Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Siloam Tunnel dates
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 1 of 25 (56801)
09-21-2003 4:39 PM


This almost could go in Bible Inerrancy, but I thought I'd stick it here instead: the first-ever radiometric date for a Biblical structure has been published, and is consistent with the Biblical text. King Hezekiah's aqueduct (II Kings 20:20) has been determined to be about 2500 years old:
A. Frumkin, et al., Nature, vol 425, pp 169-171, (11 Sept 2003). The abstract:
The historical credibility of texts from the Bible is often debated when compared with Iron Age archaeological finds (refs . 1, 2 and references therein). Modern scientific methods may, in principle, be used to independently date structures that seem to be mentioned in the biblical text, to evaluate its historical authenticity. In reality, however, this approach is extremely difficult because of poor archaeological preservation, uncertainty in identification, scarcity of datable materials, and restricted scientific access into well-identified worship sites. Because of these problems, no well-identified Biblical structure has been radiometrically dated until now. Here we report radiocarbon and U—Th dating of the Siloam Tunnel, proving its Iron Age II date; we conclude that the Biblical text presents an accurate historic record of the Siloam Tunnel's construction. Being one of the longest ancient water tunnels lacking intermediate shafts, dating the Siloam Tunnel is a key to determining where and when this technological breakthrough took place. Siloam Tunnel dating also refutes a claim that the tunnel was constructed in the second century BC.
If any of you are interested enough, and can't find this at your library, email me and I'll send a copy.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Trump won, posted 09-21-2003 5:16 PM Coragyps has not replied
 Message 3 by Brian, posted 09-21-2003 6:19 PM Coragyps has not replied
 Message 21 by TrueCreation, posted 10-02-2003 6:00 PM Coragyps has replied

  
Trump won 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1239 days)
Posts: 1928
Joined: 01-12-2004


Message 2 of 25 (56804)
09-21-2003 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Coragyps
09-21-2003 4:39 PM


more......
quote:
Part of the Old Testament Proven True
Read 2 Kings 20:20 and 2 Chronicles 32:30 in the Old Testament and you'll find a reference to a tunnel that was built in 700 B.C. by order of King Hezekiah to protect Jerusalem's water supply against an Assyrian siege. Long considered an engineering feat for that day and age, the serpentine tunnel ran 1,750 feet long and moved water from the Gihon spring across the entire city of ancient Jerusalem to the pool of Siloam.
Fast forward to modern-day Jerusalem. The Siloam Tunnel in that city matches the biblical description of King Hezekiah's tunnel. But is it really the same one? That question has stumped scholars for years, many of whom insisted the Siloam Tunnel was built centuries later than the Bible suggested in Kings and Chronicles. The only clue that survived for more than 2,700 years is an inscription discovered in 1880 on a tunnel wall that supported the link to King Hezekiah, although it did not name him specifically, reports The Associated Press.
Now geologists from the Cave Research Center at Hebrew University in Jerusalem think they have solved the mystery. By using radiocarbon testing to analyze the age of stalactite samples from the ceiling of the Siloam Tunnel and plant material recovered from its plaster floor, the biblical record and the tunnel's age have been confirmed, the researchers wrote in the journal Nature. The Siloam Tunnel is the one built by King Hezekiah.
This is also significant because it is the first time that a well-identified biblical structure has been subjected to extensive radiocarbon dating.
Even with all our modern-day technology and scientific knowledge, very little testing of biblical structures has been done to prove or disprove their age or authenticity. Why? The experts told AP such testing is difficult because it's often hard to identify such structures, they may be poorly preserved, or they may be restricted for various political or religious reasons.
The Siloam Tunnel is different. It's long been a tourist attraction. Anyone can wander in it and see the pick marks the original builders made in the walls to adjust their course so the tunnel would meet with a second team of workers who were heading toward them from the opposite end of the city. AP notes that those pick marks tell us how difficult it was to connect the two ends of the tunnel. "The tunnel is extraordinary, but these guys didn't know where they were going a lot of the time," Hershel Shanks, an expert on the history of Jerusalem who writes for the Biblical Archaeology Review, told AP. Still, he added, "It's nice to have scientific confirmation for what the vast majority of biblical scholars and archaeologists believe."
Thats off netscape.com
Discuss
------------------
"I AM THE MESSENJAH"
contact me for any reason at: messenjahjr@yahoo.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Coragyps, posted 09-21-2003 4:39 PM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-22-2003 4:05 AM Trump won has not replied
 Message 6 by awinkisas, posted 09-22-2003 9:47 AM Trump won has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 3 of 25 (56809)
09-21-2003 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Coragyps
09-21-2003 4:39 PM


Hi coragyps,
Hezekiah’s tunnel is a little bit too late for my period of research, but I was drawn to the radiocarbon reference in the abstract. Frumkin must have made a distinction between ‘biblical structures’ and ‘biblical events,’ because radiocarbon dating has been used before to try and determine the accuracy of the biblical text.
The fundamentalist ‘scholar’ Bryant Wood used radiocarbon dating to try and undermine Kathleen Kenyon’s dating of the destruction of Jericho ( Bryant Wood Did the Israelites Conquer Jericho: A New Look at the Archaeological Evidence , Biblical Archaeology Review, 16.2 1990, 44-58).
Wood had confidently declared that he had blown away Kenyon’s dating of Jericho’ destruction by using evidence that included pottery association, a single radiocarbon date from the destruction, a cartouche plaque of Thutmosis III and a scarab of Hateshput in tomb 5 of Garstang’s pre-Kenyon excavation.
Big problem for Wood was that this particular radiocarbon assay was part of a series of systematically defective dates. (M.S. Tire et al, Preliminary Statement on an error in British Museum radiocarbon dates BM-1700 to BM-2315), Antiquity 61 1987 page 168) Woods’ sample came from this batch that should have been dated 220 years earlier plus or minus 40 years of course, when calibrated again the dating fits Kenyon’s original assessment and negated Woods’ claims. Woods was slated by professional archaeologists for his sloppy scholarship, for example James Weinstien was shocked that Woods had only used one sample, Weinstein said ‘it is unacceptable to employ a single radiocarbon assay without even taking into account the date’s standard deviation, for the precise dating of an archaeological event.’ (Weinstein, Archaeological Reality in Exodus : The Egyptian Evidence Eisenbrauns, Indiana 1997, page 101.)
The inscription where the tunnel workers met has been used to ‘prove’ that Hezekiah ordered the construction of the tunnel, which is surprising, as it never mentions his name!
I wonder if radiocarbon dating will now be accepted as a reliable dating method in certain quarters, or will it just be dismissed as a coincidence?
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Coragyps, posted 09-21-2003 4:39 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 4 of 25 (56886)
09-22-2003 4:05 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Trump won
09-21-2003 5:16 PM


Re: more......
quote:
By using radiocarbon testing to analyze the age of stalactite samples from the ceiling of the Siloam Tunnel...
As I understand the C14 dating of carbonate (CaCO3) materials, I would expect dates from stalactites to reflect the older rock material that was the source of the carbonate. This would seem to be a simular situation to why you can get too old dates from the shells of living clams etc.
Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Trump won, posted 09-21-2003 5:16 PM Trump won has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by JonF, posted 09-22-2003 9:07 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 5 of 25 (56924)
09-22-2003 9:07 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Minnemooseus
09-22-2003 4:05 AM


Re: more......
As I understand the C14 dating of carbonate (CaCO3) materials, I would expect dates from stalactites to reflect the older rock material that was the source of the carbonate. This would seem to be a simular situation to why you can get too old dates from the shells of living clams etc.
The material you qoted was a little wrong. They used C-14 dating to date a leaf trapped in the plaster lining of the tunnel; obviously this leaf is older than the tunnel and establishes an uper bound for the age. They then used U-Th dating to date stalactites, which obviously are younger than the tunnel.
Radio-dating backs up biblical text

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-22-2003 4:05 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
awinkisas
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 25 (56926)
09-22-2003 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Trump won
09-21-2003 5:16 PM


Re: more......
Does this mean that young earth Creationists now accept radio dating to be accurate? After all those years of trying to show how vastly inaccurate it is I don't think that they can now use it to support biblical accuracy. From a YEC point of view this finding is worthless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Trump won, posted 09-21-2003 5:16 PM Trump won has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Brian, posted 09-22-2003 6:37 PM awinkisas has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 7 of 25 (56994)
09-22-2003 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by awinkisas
09-22-2003 9:47 AM


Re: more......
Hi,
I thought of this earlier and you know what, YEC could accept carbon dating without any problems. They would just claim that God created the Universe with age and this would bypass any difficulty.
I think the only technique acceptable to YEC are the genealogies of the Bible, even though they are nearly all artificial.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by awinkisas, posted 09-22-2003 9:47 AM awinkisas has not replied

  
Trump won 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1239 days)
Posts: 1928
Joined: 01-12-2004


Message 8 of 25 (57016)
09-22-2003 8:46 PM


quote:
Jerusalem, Sept. 11--(RNS) Using Carbon-14 dating techniques, Israeli and British scientists have determined that Siloam's Tunnel, a long, circuitous underground passage constructed below Jerusalem's ancient City of David was probably built about 700 B.C., when King Hezekiah ruled the land of Judea.
Dating methods of these types are admittedly accurate up to some 6-10,000 years according to the guy who created the dating method.

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Percy, posted 09-22-2003 9:01 PM Trump won has replied
 Message 15 by Coragyps, posted 09-22-2003 9:51 PM Trump won has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 9 of 25 (57019)
09-22-2003 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Trump won
09-22-2003 8:46 PM


messenjaH writes:
Dating methods of these types are admittedly accurate up to some 6-10,000 years according to the guy who created the dating method.
It's hard to tell what you mean by "accurate". Do you mean the method is useless beyond 6-10,000 years, or merely that the accuracy declines with increasing age?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Trump won, posted 09-22-2003 8:46 PM Trump won has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Trump won, posted 09-22-2003 9:18 PM Percy has not replied

  
Trump won 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1239 days)
Posts: 1928
Joined: 01-12-2004


Message 10 of 25 (57022)
09-22-2003 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Percy
09-22-2003 9:01 PM


From what the nobel prize winning scientist said, yes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Percy, posted 09-22-2003 9:01 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by NosyNed, posted 09-22-2003 9:24 PM Trump won has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 11 of 25 (57023)
09-22-2003 9:21 PM


Hee-hee!
Percy asks "is it this, or that?" And Messenjah replies "yes." Funny!

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 12 of 25 (57025)
09-22-2003 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Trump won
09-22-2003 9:18 PM


That was an "or" question, messenger. Yes, doesn't cut it.
Could you please supply a reference as well? Thanks

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Trump won, posted 09-22-2003 9:18 PM Trump won has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Trump won, posted 09-22-2003 9:45 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Trump won 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1239 days)
Posts: 1928
Joined: 01-12-2004


Message 13 of 25 (57030)
09-22-2003 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by NosyNed
09-22-2003 9:24 PM


h/o....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by NosyNed, posted 09-22-2003 9:24 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Trump won, posted 09-22-2003 9:47 PM Trump won has replied

  
Trump won 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1239 days)
Posts: 1928
Joined: 01-12-2004


Message 14 of 25 (57031)
09-22-2003 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Trump won
09-22-2003 9:45 PM


Willard Frank Libby was born in Grand Valley, Colorado, on December 17, 1908 to Ora Edward Libby and his wife Eva May. He attended grammar and high schools near Sebastopol, California, between 1913 and 1926, moving to the University of California at Berkeley in 1927, where he studied till 1933, taking his B. Sc. and Ph. D. degrees in 1931 and 1933 respectively.
Libby has performed a wide range of scientific advisory and technical consultant work with industrial firms associated with the Institute for Nuclear Studies, as well as with defense departments, scientific organizations and universities.
Libby is a physical chemist and a specialist in radiochemistry particularly hot atom chemistry, tracer techniques, and isotope tracer work. He became well-known at Chicago University for his work on natural carbon-14 and its use in dating archaeological artifacts, and natural tritium, and its use in hydrology and geophysics.
He was awarded the Nobel Prize In chemistry 1960 "for his method to use carbon-14 for age determination in archaeology, geology and geophysics, and other branches of science.
He is married to former Leonor Hickey of King City, California. They have twin daughters Janet and Susan (b. 1945).
Willard Frank Libby died in 1980.
sanbenito.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Trump won, posted 09-22-2003 9:45 PM Trump won has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Trump won, posted 09-22-2003 10:00 PM Trump won has not replied
 Message 20 by PaulK, posted 09-23-2003 4:12 AM Trump won has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 15 of 25 (57033)
09-22-2003 9:51 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Trump won
09-22-2003 8:46 PM


Dating methods of these types are admittedly accurate up to some 6-10,000 years according to the guy who created the dating method.
Dr Libby developed carbon-14 dating over fifty years ago, using a Geiger counter to count C-14 decay events in multi-gram samples. Science and technology have progressed since then, messenjaH. Geiger counters have been obsolete for forty years or so now. Accelerator mass spectrometry hadn't been invented thirty years ago. Carbon-14 dating uses AMS now - it's been calibrated quite accurately back to 38,000 years ago by counting lake varves and dating leaves and insect parts in those varves.
Please don't believe all you read on sites like Kent Hovind's. They aim to deceive, like they deceived you with that statement.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Trump won, posted 09-22-2003 8:46 PM Trump won has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Trump won, posted 09-22-2003 10:02 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024