New method to absolutely date Fall of Jerusalem.

by waton 88 Replies latest social current

• 

  waton

  for what it is worth to those interested. 1914.

  Tel-Aviv University. "Biblical military campaigns reconstructed using geomagnetic field data." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 25 October 2022. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/10/221024153631.htm>.
  

  "magnetic minerals which, when heated or burned, record the magnetic field at the time of the fire. Thus, in a 2020 study, researchers reconstructed the magnetic field as it was on the 9th of the month of Av, 586 BCE, the Hebrew date of the destruction of the First Temple and the City of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar and his Babylonian army. Now, using archaeo---"
  
• 

  ozziepost

  We now await the arrival of our friends…..

  tick…..tick…..tick…….
• 

  slimboyfat

  It seems that the study used 586 BCE for the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem as the base date to calibrate their method and measure other dates in relation to it. If so, this method is not used to determine the 586 BCE date, rather it assumes it.
• 

  Earnest

  I remember reading an article about this at the time and was excited about an alternative to carbon dating the destruction of Jerusalem as that's not very reliable during that period. However, I concluded that geomagnetic field data doesn't change that often that a year, or even twenty years, makes a difference. For example, in the article in ScienceDaily referred to above it says :

  A destruction level at Tel Beth-Shean, on the other hand, recording a totally different magnetic field, refutes the prevailing hypothesis that it too was destroyed by Hazael. Instead, the magnetic data from Beth-Shean indicate that this city, along with two other sites in northern Israel, was probably destroyed 70-100 years earlier, a date which could correspond with the military campaign of the Egyptian Pharaoh Shoshenq.

  The article explains how geomagnetic dating works :

  The geomagnetic field is generated by earth's outer core, at a depth of 2,900 km, by currents of liquid iron. Due to the chaotic motion of this iron, the magnetic field changes over time. Until recently scientists believed that it remains quite stable for decades, but archaeomagnetic research has contradicted this assumption by revealing some extreme and unpredictable changes in antiquity.

  As the motion of the liquid iron is unpredictable, the magnetic field can remain stable for decades but there can also be unpredictable changes. To account for this a variation curve of field intensity over time has been constructed so this may help but I have reservations due to the "extreme and unpredictable" changes of liquid iron in motion.
  
• 

  Fisherman

  It seems that the study used 586 BCE for the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem as the base date to calibrate their method and measure other dates in relation to it.

  These are scientists mind you. Why not use 539 as the base date since 539 is a historical fact. All WT chronology stands on 539.
  
  
• 

  slimboyfat

  It’s perfectly reasonable for them to use 586 BCE as the anchor date, because from their perspective it is a verifiable and reliable date to start from. I guess the destruction of a city is far easier to identify by archaeological means than the return of Jews a generation later.

  What you can’t do is use the 586 BCE date as the base date for the method and then turn around and say the 586 BCE is supported by the method, because that’s like trying to hold up the branch your sitting on. (If I’ve understood what the article says) I don’t think they are claiming the method does support 586 BCE, because that’s a peculiar JW interest anyway, they would have no interest in doing so.
• 

  Foolednomore

  Once again Watchtower is Wrong as always! By science !
• 

  Fisherman

  from their perspective interpretation it is a verifiable and reliable date to start from.

  How is it written in stone compared to the historical and indisputable 539?
  
  
• 

  waton

  How is it written in stone--?

  As many archaeological findings their are imprints, conditions of the material that is left or has filled the voids left by the original, I used that turn of phrase.

  Very good replies by all, particularly about the circular argument clarification. Nothing new from New Scientist.
  
  
• 

  Phizzy

  Slimboy's point is correct according to my reading of the paper which there is a Link to in the Article.

  So, yes, we cannot say the Scientists that did this have proved beyond doubt that Aviv in 586BCE was the date for Jerusalem's destruction, but by looking at the other events that are dated without doubt and working them from 539 BCE if you want to do that, then the 586BCE date is not far out, it could be a few months at most, but had there been a disparity of much more than that the Scientists would have been alerted and checked it out.

  I am surprised they used the Aviv 586BCE date as an anchor merely accepting it as spot on from the Hebrew Bible, but as I say, no BIG discrepancy in that can be calculated however you try to do it.