Posts by Jeffro

27

Yet another problem for Watch Tower Society apologists

by Jeffro in

amos 1:1 is set during the reigns of both uzziah and jeroboam (ii), "two years before the earthquake".. geologists* have dated this earthquake to around 760bce, with an error margin of plus or minus 25 years.. *steven a. austin, gordon w. franz, and eric g. frost, "amos's earthquake: an extraordinary middle east seismic event of 750 b.c.

" international geology review 42 (2000) 657-671. y. yadin, hazor, the rediscovery of a great citadel of the bible (new york: random house, 1975).

i. finkelstein, "hazor and the north in the iron age: a low chronology perspective," bulletin of the american schools of oriental research 314 (1999) 55-70. d. ussishkin, "lachish" in e. stern, ed., the new encyclopedia of archaeological excavations in the holy land (new york: simon & schuster, 1993) vol.

Jeffro

Bart Belteshassur:

Geology can determine how,why, and what happened and suggest approximent time frames (by that I mean within X million years) and archeology then places that information into a historical context using the evidence specific to the strata.

Indeed. There must have been other factors in determining the period. Because the timing and margins for error indicated don't exactly align with the traditional dating for the 'expected' kings, it's evident that they made a determination beyond only saying it 'must have been when we think Jeroboam reigned'. Yadin also refers to styles of pottery at different sites as well. The margins for error given seem consistent with carbon dating error rates for the approximate age, but it doesn't say.

27

Yet another problem for Watch Tower Society apologists

by Jeffro in

amos 1:1 is set during the reigns of both uzziah and jeroboam (ii), "two years before the earthquake".. geologists* have dated this earthquake to around 760bce, with an error margin of plus or minus 25 years.. *steven a. austin, gordon w. franz, and eric g. frost, "amos's earthquake: an extraordinary middle east seismic event of 750 b.c.

" international geology review 42 (2000) 657-671. y. yadin, hazor, the rediscovery of a great citadel of the bible (new york: random house, 1975).

i. finkelstein, "hazor and the north in the iron age: a low chronology perspective," bulletin of the american schools of oriental research 314 (1999) 55-70. d. ussishkin, "lachish" in e. stern, ed., the new encyclopedia of archaeological excavations in the holy land (new york: simon & schuster, 1993) vol.

Jeffro

Bart Belteshassur:

Do the geologists make reference to any source of dating data apart from the date arrived at from Yadin's determination of the archeology that he unearthed?

Nothing clear, except that it was "stratigraphically" determined, which means it's based on layers.

224

Another problem for JW apologists

by Jeffro in

the 2013 edition of the new world translation renders 2 kings 17:1 as:.

in the 12th year of king ahaz of judah, hoshea the son of elah became king over israel in samaria; he ruled for nine years.. this is in fact a better rendering than the previous nwt, which stated:.

in the twelfth year of ahaz the king of judah, hoshea the son of elah became king in samaria over israel for nine years.. despite their improved rendering, the watch tower society still claims that hoshea's reign 'really' began in 758 bce, but that it was 'established' in the 12th year of ahaz.

Jeffro

Finkelstein:

why didn't the WTS. include those extra days in their final calculation of 70 x 360 to reach to 1914 ?

(Presumably, you mean 7 x 360). It was already generally understood by people using the Babylonian calendar (from which the Hebrew calendar was derived) that years didn't actually have exactly 360 days, which was a convenient rounded figure. (But also note the slightly different Essene calendation indicated by Bart.) The ancient and modern calendars both incorporate methods of correcting for the additional days to compensate for seasonal 'drift', so that in both systems, spring always begins in March/April. As a result, in both systems, a year is a year is a year.

That said, there is no actual basis for applying the 'day for a year' 'rule' to the 'times' at Daniel 4:16 anyway, and the Watch Tower Society does not apply the same 'rule' to the 'times' at Daniel 7:25 or Daniel 12:7.

27

Yet another problem for Watch Tower Society apologists

by Jeffro in

amos 1:1 is set during the reigns of both uzziah and jeroboam (ii), "two years before the earthquake".. geologists* have dated this earthquake to around 760bce, with an error margin of plus or minus 25 years.. *steven a. austin, gordon w. franz, and eric g. frost, "amos's earthquake: an extraordinary middle east seismic event of 750 b.c.

" international geology review 42 (2000) 657-671. y. yadin, hazor, the rediscovery of a great citadel of the bible (new york: random house, 1975).

i. finkelstein, "hazor and the north in the iron age: a low chronology perspective," bulletin of the american schools of oriental research 314 (1999) 55-70. d. ussishkin, "lachish" in e. stern, ed., the new encyclopedia of archaeological excavations in the holy land (new york: simon & schuster, 1993) vol.

Jeffro

AnnOMaly:

To find out when they reigned, one needs to access other means to establish that.

The estimated years and margins for error given by the geologists aren't consistent with trying to assign specific years to the reigns (or to find out when they reigned). The suggested bounds aren't even entirely within the years generally attributed to those reigns.

That is what I'm curious about. Radiometric, for example?

Maybe. The article states that the period is stratigraphically confined, which doesn't directly indicate radiometric dating. But it doesn't preclude it either.

27

Yet another problem for Watch Tower Society apologists

by Jeffro in

amos 1:1 is set during the reigns of both uzziah and jeroboam (ii), "two years before the earthquake".. geologists* have dated this earthquake to around 760bce, with an error margin of plus or minus 25 years.. *steven a. austin, gordon w. franz, and eric g. frost, "amos's earthquake: an extraordinary middle east seismic event of 750 b.c.

" international geology review 42 (2000) 657-671. y. yadin, hazor, the rediscovery of a great citadel of the bible (new york: random house, 1975).

i. finkelstein, "hazor and the north in the iron age: a low chronology perspective," bulletin of the american schools of oriental research 314 (1999) 55-70. d. ussishkin, "lachish" in e. stern, ed., the new encyclopedia of archaeological excavations in the holy land (new york: simon & schuster, 1993) vol.

Jeffro

AnnOMaly:

Maybe I'm just not explaining myself well enough.

Your explanation was pretty clear. It just didn't sound right...

I'm saying 'Junk from such-a-stratum belongs to such-a-king's era. We know the dates when that king was around so the junk must also be such-a-date.'

That would mean they were saying, 'Junk from the earthquake stratum belongs to Jeroboam's era. We know Jeroboam was in the first half of the 8th century BCE, so the junk must be at the end of that period or some time later.' Your conclusion doesn't fit. The margin for error also doesn't have any relationship with the lengths of reigns involved. It is therefore evident that other factors were considered for dating their findings.

27

Yet another problem for Watch Tower Society apologists

by Jeffro in

amos 1:1 is set during the reigns of both uzziah and jeroboam (ii), "two years before the earthquake".. geologists* have dated this earthquake to around 760bce, with an error margin of plus or minus 25 years.. *steven a. austin, gordon w. franz, and eric g. frost, "amos's earthquake: an extraordinary middle east seismic event of 750 b.c.

" international geology review 42 (2000) 657-671. y. yadin, hazor, the rediscovery of a great citadel of the bible (new york: random house, 1975).

i. finkelstein, "hazor and the north in the iron age: a low chronology perspective," bulletin of the american schools of oriental research 314 (1999) 55-70. d. ussishkin, "lachish" in e. stern, ed., the new encyclopedia of archaeological excavations in the holy land (new york: simon & schuster, 1993) vol.

Jeffro

AnnOMaly:

No, you misunderstand

No. I just don't agree.

Geologists stating that an earthquake was within the range of 780BCE to 720BCE (750BCE ± 30 years [or 785BCE to 735BCE for the later estimates of 760BCE ± 25 years]) doesn't really sound anything like 'we know Jeroboam II was around from 793BCE to 753BCE so it must have been then', because their estimates cover only part of that period, and a significantly later period. If they were merely basing their findings on the expected years of a particular reign, they would more likely have said 'early 8th century BCE'.

how do they date strata independently, scientifically, without being influenced by historical chronologies?

I don't know the specific methods of chronostratigraphy involved.

142

Do you beleive in ghosts??

by quellycatface in

jw
friends

i was always told it was satan and his demons making people think they exist.

not sure.

i always thought the guy that excavated king tutenkahmun had a curse on him though.. .

Jeffro

nicolaou:

Why exactly do the naughty demons want to do this?

To stop people learning about JWs of course. Silly nicolaou.

27

Yet another problem for Watch Tower Society apologists

by Jeffro in

amos 1:1 is set during the reigns of both uzziah and jeroboam (ii), "two years before the earthquake".. geologists* have dated this earthquake to around 760bce, with an error margin of plus or minus 25 years.. *steven a. austin, gordon w. franz, and eric g. frost, "amos's earthquake: an extraordinary middle east seismic event of 750 b.c.

" international geology review 42 (2000) 657-671. y. yadin, hazor, the rediscovery of a great citadel of the bible (new york: random house, 1975).

i. finkelstein, "hazor and the north in the iron age: a low chronology perspective," bulletin of the american schools of oriental research 314 (1999) 55-70. d. ussishkin, "lachish" in e. stern, ed., the new encyclopedia of archaeological excavations in the holy land (new york: simon & schuster, 1993) vol.

Jeffro

AnnOMaly:

The difficulty is going to be, though, that the archaeologists say, "Yes, the debris appears in this stratum which is c. Jeroboam II level. Jeroboam II reigned, of course, in the mid-8th century BCE as has been established. Ergo, the debris dates to the mid-8th century BCE."

That doesn't seem to be the case. Danzig is fairly liberal with his complaints, but says nothing about the geologists allegedly 'trying' to make the earthquake fit the time period of Jeroboam. Austin quotes Yadin, saying that, "Earthquake debris at six sites (Hazor, Deir 'Alla, Gezer, Lachish, Tell Judeideh, and 'En Haseva) is tightly confined stratigraphically to the middle of the eighth century B.C., with dating errors of ~30 years" (italics added; the error is given as 25 years in some sources). The margin for error provided isn't consistent with merely 'trying' to make the geological dating of the strata 'fit' the traditional dating of Jeroboam's reign, but on geological methods. The fact that the earlier sources suggest 750 BCE also doesn't help the suggestion that they were merely trying to 'fit' the reign of Jeroboam, whose reign is traditionally dated as ending in 753BCE. The older geological estimates (750 ± 30) place the earthquake in the range of 780BCE to 720BCE, and the more recent estimates (760 ± 25) place it in the range of 785BCE to 735BCE. Neither of those ranges equates to the reign of Jeroboam, though it overlaps.

27

Yet another problem for Watch Tower Society apologists

by Jeffro in

amos 1:1 is set during the reigns of both uzziah and jeroboam (ii), "two years before the earthquake".. geologists* have dated this earthquake to around 760bce, with an error margin of plus or minus 25 years.. *steven a. austin, gordon w. franz, and eric g. frost, "amos's earthquake: an extraordinary middle east seismic event of 750 b.c.

" international geology review 42 (2000) 657-671. y. yadin, hazor, the rediscovery of a great citadel of the bible (new york: random house, 1975).

i. finkelstein, "hazor and the north in the iron age: a low chronology perspective," bulletin of the american schools of oriental research 314 (1999) 55-70. d. ussishkin, "lachish" in e. stern, ed., the new encyclopedia of archaeological excavations in the holy land (new york: simon & schuster, 1993) vol.

Jeffro

AnnOMaly:

The contention seems to be, though, whether the debris is a result of a quake in the first place.

Of course the available evidence isn't absolutely conclusive. Yet Danzig doesn't dispute the timing assigned to the the strata, and he acknowledges that something sparked rebuilding efforts around that time (though Danzig speculates that it might have been due to a period of disuse, which is equally if not more unfounded). It is, at the very least, plausible that the geologists have indeed correctly identified the period of the quake; in any case, the fact remains that there is no support for the Watch Tower Society's chronology.

142

Do you beleive in ghosts??

by quellycatface in

jw
friends

i was always told it was satan and his demons making people think they exist.

not sure.

i always thought the guy that excavated king tutenkahmun had a curse on him though.. .

Jeffro

Seraphim23:

Another would be dreams of future events that come true.

Got any evidence?

For this to be reliably tested, the details of the dream would need to be recorded in detail and publically available prior to the alleged fulfilment.

The following kinds of events could not be counted as 'evidence':

Mundane occurrences
Frequent or recurring events
Anticipated or reasonably predictable upcoming events
Merely similar details