Yet another problem for Watch Tower Society apologists

by Jeffro 27 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Jeffro

  AnnOMaly:

  To find out when they reigned, one needs to access other means to establish that.

  The estimated years and margins for error given by the geologists aren't consistent with trying to assign specific years to the reigns (or to find out when they reigned). The suggested bounds aren't even entirely within the years generally attributed to those reigns.

  That is what I'm curious about. Radiometric, for example?

  Maybe. The article states that the period is stratigraphically confined, which doesn't directly indicate radiometric dating. But it doesn't preclude it either.
• 

  Bart Belteshassur

  Jeffro - Do the geologists make reference to any source of dating data apart from the date arrived at from Yadin's determination of the archeology that he unearthed?
• 

  Jeffro

  Bart Belteshassur:

  Do the geologists make reference to any source of dating data apart from the date arrived at from Yadin's determination of the archeology that he unearthed?

  Nothing clear, except that it was "stratigraphically" determined, which means it's based on layers.
• 

  Bart Belteshassur

  Jeffro - This was the reason for my original question. The term "stratigraphically" is applied in in general to determine the continuation of beds of strata which either are disconnected by distance and orientation, or uneven with regard to fault thurst as would be the case relating to earthquakes. It would seam quite proper that geology could determine the relative timming of an earthquake based on the strata depth and thrust but as to strata being measured to a specific date in historical chronology impossible. That is the funtion of archeology and not geology. Geology can determine how,why, and what happened and suggest approximent time frames (by that I mean within X million years) and archeology then places that information into a historical context using the evidence specific to the strata.

  However there may be an area of geological expertise which specialize in surface down soft strata dates but if there is I am not aware of it.

  BB
• 

  Jeffro

  Bart Belteshassur:

  Geology can determine how,why, and what happened and suggest approximent time frames (by that I mean within X million years) and archeology then places that information into a historical context using the evidence specific to the strata.

  Indeed. There must have been other factors in determining the period. Because the timing and margins for error indicated don't exactly align with the traditional dating for the 'expected' kings, it's evident that they made a determination beyond only saying it 'must have been when we think Jeroboam reigned'. Yadin also refers to styles of pottery at different sites as well. The margins for error given seem consistent with carbon dating error rates for the approximate age, but it doesn't say.
• 

  Bart Belteshassur

  I found this artical "The Sheshonq I campaign and the 8th cenury BCE eathquake" Fantalkin and Finklestein 2006. More to do with the date of Ironage IIa and IIb than the earthquake but makes interesting reference to strata layers at different dig sites across palstine and how they evidently link them. Also this comment re the date of the earthquake "anytime between 780and 740 BCE" Herzog and Singer-Avitz 2004:230. Haven't managed to track the article down yet but will keep trying.

  BB
• 

  Jeffro

  Thanks Bart. I also noticed another article that references Herzog in reference to the relevant Iron IIB period. The article is about pottery at a different site during the earlier Iron I and Iron IA periods, so it doesn't have a lot of detail specific to Herzog. However, it does confirm that these strata were determined based on carbon dating and not expected regnal years. The article associates the Iron IIA period with the period up to the end of the 9th century, placing Iron IIB well into the 8th century BCE. Also, Fantalkin & Finkelstein quite definitely disocciate the earthquake from the Iron IIA period. The Finkelstein article notes, "Finally, from the ceramic point of view, it is impossible to equate Iron IIA Lachish IV and Arad XI with Iron IIB Hazor VI."

  See also this article by Finkelstein. It includes a diagram that very definitely indicates that carbon dating confirms that the transition to the Iron IIB period was after 800BCE.
• 

  AnnOMaly

  Well, now we're cooking with gas.