by waton 88 Replies latest social current
" Just go away." I sympathise with that Jeffro, after all your excellent work on this subject over the years, an Internet Troll like "Fisherman" comes along with annoying fallacies, lies and typical misdirection , all served with a huge Dollop of rudeness.
On the other hand, he does prove that the J.W position has not even a photograph of a leg to stand on !
An emoji isn't a ‘fallacy’ of any kind.
It is.
Oh, you’re still here. 😒 Still waiting for your evidence for your claim about Jeremiah mentioning the land paying off sabbaths. 😂
your evidence
Doesn’t belong to me. It’s public.
🤣
Of course, I’ve already demonstrated that the parenthetical statement about paying off sabbaths is from Leviticus. But even if this doofus could provide any evidence of his claim, the same passage in 2 Chronicles, consistent with Jeremiah’s direct statements about the 70 years, say it ended when Persia conquered Babylon, not later when (some of) the Jews returned from exile.
Poor lame apologists 🙄
drivel. Start a new topic and argue why Jeremiah is not the author of Jeremiah or why Einstein should not have set his equation to zero or whatever you like to believe. It’s only your belief. Other views are also valid. You disagree ? Too bad. You always go off on a tangent subject and immaterial(s) and moot while all other posters on this forum stay with the subject matter. See you later. This is a pointless discussion with you.
The original premise of the thread was incorrect because the method doesn’t establish the date of Jerusalem’s destruction. But I have also already pointed out that the method disproves Watch Tower Society chronology for earlier events in the Iron Age. And I further showed that you’re also wrong about the 70 years (which was initially brought up in this thread by you). And I didn’t say Jeremiah didn’t write Jeremiah (unless you think ‘Jeremiah’ is an unusual spelling of ‘Leviticus’ 😒), which doesn’t say anything about the land paying sabbaths. So you’ve been thoroughly trounced on every aspect. You can go now.
Jeffro : ... the method doesn’t establish the date of Jerusalem’s destruction. But I have also already pointed out that the method disproves Watch Tower Society chronology for earlier events in the Iron Age.
Fisherman : What results does the magnetic dating method yield using 607 instead of 586? How does it falsify 607?
It would be well worth reading the article before asserting that the method disproves Watch Tower Society chronology. It does not. It negates or supports hypotheses of contemporaneity. For example,
The intensity results from Tel Malhata are slightly lower than those recorded in Lachish II [which was destroyed at the same time as Jerusalem]. This supports the hypothesis that in 586 BCE the Babylonian army was focused on Jerusalem and had no interest in going far south to the area of Malhata. It seems that after 586 BCE, when the Kingdom of Judah ceased to exist, the eastern and southern periphery of the kingdom collapsed, probably in a gradual process, and sites were destroyed, perhaps by the Edomites or other nomadic elements.
In the above quotation, reference to 586 BCE is based on the presumption that the destruction of Jerusalem happened on that date. But what if Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 BCE?
The geomagnetic field data have nothing to say about that. All it tells us is whether other cities that were burned down in military campaigns had the same geomagnetic field data (which suggests it occurred during the same military campaign). It could also suggest whether other Babylonian campaigns were earlier or later based on a probability distribution of ages. So, if Jerusalem (and Lachish) was destroyed in 607 BCE then the probability distribution curve for the Babylonian military campaigns would be shifted by 20 years.
What about the other evidence which cause the vast majority of researchers to accept 586 BCE? That has been discussed endlessly elsewhere on this forum and I don't think it has changed the view of the protagonists on either side. But if we are to simply discuss the use of geomagnetic field data and not indulge in the childish sport of always having the last word, it is clear that this method does not in itself falsify 607.
I already explained that Watch Tower Society chronology of earlier events diverges to 68 years at the beginning of the divided kingdom rather than simply remaining a difference of 20 years, which requires placement of various events that are inconsistent with results found by the geomagnetic dating method even if the anchor point were simply moved to 607.
Bear in mind that the Aramaean and Assyrian campaigns use different anchors to those used for the Babylonian campaigns. It's interesting (to me) what we can learn from those other anchors.
The destruction of the town of Gath by the Aramaeans (2 Kings 12:18) is one such anchor. Both the archaeomagnetic direction and intensity from Gath show outstanding agreement with three other destruction layers: Tel Rehov Stratum IV, Horvat Tevet Level V, and Tel Zayit Level XIII. Thus, the archaeomagnetic results strongly support the synchronization of these three destructions with that of Gath, and suggest that they were also the result of the Aramean campaign(s) of Hazael.
Lachish (in the time of Sennacherib) is another anchor. According to biblical and Assyrian sources (2 Kings 18–19; Isaiah 36–37; 2 Chronicles 32), many other Judean sites were destroyed during that Assyrian campaign but none are securely identified. The archaeomagnetic data from Tel Beersheba, Tel Zayit Level XI, and Tell Beit Mirsim argue for their destruction during the same military campaign.
So, the archaeomagnetic data is excellent for establishing destruction events that happened at the same time as the anchor points, and is moderately good for establishing whether other military campaigns were earlier or later. It in itself tells us nothing about dates.
