New method to absolutely date Fall of Jerusalem.

by waton 88 Replies latest social current

• 

  Earnest

  Jeffro : “70-100” suggest an error margin of plus/minus 15 years...

  Yes, you're right. I had a mathematical blind spot. Sorry about that.

  Jeffro : But it’s not clear why you would say the base date used is irrelevant though.

  You earlier wrote that the initial assertion that the geomagnetic dating method 'confirms 586' was a misrepresentation of the source material. I agree. That is what I meant in saying that geomagnetic dating is irrelevant in determining the base date. The base dates are not calculated using geomagnetic dating, but are accepted as reliable by most scholars using other criteria.
  
• 

  Fisherman

  586' was a misrepresentation of the source material

  We know that. Many posts ago, SBF kindly made that clear in other terms. I like the way he explained it—as he usually does things on this forum. Also, if derivatively the dating method is somewhat validating 586, Waton is not misrepresenting the source material. Which I think is his point.
  
  
• 

  Jeffro

  I already explained why that fact invalidated your question. But thanks for quoting part of my sentence out of context.
• 

  Fisherman

  quoting part of my sentence out of context

  I didn’t.

  Also, you invalidated 586 using this magnetic dating method. My question was linked to the premise that 586 was derivatively validated as some function of the results of the method. Axiomatically if 586 cannot be confirmed with the method, my question doesn’t apply but it is valid as liked to the premise.

  By the way, you are incorrect about Jeremiah.
  
  
• 

  Jeffro

  Every part of what you just said is wrong. Keenly awaiting your evidence that Jeremiah said anything about the land paying its sabbaths though. 😂🙄
  
• 

  Phizzy

  " if 586 cannot be confirmed with the method ".

  This same group of Scientists showed they did exactly that in an earlier Paper, the Link to that paper is in the one on this Thread.

  Trying to prove the W.T./J.W. org discredited 607 BCE date is a lost cause Fisherman.
• 

  Fisherman

  Every part of what you just said is wrong.

  No it’s not. Also, WT scholarship is not only valid but published. Don’t agree? Too bad.
  
  
• 

  Jeffro

  🤦‍♂️
• 

  Fisherman

  Poor Jef. Has to resort to logical fallacies.
• 

  Jeffro

  What are you on about? (That’s rhetorical, I don’t really care.) An emoji isn't a ‘fallacy’ of any kind. Watch Tower’s self-published dogma is mostly ignored and otherwise criticised by experts in all relevant fields. Just go away.