by waton 88 Replies latest social current
The blue rectangle below indicates the range of archaeomagnetic intensity levels that would be expected for a site burned in 993 BCE. The red dot indicates the level that would be expected for the destruction of Beth-Shean if the Watch Tower Society's chronology were correct.
It is a little disappointing that there is a need to explain how to interpret a chart in this thread, but there are others in the thread who are excited that some words are similar to other words, so... 🤷♂️
Jeffro, your interpretation of the chart is correct if Rehov V was destroyed in 900 BCE. But if it was destroyed ca. 925 BCE (as the article 14C dates from Tel Rehov: Iron-Age chronology, pharaohs, and Hebrew kings proposes) then the geomagnetic variation curve would be shifted 25 years to the left. The probability distribution of ages is dependent on the historically dated chronological anchors, and when there is no such anchor and the date is uncertain (as in the case of Beth-shean, Rehov V and Tevet VII) the curve is unreliable.
Further, there are different ways of calculating the geomagnetic variation curve. As the article says:
According to one approach, a probability distribution of ages is calculated using a curve constructed independently from the object being dated. According to another approach, adopted here following Livermore et al., the datum to be dated is included in the Bayesian procedure used to produce the curve. (my italics)
You are trying to use this new method to prove or falsify certain dates. It doesn't do that.
No. The curve for the archaeomagnetic intensity is based on a broader dataset than would be significantly affected just by changing the assumed date for the Beth-Shean event, and in particular is strongly based on carbon dating for the relevant period in the 10th century BCE.
This research demonstrates how an archaeointensity curve constructed from a dense archaeomagnetic dataset in which the chronology rests on radiocarbon (for periods before the eighth century BCE) and firm historical ages (from the eighth century BCE and on) can be used as a powerful chronological tool.
Carl Olof just wrote it to argue against the Watchtower Society because he is so arrogant.
Are you proving him wrong with this statement? Are his studies, documents presented and facts, which WTS hasn't contested, wrong? When he presented his findings to the WTS first, was he being arrogant? Why is anyone who thinks differently and proves his conclusions with facts arrogant?
proves his conclusions with facts
Not really. His conclusions are only that, his interpretation. Not saying it’s not valid. I also don’t reject his view out of spite. I agree with WT interpretation because it makes sense. But we just don’t know for a fact, we can only believe.
Not really. His conclusions are only that, his interpretation. Not saying it’s not valid. I also don’t reject his view out of spite. I agree with WT interpretation because it makes sense. But we just don’t know for a fact, we can only believe.
Did you read his book?
"I agree with WT interpretation" Fisherman,
When all is said and done, !914, derived from these dates, is a classic wt false prophecy, because they announced, predicted that in that year, the world would end and they, anointed all, would have a rapid ascend to heaven, clearing the way.
Even 3 years later they still were stunned by that failure, denying it, by going at it again, with another like follow up,
" The World has ended, Millions now living will never die." they will go down, or up with that.
The evidence is cast in stone, or charcoal.
Did you read his book?
Obviously, if I can comment on it as interpretation. It has also been a subject of discussion on this Forum decades ago or less with commentary on interpretation of ancient stelles, etc. scholar and other members here posting their views on it.
Then, how come you view it as interpretation?!
Then, how come you view it as interpretation?!
Because it is not a historical fact.
