A radiocarbon dating question

[NatureBoff]

Your 1800 year lunar cycle has nothing to do with the production of Carbon 14, so it's really irrelevant..

You're OWN POST #21 says that it is!!

A series of 14C measurements in Ocean Drilling Program cores from the tropical Cariaco Basin, which have been correlated to the annual-layer counted chronology for the Greenland Ice Sheet Project 2 (GISP2) ice core, provides a high-resolution calibration of the radiocarbon time scale back to 50,000 years before the present. Independent radiometric dating of events correlated to GISP2 suggests that the calibration is accurate. Reconstructed 14C activities varied substantially during the last glacial period, including sharp peaks synchronous with the Laschamp and Mono Lake geomagnetic field intensity minimal and cosmogenic nuclide peaks in ice cores and marine sediments. Simulations with a geochemical box model suggest that much of the variability can be explained by geomagnetically modulated changes in 14C production rate together with plausible changes in deep-ocean ventilation and the global carbon cycle during glaciation.

Deep-ocean ventilation and the global carbon cycle during glaciation. The lunar tidal cycle would change the deep-ocean currents, lifting more nutrients to the surface. It has MUCH more relevance than you realize.

Edited July 17, 2013 by NatureBoff

[cormac mac airt]

You're OWN POST #21 says that it is!!

Deep-ocean ventilation and the global carbon cycle during glaciation. The lunar tidal cycle would change the deep-ocean currents, lifting more nutrients to the surface. It has MUCH more relevance than you realize.

That doesn't work since whether we're talking about 10,000 BP (8000 BC) or 3600 BP (1600 BC) in neither case are we talking about a glacial period. In the former the Ice Age had just ended and in the latter we're well into the Holocene which obviously is much warmer.

cormac

[NatureBoff]

That doesn't work since whether we're talking about 10,000 BP (8000 BC) or 3600 BP (1600 BC) in neither case are we talking about a glacial period. In the former the Ice Age had just ended and in the latter we're well into the Holocene which obviously is much warmer.

The millennial cycle goes into the Holocene as well. They're called Bond Events:

The existence of climatic changes, possibly on a quasi-1,500 year cycle, is well established for the last glacial period from ice cores. Less well established is the continuation of these cycles into the holocene. Bond et al. (1997) argue for a cyclicity close to 1470 ± 500 years in the North Atlantic region, and that their results imply a variation in Holocene climate in this region. In their view, many if not most of the Dansgaard–Oeschger events of the last ice age, conform to a 1,500-year pattern, as do some climate events of later eras, like the Little Ice Age, the 8.2 kiloyear event, and the start of the Younger Dryas.

Edited July 17, 2013 by NatureBoff

[Riaan]

Yes, I think you are right. I've come across this before where the uncalibrated carbon dates are intuitively more accurate than the calibrated dates. It was a report about beetles in the Holocene in arctic Siberia. The millennial cycle isn't well understood by mainstream science, therefore being generally ignored, so giving ample room for a deviation in the effectiveness of the calibration. The 253yr difference is easily within the bounds of error imv. Good luck with your excellent research.

Thanks for the encouraging words! The whole issue about carbon dating revolves around the carbon reservoir and the concept of equilibrium, by which it is assumed that the C¹⁴/C¹² ratio in plants will always be identical to the same ratio in the atmosphere, and that at a particular time the ratio is constant everywhere around the world. The accuracy of ±10 years around 1613 BCE is a misnomer - it merely reflects the precision with which scientists can measure the C¹⁴/C¹² ratio in a specimen. In the example I used, 1360 BCE is 3373 years ago, and exp(-3373g)=0.664, with N₀=1. Scientists can measure the value of 0.664 very precisely, but that does not mean that N₀ is accurate (see the Wikipedia article on Accuracy vs Precision). Perhaps N₀ should be 1.03 or 0.97 instead of 1.0000?

When scientists claim that N₀ is constant around the world at any given time, how constant is constant? Does it vary by 1%, 2%, or a billionth of a percent? Is N₀ the same in the heart of a rain forest, where there is much more CO₂ for trees to absorb (see the Wikipedia article on Atmospheric Carbon Cycle), than in the middle of a desert were a lone tree struggles to survive next to an oasis? Would all RC dating experts be prepared to put their heads on the block for their conviction that N₀ is 100.0000000% the same around the world? I think not.

[cormac mac airt]

The millennial cycle goes into the Holocene as well. They're called Bond Events:

With the exception of Bond Event 8, c.11,100 BP (9100 BC - Younger Dryas), the remainder have nothing to do with the last glacial period, which was what you were trying to imply in Post #51. In short, you've not shown that there's any direct relationship between one and the other. And while plausible changes in deep-ocean ventilation are possible you've shown no evidence that they significantly change the production and distribution of C14 in order to be responsible for any alleged discrepancy in C14 dating. Particularly during the 3600 BP date in question.

cormac

[NatureBoff]

Thanks for the encouraging words! The whole issue about carbon dating revolves around the carbon reservoir and the concept of equilibrium, by which it is assumed that the C¹⁴/C¹² ratio in plants will always be identical to the same ratio in the atmosphere, and that at a particular time the ratio is constant everywhere around the world. The accuracy of ±10 years around 1613 BCE is a misnomer - it merely reflects the precision with which scientists can measure the C¹⁴/C¹² ratio in a specimen. In the example I used, 1360 BCE is 3373 years ago, and exp(-3373g)=0.664, with N₀=1. Scientists can measure the value of 0.664 very precisely, but that does not mean that N₀ is accurate (see the Wikipedia article on Accuracy vs Precision). Perhaps N₀ should be 1.03 or 0.97 instead of 1.0000?

When scientists claim that N₀ is constant around the world at any given time, how constant is constant? Does it vary by 1%, 2%, or a billionth of a percent? Is N₀ the same in the heart of a rain forest, where there is much more CO₂ for trees to absorb (see the Wikipedia article on Atmospheric Carbon Cycle), than in the middle of a desert were a lone tree struggles to survive next to an oasis? Would all RC dating experts be prepared to put their heads on the block for their conviction that N₀ is 100.0000000% the same around the world? I think not.

I'm glad you've worked it out for yourself. The mechanism of the Bond Event is also vital to the carbon cycle. Good luck with your project.

[cormac mac airt]

Thanks for the encouraging words! The whole issue about carbon dating revolves around the carbon reservoir and the concept of equilibrium, by which it is assumed that the C¹⁴/C¹² ratio in plants will always be identical to the same ratio in the atmosphere, and that at a particular time the ratio is constant everywhere around the world. The accuracy of ±10 years around 1613 BCE is a misnomer - it merely reflects the precision with which scientists can measure the C¹⁴/C¹² ratio in a specimen. In the example I used, 1360 BCE is 3373 years ago, and exp(-3373g)=0.664, with N₀=1. Scientists can measure the value of 0.664 very precisely, but that does not mean that N₀ is accurate (see the Wikipedia article on Accuracy vs Precision). Perhaps N₀ should be 1.03 or 0.97 instead of 1.0000?

When scientists claim that N₀ is constant around the world at any given time, how constant is constant? Does it vary by 1%, 2%, or a billionth of a percent? Is N₀ the same in the heart of a rain forest, where there is much more CO₂ for trees to absorb (see the Wikipedia article on Atmospheric Carbon Cycle), than in the middle of a desert were a lone tree struggles to survive next to an oasis? Would all RC dating experts be prepared to put their heads on the block for their conviction that N₀ is 100.0000000% the same around the world? I think not.

Atmospheric Carbon dioxide concentration over the last 400,000 years:

From the right side, within the last 50,000 years, one can see a difference from a low at c.180 parts per million to a high of c.285 parts per million. A 105 ppm increase. That would be 0.000105% which is nowhere near a 1% increase, not to mention any alleged 3% increase.

cormac

[Riaan]

Atmospheric Carbon dioxide concentration over the last 400,000 years:

From the right side, within the last 50,000 years, one can see a difference from a low at c.180 parts per million to a high of c.285 parts per million. A 105 ppm increase. That would be 0.000105% which is nowhere near a 1% increase, not to mention any alleged 3% increase.

cormac

Actually, an increase of 105 ppm on 180 ppm is a 56.7% increase. This is not what I am referring to - I am questioning the assumption that at any given time, the C¹⁴/C¹² ratio is the same at every spot on the planet. I actually have to correct this statement, as it has already been established that the C¹⁴ percentage in the northern hemisphere is marginally higher than in the southern hemisphere. If the C¹⁴/C¹² ratio is 3% smaller at Thera compared to the ratio in a rain forest, where the RC dated tree was presumably found, then both RC dates (raw) would be correct and no 'calibration' would be required.

[questionmark]

Actually, an increase of 105 ppm on 180 ppm is a 56.7% increase. This is not what I am referring to - I am questioning the assumption that at any given time, the C¹⁴/C¹² ratio is the same at every spot on the planet. I actually have to correct this statement, as it has already been established that the C¹⁴ percentage in the northern hemisphere is marginally higher than in the southern hemisphere. If the C¹⁴/C¹² ratio is 3% smaller at Thera compared to the ratio in a rain forest, where the RC dated tree was presumably found, then both RC dates (raw) would be correct and no 'calibration' would be required.

Very unlikely, but please feel free to present actual data corroborating that.

[cormac mac airt]

Actually, an increase of 105 ppm on 180 ppm is a 56.7% increase. This is not what I am referring to - I am questioning the assumption that at any given time, the C¹⁴/C¹² ratio is the same at every spot on the planet. I actually have to correct this statement, as it has already been established that the C¹⁴ percentage in the northern hemisphere is marginally higher than in the southern hemisphere. If the C¹⁴/C¹² ratio is 3% smaller at Thera compared to the ratio in a rain forest, where the RC dated tree was presumably found, then both RC dates (raw) would be correct and no 'calibration' would be required.

Parts per million, not parts total.

Since Thera is part of the Northern Hemisphere and you've not shown that there is a 3% difference in CO2 concentration between it and anywhere else in the Northern Hemisphere then it shouldn't be assumed that there is.

cormac

[Riaan]

Parts per million, not parts total.

cormac

See definition of ppmv here. It means parts per million by volume and is a measure of density. We might as well have called the unit of measure Z. An increase of from 180Z to 285Z is an increase of 57%. See Wiki article here.

[NatureBoff]

See definition of ppmv here. It means parts per million by volume and is a measure of density. We might as well have called the unit of measure Z. An increase of from 180Z to 285Z is an increase of 57%. See Wiki article here.

You sound very impressive Riaan. I'm not into numbers, but you've convinced me enough. Why waste your time this with bunch of so-and-so's? Why not get on and write your next book? Edited July 17, 2013 by NatureBoff

[Riaan]

You sound very impressive Riaan. I'm not into numbers, but you've convinced me enough. Why waste your time this with bunch of so-and-so's? Why not get on and write your next book?

As much as I would like to ignore the issue, it does not solve my problem! Thera's eruption date of 1613 BCE allows scientists to sweep all any link between the biblical plagues of Egypt and the Exodus off the table, with the comment that 'it simply did not happen'. However, if this is the case, there is a mountain of this evidence, as presented in my book, that they must be able to explain away. To say that each and every bit of evidence is pure fantasy is absurd - many aspects of Manetho's account of the Exodus can be verified. How did these 'fantastical' legends arise? So I am really trying to find a compromise for this dating discrepancy. The other option would be to move Amenhotep III's reign to 1613 BCE, which would probably be even more difficult to do.

In between, I am continuing with my research into other topics, thanks.

[questionmark]

As much as I would like to ignore the issue, it does not solve my problem! Thera's eruption date of 1613 BCE allows scientists to sweep all any link between the biblical plagues of Egypt and the Exodus off the table, with the comment that 'it simply did not happen'. However, if this is the case, there is a mountain of this evidence, as presented in my book, that they must be able to explain away. To say that each and every bit of evidence is pure fantasy is absurd - many aspects of Manetho's account of the Exodus can be verified. How did these 'fantastical' legends arise? So I am really trying to find a compromise for this dating discrepancy. The other option would be to move Amenhotep III's reign to 1613 BCE, which would probably be even more difficult to do.

In between, I am continuing with my research into other topics, thanks.

The fact that Finkelstein and Silberman conclusively demonstrated that most of the first parts of the Bible were "accidentally" found during "temple renovations" at a time where a new myth of unity of the Samaritans and Judeans had to be found after the invasion of the Assyrians does not make you think a little?

Edited July 17, 2013 by questionmark

[cormac mac airt]

As much as I would like to ignore the issue, it does not solve my problem! Thera's eruption date of 1613 BCE allows scientists to sweep all any link between the biblical plagues of Egypt and the Exodus off the table, with the comment that 'it simply did not happen'. However, if this is the case, there is a mountain of this evidence, as presented in my book, that they must be able to explain away. To say that each and every bit of evidence is pure fantasy is absurd - many aspects of Manetho's account of the Exodus can be verified. How did these 'fantastical' legends arise? So I am really trying to find a compromise for this dating discrepancy. The other option would be to move Amenhotep III's reign to 1613 BCE, which would probably be even more difficult to do.

In between, I am continuing with my research into other topics, thanks.

It does no such thing. The dating of Thera is what it is. You can either show evidence linking the Biblical claims to the 17th century BC or you can't. And so far the scientific community has said that the discrepancy between the radiocarbon dates and the archaeological record (based on pottery usage and styles) cannot be reconciled and you have shown no evidence to the contrary. It may be a bit of a conundrum, but it's one you haven't solved by way of evidence.

Easy. They were bits and pieces of unrelated or semi-related stories from other cultures that were incorporated into the Jewish corpus in order to give them a greater sense of antiquity than was otherwise evidenced. Which was something that many cultures in that area of the world had done.

cormac

Edited July 17, 2013 by cormac mac airt

[Riaan]

The fact that Finkelstein and Silberman conclusively demonstrated that most of the first parts of the Bible were "accidentally" found during "temple renovations" at a time where a new myth of unity of the Samaritans and Judeans had to be found after the invasion of the Assyrians does not make you think a little?

Yes, everything is pure fantasy.

[NatureBoff]

As much as I would like to ignore the issue, it does not solve my problem! Thera's eruption date of 1613 BCE allows scientists to sweep all any link between the biblical plagues of Egypt and the Exodus off the table, with the comment that 'it simply did not happen'. However, if this is the case, there is a mountain of this evidence, as presented in my book, that they must be able to explain away. To say that each and every bit of evidence is pure fantasy is absurd - many aspects of Manetho's account of the Exodus can be verified. How did these 'fantastical' legends arise? So I am really trying to find a compromise for this dating discrepancy. The other option would be to move Amenhotep III's reign to 1613 BCE, which would probably be even more difficult to do.

In between, I am continuing with my research into other topics, thanks.

Sorry if sound a bit ignorant on the subject, but I seem to remember a programme years ago which suggested that the 'sea of reeds' was crossed in the Exodus as opposed to the translated 'Red Sea'. This then tied with a tsunami, possibly from a volcanic eruption, which would have drawn the estuary waters of the Nile back, allowing their escape nearer the Mediterranean coast.

Am I on the right track? If so, then I would conclude that the stories were a combination of events that probably did happen in one form or another, but were cobbled together to give a Jewish-centric version of events. Much like every civilisation that there has ever been.

Is there a saying about the one who writes the history or something..?

[Riaan]

Sorry if sound a bit ignorant on the subject, but I seem to remember a programme years ago which suggested that the 'sea of reeds' was crossed in the Exodus as opposed to the translated 'Red Sea'. This then tied with a tsunami, possibly from a volcanic eruption, which would have drawn the estuary waters of the Nile back, allowing their escape nearer the Mediterranean coast.

Am I on the right track? If so, then I would conclude that the stories were a combination of events that probably did happen in one form or another, but were cobbled together to give a Jewish-centric version of events. Much like every civilisation that there has ever been.

Is there a saying about the one who writes the history or something..?

Unfortunately not (wrong track). There must have been two volcanic eruptions, approximately 200 years apart, with the biblical 'walls of water' being their tsunamis. The path through the sea must have been the Lake Manzalah land bridge to the north - there never was a 'parting of the sea'. The biblical pillar of cloud by day and pillar of fire by night can only be a reference to a volcanic eruption column on the horizon. You should read my book if you are really interested, but it is rather academic in nature. I present some articles based on the book here. There are several aspects of the Exodus that can be verified, e.g. (see the articles)

1. Manetho identifies the pharaoh of the Exodus as Amenhotep III. Graham Philips identified Amenhotep's firstborn son crown prince Tuthmosis as the biblical Moses. It is known that Prince Tuthmosis assisted his father during the first burial of the Apis bull. Artapanus recorded this event almost verbatim. How can this be an invention? According to Manetho there was a deadly plague in Egypt during Amenhotep's reign - this we know from amongs others the plague prayers of Mursilis. The El Arish Shrine text describes several days of utmost darkness (as does the Bible) and then proceeds to describe how the king's son sent ambassadors to the Canaanites, summoning them to him - this they did. Manetho recorded exactly the same event about Moses. Manetho states that Amenhotep retreated to Ethiopia for 13 years - Ethiopia is littered with monuments erected in Amenhotep's honour. Did the Ethiopians adore A3 that much? Definitely not - he must have been there exactly as Manetho stated. The there is also the Megiddo ivory, etc, etc, etc. According to the radiocarbon chronologers, all of this is rubbish, pure imagination.

If not Thera, there must have been different volcanic eruption during Amenhotep's reign - can anyone suggest a candidate?

[questionmark]

If not Thera, there must have been different volcanic eruption during Amenhotep's reign - can anyone suggest a candidate?

Visible in Egypt? Guess not, you'll have to paint one.

[cormac mac airt]

Unfortunately not (wrong track). There must have been two volcanic eruptions, approximately 200 years apart, with the biblical 'walls of water' being their tsunamis. The path through the sea must have been the Lake Manzalah land bridge to the north - there never was a 'parting of the sea'. The biblical pillar of cloud by day and pillar of fire by night can only be a reference to a volcanic eruption column on the horizon. You should read my book if you are really interested, but it is rather academic in nature. I present some articles based on the book here. There are several aspects of the Exodus that can be verified, e.g. (see the articles)

1. Manetho identifies the pharaoh of the Exodus as Amenhotep III. Graham Philips identified Amenhotep's firstborn son crown prince Tuthmosis as the biblical Moses. It is known that Prince Tuthmosis assisted his father during the first burial of the Apis bull. Artapanus recorded this event almost verbatim. How can this be an invention? According to Manetho there was a deadly plague in Egypt during Amenhotep's reign - this we know from amongs others the plague prayers of Mursilis. The El Arish Shrine text describes several days of utmost darkness (as does the Bible) and then proceeds to describe how the king's son sent ambassadors to the Canaanites, summoning them to him - this they did. Manetho recorded exactly the same event about Moses. Manetho states that Amenhotep retreated to Ethiopia for 13 years - Ethiopia is littered with monuments erected in Amenhotep's honour. Did the Ethiopians adore A3 that much? Definitely not - he must have been there exactly as Manetho stated. The there is also the Megiddo ivory, etc, etc, etc. According to the radiocarbon chronologers, all of this is rubbish, pure imagination.

If not Thera, there must have been different volcanic eruption during Amenhotep's reign - can anyone suggest a candidate?

There are no candidates.

cormac

[Harte]

Thanks, a very useful reference. You may remember the reason behind all my questions - in my book Thera and the Exodus I, link many others, link the biblical plagues of Egypt and the Exodus to an eruption of Thera. I show that that the eruption must have occurred during the reign of Amenhotep III, ca. 1360 BCE. However, this link is summarily rejected by scholars as the final eruption of Thera was dated to ca. 1613 BCE by the RC dating of an olive tree found in Thera's ash.

It is perhaps more than a coincidence that the uncalibrated RC date for the calibrated date of 1610 BCE is 1364 BCE, which is very close to my postulated date. Assuming that 1360 BCE was the actual year of the eruption, the result of the RC dating process of the olive tree would have shown a decay to 66.4% (1360 BCE is 3373 years ago, exp(-3373g)=0.664, N₀=1). If, however, the eruption occurred in 1613 BCE (3626 years ago), what value of N₀ would give the same level of decay? The answer is N₀ = 0.664/exp(-3626g) = 1.031. In other words, a 3% change in N₀ results in a 253 year difference, for the same level of decay. How accurately can scientists predict the C¹⁴ content of the atmosphere that long ago?

Well enough, because of studies such as the one you were linked to, wherein it states (among other things):

A series of 14C measurements in Ocean Drilling Program cores from the tropical

Cariaco Basin, which have been correlated to the annual-layer counted chronology

for the Greenland Ice Sheet Project 2 (GISP2) ice core

(my emphasis)

Note the word "annual." Layers were laid down annually, and you can actually count the years. Layers in ice as well as lake bottoms are an annual event.

In a similar way, some C14 dates can be verified by correlating them with tree rings (dendrochronology.)

Harte

[NatureBoff]

Unfortunately not (wrong track). There must have been two volcanic eruptions, approximately 200 years apart, with the biblical 'walls of water' being their tsunamis. The path through the sea must have been the Lake Manzalah land bridge to the north - there never was a 'parting of the sea'. The biblical pillar of cloud by day and pillar of fire by night can only be a reference to a volcanic eruption column on the horizon. You should read my book if you are really interested, but it is rather academic in nature. I present some articles based on the book here. There are several aspects of the Exodus that can be verified, e.g. (see the articles)

1. Manetho identifies the pharaoh of the Exodus as Amenhotep III. Graham Philips identified Amenhotep's firstborn son crown prince Tuthmosis as the biblical Moses. It is known that Prince Tuthmosis assisted his father during the first burial of the Apis bull. Artapanus recorded this event almost verbatim. How can this be an invention? According to Manetho there was a deadly plague in Egypt during Amenhotep's reign - this we know from amongs others the plague prayers of Mursilis. The El Arish Shrine text describes several days of utmost darkness (as does the Bible) and then proceeds to describe how the king's son sent ambassadors to the Canaanites, summoning them to him - this they did. Manetho recorded exactly the same event about Moses. Manetho states that Amenhotep retreated to Ethiopia for 13 years - Ethiopia is littered with monuments erected in Amenhotep's honour. Did the Ethiopians adore A3 that much? Definitely not - he must have been there exactly as Manetho stated. The there is also the Megiddo ivory, etc, etc, etc. According to the radiocarbon chronologers, all of this is rubbish, pure imagination.

If not Thera, there must have been different volcanic eruption during Amenhotep's reign - can anyone suggest a candidate?

Okay, thanks for the info. I used to be more into this kind of thing, but my interests are a lot more widespread nowadays. I can't help you any further with a candidate I'm afraid. It's perhaps worth remembering that tsunamis can be caused by a number of events, not just volcanic. It could be asteroid/comet impacts of the ocean for example. This is a new field of inquiry, where several large underwater craters attributed to Holocene events have been identified. Best of luck

Holocene Impact Working Group

There's a tsunami map too! (see thumbnail)

Map of historical tsunami sources in the World Ocean (1965 events for the period from 1628BC to present). The size of circle is proportional to the source magnitude (for seismically induced tsunamis), color represents the type of event: red - transoceanic tsunamis (11), magenta - regional tsunamis resulted in fatalities (223), blue - all other tsunamis (1731).

Source - Global Tsunami Database (GTDB), Tsunami Laboratory, ICMMG SD RAS, Novosibirsk, 2006

Edited July 18, 2013 by NatureBoff

[Riaan]

Okay, thanks for the info. I used to be more into this kind of thing, but my interests are a lot more widespread nowadays. I can't help you any further with a candidate I'm afraid. It's perhaps worth remembering that tsunamis can be caused by a number of events, not just volcanic. It could be asteroid/comet impacts of the ocean for example. This is a new field of inquiry, where several large underwater craters attributed to Holocene events have been identified. Best of luck

Holocene Impact Working Group

There's a tsunami map too! (see thumbnail)

I do not think for one moment think that there might be another candidate other than Thera. I am simply astounded at arguments like "They were bits and pieces of unrelated or semi-related stories from other cultures that were incorporated into the Jewish corpus in order to give them a greater sense of antiquity than was otherwise evidenced. Which was something that many cultures in that area of the world had done.".

Anyway, RC dating is based on several assumptions. For instance, the INTCAL04 correction table was drawn up as described in this abstract from the key article by Buck and Blackwell (Radiocarbon Vol 46, 2004, pp. 1093-1102):

"We report on the development and implementation of a model-based statistical method for the estimation of

radiocarbon calibration curves using diverse data. The method takes account of uncertainty on both the 14C and calendar

scales, coherently integrating data, the calendar age estimates of which arise from different dating methods. It also allows for

correlation between observations, if they have particular sources of uncertainty in common. We adopt an approach based on

a random walk model, tailoring it to take account of possible calendar age offsets between different data sources by adding a

random effect component. The latter allows us to use the same modeling framework for constructing the new calibration

curve IntCal04,"

So, there are some approximations in this theoretical model of the INTCAL curves. We also have assumptions about the carbon reservoir being 100.0000% constant everywhere, equilibrium, etc. Should someone come up with an improved theory 100 years from now, which shows that Thera erupted during the reign of Amenhotep III, then all of a sudden we would have a perfect match between legend and science. Now there is none and all the legends are pure fantasy. Keep in mind that the difference in N₀ between 1613 BCE and 1360 BCE is only 3%.

[questionmark]

I do not think for one moment think that there might be another candidate other than Thera. I am simply astounded at arguments like "They were bits and pieces of unrelated or semi-related stories from other cultures that were incorporated into the Jewish corpus in order to give them a greater sense of antiquity than was otherwise evidenced. Which was something that many cultures in that area of the world had done.".

Anyway, RC dating is based on several assumptions. For instance, the INTCAL04 correction table was drawn up as described in this abstract from the key article by Buck and Blackwell (Radiocarbon Vol 46, 2004, pp. 1093-1102):

"We report on the development and implementation of a model-based statistical method for the estimation of

radiocarbon calibration curves using diverse data. The method takes account of uncertainty on both the 14C and calendar

scales, coherently integrating data, the calendar age estimates of which arise from different dating methods. It also allows for

correlation between observations, if they have particular sources of uncertainty in common. We adopt an approach based on

a random walk model, tailoring it to take account of possible calendar age offsets between different data sources by adding a

random effect component. The latter allows us to use the same modeling framework for constructing the new calibration

curve IntCal04,"

So, there are some approximations in this theoretical model of the INTCAL curves. We also have assumptions about the carbon reservoir being 100.0000% constant everywhere, equilibrium, etc. Should someone come up with an improved theory 100 years from now, which shows that Thera erupted during the reign of Amenhotep III, then all of a sudden we would have a perfect match between legend and science. Now there is none and all the legends are pure fantasy. Keep in mind that the difference in N₀ between 1613 BCE and 1360 BCE is only 3%.

Lets imagine for a moment that Thira exploded with enough magnitude to be seen in Alexandria (just the "little bit of 700 miles"), and that the temperatures at the time were low enough so you could see more than 20 miles into the Mediterranean mist (in fact, I can't even see Crete or Rhodes from here and it is only 80 and 60 miles, except for a few cold days in winter) the crossing of Lake of Reeds would have been the parting of the muck, not the parting of the water. It rarely had more than 2-3 inches of water but 20 feet of silt before it was dredged to make the Suez Canal.

[NatureBoff]

I do not think for one moment think that there might be another candidate other than Thera.

That's your problem. I can easily say that it's more likely to be a distant meteor which descended vertically to give the column of smoke on the horizon. This impact then triggered a seismically induced tsunami which led to the 'parting of the waters', which gave the Israelites an escape route, and then flooded back when their pursuers tried to follow.

You sound like someone who thinks that the Jewish people are the master race. Sorry for any offence, but I was brought up to see everyone as pretty much equal.