i'm fed up of my still-in wife using this excuse that they can utter wrong beliefs and doctrines.. .
the fact that there are imperfect humans involved in the organisation is very much irrelevant.. .
we all accept, including jdubs, that these men are just men who may think and say wrong things like the rest of us as they go about their own lives.
Is there a scripture that states that Jehovah is perfect and without sin himself. He makes a big deal of saying that Jesus was perfect and without sin, but as the GB claim they are the equals of Jesus, at least as mediators with the big J and his active force where is their evidence for their perfect anoucements. Sorry who got the old light wrong the first time?
BB
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 - This was the reason for my original question. The term "stratigraphically" is applied in in general to determine the continuation of beds of strata which either are disconnected by distance and orientation, or uneven with regard to fault thurst as would be the case relating to earthquakes. It would seam quite proper that geology could determine the relative timming of an earthquake based on the strata depth and thrust but as to strata being measured to a specific date in historical chronology impossible. That is the funtion of archeology and not geology. 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.
However there may be an area of geological expertise which specialize in surface down soft strata dates but if there is I am not aware of it.
BB
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 - 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?
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.
Ann - The rule in Ezekiel is "a day for a year". In the WT use of Daniel 4 they manage to miss read the rule and come up with the scripturally unjustifiable rule of "a year for a day". Perphaps they think that Hehovaj is dislexsic?
Finkelstein - If the correct date for the composition of Daniel was addmitted, it would also show the general Essene nature of the book, and therefore would use their version of the lunisolar calandar which may explain the numbers used in Daniel. Details of this calandar are found with the Dead Sea Scroll. In simple terms 12 months of 30days each with an added 31st at the equinox and solstice positions, followed by an intercalculation of 17.5 days every 14 years from the 1st of the 1st month following the day of the spring equinox. In addtion a 3hrs reduction was made at 12 noon which was required to bring the noon and equinox into perfect alignment.
Scholar- Hope to see you archologicial evidence after the holiday.
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- What was the primary dating data the geologists used? And which timeline did they relate it to? I feel confident that bible chrono would not have been considered.
BB
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.
Sorry in the last pargraph "and this period does" should read "and this period does not."
BB
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.
Scholar- 2023 "No for the desolation of Judeah only commenced with the fall of Jerusalem in 607BCE but it was certainly during the period of Babylonian rule as Stern writes."
Thanks for clarrifying that niether you or WT agree with Stern and that Stern does not agree with you or the WT. I can not therefore understand how you or the WT scholars can accept the archaeological evidence that that only relates to the time period following the fall of Jerusalem, and reject the same evidence that shows that Judeah was also desolate from the 1st year of Nebuchadnezzer to Jerusalem's fall. If you reject the evidence that disagrees with your position but claim the the validity of the evidence that agrees with your position, this is not scholarship or rational, and in the academic world would be considered decieptive and completely dishonest.
Therefore the use of Stern's quotation should not be quoted in any form to justify a position it does not agree with, unless you have additional archealogical evidence which can be used to counter Stern's conclusions ?
Stern does clearly state that the period of Babylonian to which he refers is 604 BCE to 539 BCE, and this period does match the one you propose of 607BCE to 537BCE. Are you saying that there is additional archealogical evidence which Stern was unaware of, that there was desolation between 539 BCE and 537 BCE, if you are please enlighten me?
BB
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.
Fisherman- A view without physical evidence is worthless.
so bring it on, and lay the evidence on me, kate (but perhaps you should start a new thread).-adam.
it does not prove god exists, there is no substantial evidence god is real.
if one is a self labeled atheist, one has no desire to see gods fingerprints in organic chemistry.
Abiather- I don't know about Gates but Buddha was an atheist and all those who follow the religion are as well.
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.
Scholar- Are you stating that the WT agree that the delosation started in the first year of Nebuchanezzer as Stern states in the quotation that was used, and if so how can you equate Exile with Desolation as you have already stated?
