by waton 88 Replies latest social current
Because it is not a historical fact.
I think you need to reread the book. There's plenty of historical evidence presented there to support a different date for the destruction of Jerusalem and that's the reason why the international archaeological community agrees on a different date from the one defended by the ignorant GB of JWs.
There's plenty of historical evidence.
Maybe but one should be careful to distinguish between fact, evidence and proof. And going back to your assertion that I am replying to, Olof did not prove his conclusions. And convincing vast majorities does not make it a historical fact either.
WT stands on its belief with its own evidence until facts falsify them.
WT stands on its belief with its own evidence until facts falsify them.
And where is it?
Jeffro : The curve for the archaeomagnetic intensity is ... strongly based on carbon dating for the relevant period in the 10th century BCE.
In a previous post on this thread I displayed a table of radiocarbon dates of Tel Rehov V produced in the article C14 dates from Tel Rehov: Iron-Age chronology, pharaohs,
and Hebrew kings (Science 300, 315–318
(2003)). The radiocarbon was tested in four laboratories which came up with four different BP date ranges differing by 84 years between the earliest (2810 + 20) and the latest (2761 - 15) dates. When calibrated it came up with date ranges differing by 94 years between the earliest (971) and the latest (844) BCE dates.
In his article The Debate over the Chronology of the Iron Age in the Southern Levant, 2005, Amihai Mazar states :
In the Beth Shean Valley Archaeological Project (Tel Beth-Shean and Tel Rehov excavations) we obtained about 100 C14 dates from the early Bronze I through the Iron IIA periods, measured in four different laboratories. The results enable appreciation of both the capabilities of the method as well as its limitations and possible flaws. The many stages of selecting the samples, the pre-treatment, the method and process of dating, and the wide standard deviation of Accelerator Mass Spectrometry dates may create a consistent bias, outliers, or an incoherent series of dates. The calibration process adds further problems, related to the nature of the calibration curve in each period.
My intention is not to raise a debate about carbon 14 dating, but only to say it is not precise and if the curve of the archaeomagnetic intensity is strongly based on the carbon dating then that, too, is not fixed in stone.
In my post above
When calibrated it came up with date ranges differing by 94 years between the earliest (971) and the latest (844) BCE dates.
should read :
When calibrated it came up with date ranges differing by 127 years between the earliest (971) and the latest (844) BCE dates.
All matters historical are questions of what does the best evidence suggest. Historians must accept a measure of uncertainty, but always seek an improved understanding, like all the sciences.
The WT arrived at it's conclusions not through best evidence but of necessity to shoehorn the dates to fit their doctrine. Tellingly when error was realized they changed the dates not the doctrine.
Debates about long dead empires and kings will never "prove" or "disprove" what is accepted on faith.
The WT arrived at it's conclusions not through best evidence
WT conclusions or interpretations are on what the scriptures mean, the best evidence for that is the ancient text.
Fisherman:
WT conclusions or interpretations are on what the scriptures mean, the best evidence for that is the ancient text.
Wrong. WT conclusions ignore the plain reading of various Bible verses that directly contradict their interpretation. As such, the Watch Tower Society elevates itself above the Bible.
Earnest:
My intention is not to raise a debate about carbon 14 dating, but only to say it is not precise and if the curve of the archaeomagnetic intensity is strongly based on the carbon dating then that, too, is not fixed in stone.
This would be a very valid point if the archaeomagnetic data and the Bayesian analysis thereof were based on a very small dataset and the researchers had no idea what they were doing.
