Welcome! Jesus Christ is my LORD and Savior! Romans 10:9-10,13; John 3:16

[For EU visitors, I do not personally use cookies, but Google or any clickable link (if you choose to click on it) might. This is in compliance with mandatory EU notification]

I am a Natural Born United States Citizen with NO allegiance or citizenship to any nation but my own, and will use this site as a hobby place of sorts to present my own political and religious viewpoints, as a genuine Constitutional Conservative and a genuine Christian Conservative.

Thank you for coming.
In the Year of our LORD Jesus Christ
-- As of January 20, 2017
A Sigh Of Relief With The Inauguration Of Donald John Trump as President of the United States of America, And Hope For A Prosperous Future For All United States Citizens (we who are a nation called "the melting pot of the world"). We shall be great and exceptionally great again.

It is likely that the entries to this blog will be less frequent than in years past. I do intend to keep this blog active, and to offer insightful information and/or opinion (and sometimes humor and/or entertainment on occasion) when I do post.

Peace and Liberty. Semper Fidelis.

Tuesday, December 7, 2010

Carbon 14 dating at Jericho with its 110 to 150 calibration, places the Exodus entry into the land year I propose -- 1511 B.C. -- as well within the margin of error

For years, I have been able to accurately propose and apologetically defend what I beieve will eventually be known as the almost certain fact that 1511 B.C.(as we know and calculate it) was the entry date of Israel to the lands of Canaan, consistently and vigourously, with confirmation by both Josephus and those Early Christians citing Greek historians.

 I have posted a few times to that effect also on this blog and to that regard, such as at these links here:







On Aug 07, 2008...Bryant G. Wood PhD reported the following data on Jericho's Carbon 14 dating that supports my thesis in dating Jericho's destruction to 1511 B.C. to being more within the margin of error than those who date to the 1400s B.C. and later:

Initially, a C14 date of 1410 +/- 40 B.C. (done by the British Museum) was published for charcoal from the destruction level of Jericho (Jericho V [1983], p. 763).

This was later found to be in error and corrected from 3080 +/- 40 BP to 3300 +/- 110 BP (Radiocarbon 32 [1990]: 74; BP = before present), which calibrates to 1590 or 1527 +/- 110 B.C., depending on how one reads the calibration curve (Radiocarbon 35 [1993]: 30).

Additional tests were done on six grain samples from the destruction level resulting in dates between 1640 and 1520 B.C. and 12 charcoal samples from the destruction level resulting in dates between 1690 and 1610 B.C. (Radiocarbon 37 [1995]: 217).

Carbon 14 Dating at Jericho

This Carbon-14 dating reported in 1995 is thought to be more reliable than the previous data.  One of the things that is seemingly left out in the Carbon-14 debates is contaminations, and cross-sourcing.

For example, there is data that shows that when a modern animal is fed old and rotten vegetation, the animal can soon Carbon-14 date to whatever you would misdate the rotten food to, because the rate of decay throws off the effectiveness of Carbon-14's accuracy. So in that respect, decomposition (its rate and state of) needs to be factored in in carbon-14 dating.

In contrast, the Jericho data suggests a suspension of decomp in the grain and charcoal samples. The difference in the charcoal dates to the 1600s B.C., may relate to the age of the wood or tree when it was cut (some may argue). Even if this were true, we again are looking closer to a 1511 B.C. destruction than any other proposed date for the fall of Jericho under Israel's entry into the Land.

SCIENCE (magazine), back in 1983 with Keith and Anderson's 'Radiocarbon dating: Fictitious results with Mollusk Shells' (August 16, vol. 141, No. 3581, pp. 634-636) showed that Mollusks could generate fictitious results of Carbon-14 dating by up to 3000 years, depending on what muddy river bottom they were feeding off of. And if river mud can alter mollusk Carbon-14 dating...in what other living creatures or once living organisms could they affect? Could deer or other animal antler growth, for example, reflect this in C-14 data? Strangely enough, this very example done in 1957 is often used in debates between young and old earth advocates, even though 3 stages of the same antler growth reflects a difference of some 5,000 years in C-14.

Hence, 5,000 years and more can be fictitiously attributed to C-14 dating. Thus, we can virtually bring the Holocene era into the Bronze Ages in one stroke via one example of a past Yale University testing on the subject. And even though advances have been made in Carbon-14 analysis; if the data going into the program is flawed...the resulting data that comes out will simply reflect that same flaw. Unfortunately, most and nearly all "scientists" simply take the C-14 results of others at face value and hypothesize by faith rather than "science", never testing and analyzing the sample and data themselves to see if the same result will happen again and again (which is what a scientist is "supposed" to do).

In regard to site dating found in material, using Carbon 14, we should always ask...Where would the best organic matter for use in dating that is the oldest but the freshest cut and least contaminated be found, and did we find it?

Even so, for me, it is yet a happy event for the above Jericho dating to be along the lines of placing 1511 B.C. within the oft cited C-14 150 year margin of error.  The same error margin of which allows for a simultaneous Hyksos expulsion and Israel's Exodus from ancient Egypt, (Egypt at that time, being known by another name),

No comments:

Post a Comment