archaeologist wrote:since c-14 has been brought in earlier than i wanted i now have to go to the following and point ut some questionable practices:
http://www.biblicalchronologist.org/ans ... ntwood.php
In fact, Kenyon found no evidence at all of occupation of Jericho ca. 1407 B.C.
conclusion based upon what she did not find. corroboration for James Long's critique of kenyon's conclusions.
You have shown that you are singularly incapable of understanding this issue. Along with Garstang and Wood, that makes three of you!
Dr. Bryant G. Wood proposed that Garstang was right all along. He proposed that the termination of City IV Jericho be redated from ca. 1550 B.C. to ca. 1400 B.C. He argued that a reanalyis of pottery shards excavated from City IV, stratigraphic considerations, scarab evidence, and a single radiocarbon date all converged "to demonstrate that City IV was destroyed in about 1400 B.C.E., not 1550 B.C.E. as Kenyon maintained."
Wood bases his conclusions on the evidence found; far more substantial than kenyon's work.
Dismissed as bible-thumping fallacy by accurate carbon dating and the findings of related destruction elsewhere in Canaan in the mid 16th century BC.
Pitir bienkowski rejects this conclusion not because of the evidence but the length of the confirmation of Garstang:
He has put forward four lines of argument to support his conclusion.
yet when refutation was even shorter, nary a word is spoken:
Bruins and van der Plicht recognized the results of their work held a serious implication for Wood's theory. They devoted only one sentence to this implication
thus if four lines is too short then 1 is just unacceptable and not proof of refutation.
Wood does not understand C14 dating. How long does it take to say that?
then we have the convenience of the british museum's actions:
Unfortunately, this date was later retracted by the British Museum, along with dates of several hundred other samples
when evidence was discovered that confirmed both Wood and Garstang, it is then recalled because of a problem in the calibration. yea right...
More conspiracies by evil scientists to deny your precious fairy tales, Arch? You never seem to tire of singing the same old song.
The British Museum found that their radiocarbon measurement apparatus had gone out of calibration for a period of time, and thus had yielded incorrect dates during that period. The corrected date for the charcoal sample from City IV turned out to be consistent with Kenyon's ca. 1550 B.C. date for the City IV destruction.
another reason we cannot trust carbon dating or the people who operate the machine. it also corroborrtes my contention of the corruptibilityof the whole process.
No....it's a reason no one can trust you. Science can admit its mistakes but you are stuck with the silliness which is written down, aren't you?
Radiocarbon dates on charcoal give the date the wood grew, not the date it was burned. To be consistent with Bryant Wood's proposal, the wood which burned to produce the charcoal sample would need to have been cut from a living tree 150 years prior to the destruction. Of course, this is not impossible.
a minor detail that works for Wood.
Subsequent dating was made on short-lived cereal grains. Wood is wrong but you are blind for continuing to believe his nonsense.
These depict Egypt as a stable, properous nation at the very time the traditional biblical chronology date for the Exodus says Egypt should be a nation devastated by plagues.
this assumes the data is correct and not fudged. if the pharaoh was still alive, as humphreys says, then the stability would still be there just as america, though devastated by katrina was still stable though a partof it was in ruins.
We KNOW the data is fudged. There is nothing true in the bible.
Having settled the dispute over the date of City IV Jericho's destruction and having demonstrated that Wood's chronology is not valid, we are left with the problem we started with
that is not true nor is the issue settled. for kenyon andher supporters to be right, the exodus must have happened in 1550 b.c. if it didn't then they are wrong.
Oh, it's settled. Only the terminally biblically blind cannot see it.
then to muddy the waters:
Gerald E. Aardsma, Ph.D., has proposed an alternate solution, one that solves these problems and does justice to both biblical and secular scientific evidence. He has shown that the correct biblical chronology date for the Conquest is ca. 2400 B.C., not ca. 1400 B.C. By this solution, it is the ca. 2400 B.C. destruction at Jericho, shown in the charts above, which must be credited to Joshua
QUICK! Call Jacobovici and tell him to move his date back another 1,000 years to satisfy yet another idiot.
