by waton 88 Replies latest social current
Fisherman:
The wt publishes support of their interpretation in the wt online library
hahahahahahaha 😂
spoken by Jeremiah
Still no. The portion from Leviticus was not ‘spoken by Jeremiah’. Nor did Jeremiah write Chronicles.
Fisherman:
What results does the magnetic dating method yield using 607 instead of 586? How does it falsify 607?
The initial assertion in this thread that the method 'confirms 586' was a misrepresentation of the source material, so your question isn't really valid.
Aside from that, the discrepancy between secular history and Watch Tower Society dogma doesn't remain at 20 years, but diverges to a difference of 68 years at the beginning of the Divided Kingdom.
Using the new dating method, they were able to confirm the destruction of four sites by Hazael around 830 BCE, but Watch Tower Society chronology requires that those events happened around 890 BCE. The method also determined that a fifth site was likely associated with an attack by Shoshenq "70-100 years" before 830 BCE (consistent with my reckoning of that event in 925 BCE), though Watch Tower Society chronology would require that that happened in 993 BCE. (Also note that the range of "70-100" years indicates a margin of error that renders inconsequential the selection of 586 instead of 587 for the fall of Jerusalem for their purposes.)
Additionally, the dating method confirmed that parts of Judea remained populated until decades after the destruction of Jerusalem, which contradicts the superstitious hyperbole that all of Judea was desolated for the entire period.
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.
Even the Watch Tower Society acknowledges the reliability of carbon dating for that period (though it incorrectly claims that it is not reliable for samples older than 3500 years). Awake!, 22 November 1981, page 15:
Since we have no way of knowing how intense cosmic rays were in past ages, we are wise to accept carbon-14 dates only for the period for which the clock has been calibrated with historical materials, back to about 3,500 years ago. Older than that, they may be increasingly inaccurate.
Carbon dating can be reliable to around 50,000 years, setting aside errors that can be introduced due to corrupted samples or by not taking into consideration the environment of the sample.
There are many ways to calibrate the timeline of Jerusalem. We have the power to simulate the positions of the sun and stars at that time and guess what Babylonians were really good at, recording the position of heavenly bodies whenever something important happened. We also have contemporary accounts from various sources that can be dated by following the lineages of people.
The date of 607 by the WTBTS is only reached by divining/Kabbalah from 1914 (the tail wagging the dog), and then adapting the rest of the timeline to agree with the preconceived notion that 1914 was the beginning of time. You can say 607BCE or even 2000BCE or 1914CE only if you create your own calendar.
Jeffro : Even the Watch Tower Society acknowledges the reliability of carbon dating for that period .
The article I referred to which indicated that carbon-dating was not reliable at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem was in The Economist of December 18, 2021 which I copied in full in an earlier post.
There it stated :
[The period from about 830 BC to the destruction of Jerusalem is] an extremely useful span, for it coincides with a hiatus in the archaeological record called the Hallstatt plateau. This "plateau" is a flat stretch of the calibration curve used for a technique called radiocarbon dating. It is a period from 400-800 BC, when, for reasons not entirely clear, radiocarbon dating breaks down.
Samples from the time of the plateau have hitherto been undatable within that four-century span.
Wikipedia has this to say about the Hallstatt plateau :
The Hallstatt plateau is a term used in archaeology that refers to a consistently flat area on graphs that plot radiocarbon dating against calendar dates. Radiocarbon dates of around 2450 BP (Before Present) always calibrate to c. 800–400 BC, no matter the measurement precision. The carbon 14 dating method is hampered by this large plateau on the calibration curve in a critical period of human technological development. Just before and after the plateau, calibration is accurate; during the plateau only techniques like wiggle matching can yield useful calendar dates.
Jeffro : Also note that the range of "70-100" years indicates a margin of error that renders inconsequential the selection of 586 instead of 587 for the fall of Jerusalem for their purposes.
That margin of error also renders inconsequential the selection of 586/587 instead of 607! However, the date of Jerusalem's destruction is irrelevant to geomagnetic dating as it is used as an anchor as the majority of scholars accept the date 586 as reliable.
Earnest:
That margin of error also renders inconsequential the selection of 586/587 instead of 607! However, the date of Jerusalem's destruction is irrelevant to geomagnetic dating as it is used as an anchor as the majority of scholars accept the date 586 as reliable.
Huh? “70-100” suggest an error margin of plus/minus 15 years so a difference of one year for the base date is trivial. But it’s not clear why you would say the base date used is irrelevant though.
Earnest:
The article I referred to which indicated that carbon-dating was not reliable at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem was in The Economist of December 18, 2021 which I copied in full in an earlier post.
I didn’t read all the comments in the thread. I was referring more generally to how far back carbon dating is reliable. Interesting, though there are methods that can assist with more accurate readings during that span. But carbon dating isn’t necessary for determining Neo-Babylonian chronology (for our purposes), which is one of the best documented periods in antiquity.
Anony Mous:
The date of 607 by the WTBTS is only reached by divining/Kabbalah from 1914 (the tail wagging the dog), and then adapting the rest of the timeline to agree with the preconceived notion that 1914 was the beginning of time.
Russell adopted his chronology from Millerism and made predictions about 1914 many years before that year, though none of what he predicted corresponds to what actually happened in that year. His selection of 606 BCE was based on counting 70 years from 536 BCE when he believed the Jews arrived in Judea. (Various Adventist groups selected dozens of years as the end point of the invented 2,520 years, and Russell wasn’t even the first to guess 1914.) They changed it to 607 BCE in 1943. They don’t say anything at all about 1914 being the ‘beginning of time’.
