I'm perfectly happy with a date somewhere in the 2-sigma range. But then I don't have an obsessive need to mutilate the data to support a bunch of other fanciful notions.

First, your grammatical construction "remind you once again" is redundant. Second, the destruction of Jericho's walls can be placed just about in the middle of the 16th century BCE, archaeologically, and it's (to be polite) uncertain whether that particular destruction is the same as that which is described in the Bible. There isn't anything that's "automatically" dated here. I just see more baseless assertions.

regards,

NinJay

Larsguy47

No, you have a CHOICE. In fact, that is what JUDGMENT DAY is all about. Judgment Day occurs after Christ returns and rules for 1000 years on the earth. This 1000 years is a sabbath or "rest" from the world influenced by Satan or independent governments. They had nearly 6000 years to experiment with doing things their way. For 1000 years things will be done God's way and a world without death and sickness ruled by one ruler under God will be the ideal to compare against on Judgment Day.

On Judgment Day, everybody will come back to life and they will sort of COMPARE NOTES. That's how people will be judged. That is, whether under the individual circumstances one was coerced or willingly choose to go against God's laws or their god-given conscience. Obviously, most people will not be found to be unworthy, but others who went out of their way, say for greed or malice might be judged accordingly.

So in your case, others in your similar situation might be compared and then 1,440,000 judges will decide if you qualify for life.

Now contrasted with that are the angels in heaven. The says a wholloping one-third of them decided this god was not their "cup of tea" and decided to protest along with Satan, apparently content to die for their cause. You know, the "Give me liberty or give me death!" crowd? After they see everything the way God wishes it, they may still choose not to continue to live past say their 80 years.

Just to put a little more persepctive on this as well, so that it doesn't really seem like a GOOD and EVIL thing. The Bible mentions that it is very difficult for a "rich man" to get into the kingdom of heaven. That is, those who think that to be happy requires them to have the life of a rich man, will be challenged under a world where every individual is equal and self responsible.

Think about it: Sure being rich is great. We all dream of that big house in the hills and having everything we desire. But part of that requires the servitude of others. We have money to go out to a fancy restaurant, we expected to be waited on an fussed over by others and for the chef to create magic in the kitchen and be so honored we came to his restaurant. If all is equal, whose going to be waiting on you? Everybody from the doorman to the chef will be just as "rich" as you. So that aspect of "the good life" won't be there.

Or maybe you have a nice "prestigeous" home with a pool and a lawn the size of a golf course. Wow! How wonderful. You're living like a king. But whose going to cut the lawn? You won't have gardeners, not maids to attend to you, no "personal assistants" to take care of the daily chores in life while you plan vacation cruises around the world with other rich people.

So THAT person, who likes others picking up about him and validating some talent or business acumen he has in this world, will find a different world of absolute equality. Basically, he as to get with the program of "every man under his own fig tree" type of lifestyle. So people who need to be better than everybody else or who really appreciate "the good life" of this old world, might not see the "perfect world" of equality for all men as that much of a fun place, in which case, they may simply opt out.

God let Adam live out pretty much close to his 1000 years (1 day). So God may let others live out their 80 years of temporary life and then they will simply die and not be resurrected.

So the coming world is really for sort of the "common", everyday man, who enjoys people and nature more than things, materialism or status in the world. It is a world without doctors, lawyers, stock brokers, businessmen. But there will be scientists, technicians and artists of all kinds. There won't be any wars, and so no soilders. So those who are expert at fighting will have to find something else to do. Some will not want to make those necessary changes. Those too lazy to want to adapt or feel they are compromised, as Satan, will be allowed to excuse themselves.

But the everyday man, in all his glory, the guy who wants to surf all day and feel close to God, will think his life is still too short even if he lives forever.

So JUDGMENT DAY will screen out those who find themselves somewhat incompatible with the new order of things and who are too lazy or stubborn to make the changes in their mental or philosophical disposition to conform. It's unfortunate.

So God might not really be "judging" anybody. It's possible life will be offered to many, but after living under the new world circumstances, they may simply not be able to take it and actually volunteer to commit suicide. That is apparent because there is a rebellion after the millennium by "Gog of Magog" (Nazism) after the millennium ends. These don't want to conform and apparently want to create a separate society, but they are not permitted to.

But everyone, even if they are not the "right type" of person for the new order, have a chance to make those changes and to conform, and so everybody actually has a personal choice if they want what is being offered. Those who value life itself over "lifestyle" will tend to do better.

You are not predestined to death or life. You make that choice. And it's true genetic makeup has something to do with that, but every person likely has to make some adjustments. Even Chirst himself had to learn obedience.

LG47

Larsguy47

Yes, but my point is that they use a new method of multiple testing and dividing a single specimen and then calculate the "average" of those findings and that date is believed to overcome the presumed higher error margin.

That is, if you have a single sample that is give or take 45 years. The presumption is that it falls somewhere toward one end or the middle of the true dating. But if you do multiple samples, and compare, the results sort themselves out and you learn based upon the highest average where that sample actually falls. But at the same time it tends to tell you where the center of the range is and that is closer to the "true date." Thus even the error margin that must be ascribed to each individual value, when it is grouped together with multiple testing, the true date becomes more apparent.

Thus if you have a study like that with multiple testing, then one would expect a "peak" to point to the most consistently probable date vs that "peak" being itself 45 years plus/minus. So you are trying to say the averaged peak has to same "flexibility" as the individual value, and that would not be the case/presumption. Thus multiple testing and "weighted average" overcomes and improves the accuracy in relation to the "true date."

This "theory" of the weighted average, though, with the right sample and when that sample can be linked to a specific event, such as the end of a city that is burned with evidence linking it to a certain campaign, such as Shishak's campaign, is absolutely amazing, since as we know, the aggregate average of 918-823 BCE is 870.5, which is 871BCE and that is the historical date you get for that event when you correct the astronomical dating of the Assyrian eclipse from 763BCE to 709BCE! So it is absolutely amazing how accurate that method is. The peak points to precisely the correct year.

But then, why shouldn't it? That is, if 871BCE is truly the date of this destruction and these "cereals" were harvested within a year of that event? You want to leave some room for adjustment? Fine. Increase the error margin to your own comfort level. But the middle of this range will still point to the right date. We know what the correct dating is historically and astrohistorically, this RC14 dating simply confirms it, that's all.


LG47