Jeffro

Joined

• started 46 topics
• posted 6,790 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Jeffro

• 
  88

  New method to absolutely date Fall of Jerusalem.

  by waton in

  1. social
  2. current

  for what it is worth to those interested.

  1914.. tel-aviv university.

  "biblical military campaigns reconstructed using geomagnetic field data.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  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.
• 
  88

  New method to absolutely date Fall of Jerusalem.

  by waton in

  1. social
  2. current

  for what it is worth to those interested.

  1914.. tel-aviv university.

  "biblical military campaigns reconstructed using geomagnetic field data.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  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... 🤷‍♂️
  
• 
  88

  New method to absolutely date Fall of Jerusalem.

  by waton in

  1. social
  2. current

  for what it is worth to those interested.

  1914.. tel-aviv university.

  "biblical military campaigns reconstructed using geomagnetic field data.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  Rattigan350:

  1914 is not based on the fall of Jerusalem.

  It is more correctly based on an incorrect date assigned to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians in addition to other superstitious numerology.

  Just because Nelson Barbour thought it had to, does not mean that Jehovah God thought it did.

  🤦‍♂️ So you just need to establish that your preferred deity exists and that anything you claim about it is actually true. I think all of your work is still in front of you. 😂
• 
  88

  New method to absolutely date Fall of Jerusalem.

  by waton in

  1. social
  2. current

  for what it is worth to those interested.

  1914.. tel-aviv university.

  "biblical military campaigns reconstructed using geomagnetic field data.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  Earnest:

  Archaeomagnetic data says nothing about the date in itself, but can be used for establishing whether destruction events happened at the same time.

  Incorrect. The study applied the use of archaeomagnetic intensity data and other data to correlate the timing of burn sites, and that method does not establish the date itself. But the archaeomagnetic intensity data itself - represented by the shaded curving band in the graph - does invalidate 993 as a valid date for the destruction of Beth-Shean. Of course, I don’t need to rely on that fact though, because all the other evidence already establishes that the Watch Tower Society chronology is wrong.
• 
  88

  New method to absolutely date Fall of Jerusalem.

  by waton in

  1. social
  2. current

  for what it is worth to those interested.

  1914.. tel-aviv university.

  "biblical military campaigns reconstructed using geomagnetic field data.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  Which means it definitely wasn’t in 993 BCE, which remains incompatible with the archaeomagnetic intensity data. 🤦‍♂️
• 
  88

  New method to absolutely date Fall of Jerusalem.

  by waton in

  1. social
  2. current

  for what it is worth to those interested.

  1914.. tel-aviv university.

  "biblical military campaigns reconstructed using geomagnetic field data.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  Whilst it is true that the intensity of some of the archaeomagnetic levels used as anchors does not conclusively invalidate the dating offered by the Watch Tower Society, the dating for Beth-Shean does. The study says that event occurred around 900 BCE, but that would be 968 in Watch Tower Society chronology. Note that the levels that would be required for the Watch Tower Society's reckoning of the Tevet VII, Rehov V and Beth-Shean events fall well outside the higher band (yellowish shading) of the archaeomagnetic levels at that time.

  

  900 BCE is the latest date given for the "70-100" years before 830 offered by the study for the destruction of Beth-Shean, which it says was destroyed during the reign of Shoshenq (ruled 943-922 BCE). According to WTS chronology, Shoshenq reigned around 1011-990 BCE, and Insight (volume 1, page 304) says Beth-Shean was destroyed in 993 BCE - for which the archaeomagnetic intensity levels are even more wrong.
  
• 
  88

  New method to absolutely date Fall of Jerusalem.

  by waton in

  1. social
  2. current

  for what it is worth to those interested.

  1914.. tel-aviv university.

  "biblical military campaigns reconstructed using geomagnetic field data.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  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.
• 
  88

  New method to absolutely date Fall of Jerusalem.

  by waton in

  1. social
  2. current

  for what it is worth to those interested.

  1914.. tel-aviv university.

  "biblical military campaigns reconstructed using geomagnetic field data.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  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.
• 
  88

  New method to absolutely date Fall of Jerusalem.

  by waton in

  1. social
  2. current

  for what it is worth to those interested.

  1914.. tel-aviv university.

  "biblical military campaigns reconstructed using geomagnetic field data.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  🤣

  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 🙄
• 
  88

  New method to absolutely date Fall of Jerusalem.

  by waton in

  1. social
  2. current

  for what it is worth to those interested.

  1914.. tel-aviv university.

  "biblical military campaigns reconstructed using geomagnetic field data.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  Oh, you’re still here. 😒 Still waiting for your evidence for your claim about Jeremiah mentioning the land paying off sabbaths. 😂