mardi 21 mars 2017

About 5300 Years Ago There was a World Wide Flood? Iffy ...


Here is Syncellus, same kind of rebooting as previously between Ussher and St Jerome, and as a bonus, his tables involve lots of historical lore, I am omitting most of it, but not denying myself the dates of the seven kings of Rome:

I 3258 BC
2.142 pmc, + 31 800 years, 35058 BC
II 3086 BC
25.609 pmc, + 11 250 years, 14336 BC
III 2913 BC
40.195 pmc, + 7550 years, 10463 BC

2724 BC, Dispersion of Tongues
here comes before older layers of Göbekli Tepe.

A not further calibrated table according to Syncellus must therefore renounce on identifying the city of the Tower of Babel with Göbekli Tepe.

But it is not very difficult to recalibrate by shoving the following back a little.

IV 2741 BC
54.721 pmc, + 5000 years, 7741 BC
V 2568 BC
63.751 pmc, + 3700 years, 6268 BC
VI 2396 BC
72.689 pmc, + 2650 years, 5046 BC
VII 2224 BC
78.256 pmc, + 2050 years, 4274 BC

2189 BC
Birth of Abraham.
2089 BC
Birth of Isaac.

And beginnings of a unified Egypt (and Egypt existed 24 years before Isaac was born) are Narmer, whose raw carbon date is 3400 BC? Even if this is by Egyptologists adjusted to 3200 BC as beginning of Early Dynastic Egypt.

Here we are not yet even in 3501 BC.

Or suppose the raw carbon date was a Libby date ... 3400+1950=5350, 5350*1.03=5510.5, 5510-1950=3560.

If the raw carbon date of Cambridge halflife is 3560 BC, it is possible.

VIII 2051 BC
83.844 pmc, + 1450 years, 3501 BC
IX 1879 BC
87.316 pmc, + 1100 years, 2979 BC
X 1707 BC
90.665 pmc, + 810 years, 2517 BC

1685 BC
the Syncellus date for Exodus. Falls between 2517 and 2154 BC, Cambridge carbon dates, or 2387 and 2034 BC Libby dates.

Same thing for 1645 BC, the approximate date of fall of Jericho.

I think Kenyon would be happier with a higher than 100 pmc at this date, and taking Syncellus as giving the good date for fall of Jericho (still standing 1575).

But this omits that we are dealing with a rise in carbon levels.

If Kenyon's dates for Jericho are 1575 BC (see below), it would more probably be due to it being in 1470 BC (as St Jerome chronology suggests) and misdated as older.

XI 1534 BC
92.752 pmc, + 620 years, 2154 BC

1433 BC
Debora and Barac
1386 BC
Gideon

XII 1362 BC
94.992 pmc, + 430 years, 1792 BC

1282 BC
Iephtha
1211 BC
Samson

XIII 1190 BC
96.376 pmc, + 310 years, 1500 BC

1189 BC
Agamemnon becomes king of Mycenae and of Argives
1172 BC
Syncellus' date for taking of Troy.
1166 BC
Orestes becomes king of Mycenae and of Argives
1161 BC
Aeneas becomes king of Latins
1158 BC
... and three years later Ascanius follows him
1151 BC
Eli is Judge
1128 BC
Samuel is Judge

XIV 1017 BC
97.486 pmc, + 210 years, 1227 BC

1112 BC
Syncellus places the election of Saul
1072 BC
King David
1032 BC
King Solomon
992 BC
Roboam and Jeroboam (the editor takes exception to their rule starting same year).
944 BC / 938 BC
Omri of Israel
931 / 930 BC
Josaphath of Judah
930 / 926 BC
Achab of Israel
906 BC
Joram Judah and Israel (editor)
905 BC
Joram Judah (Syncellus himself)
903 BC
Joram Israel (Syncellus himself)
894 BC
Jehu (editor)
891 BC
Joas (editor) / Jehu (Syncellus himself)
888 BC
Joas (Syncellus himself)

XV 845 BC
98.188 pmc, + 150 years, 995 BC

800 BC
Macedon begins
825 BC
Syncellus poses the date when Medes take over after Assyrians.
770 BC
Athens ceases to be a monarchy and has "archontes decennes" (archons ruling ten years or archons ruling ten together per year?)
759 BC
Founding of Rome. Romulus.
754 BC
Achas of Judah
743 / 740 BC
Hosea of Israel
738 / 735 BC
Hezechias of Judah
721 BC
Numa Pompilius
680 BC
Tullius Hostilius.

XVI 672 BC
99.298 pmc, + 60 years, 732 BC

648 BC
Ancus Martius.
625 BC
Tarquinius Priscus
613 BC
Nabuchodonosor
588 BC
Servius Tullius
548 BC
Cyrus.
544 BC
Tarquinius Superbus.
520 BC
Rome has consuls.
515 BC
Egypt is conquered by Persia.

XVII 500 BC
100 pmc, no extra years, 500 BC


Here is a citation of Jericho for you:

A succession of settlements followed from 4500 BCE onward, the largest constructed in 2600 BCE.[20]

Jericho was continually occupied into the Middle Bronze Age; it was destroyed in the Late Bronze, after which it no longer served as an urban centre. The city was surrounded by extensive defensive walls strengthened with rectangular towers, and possessed an extensive cemetery with vertical shaft-tombs and underground burial chambers; the elaborate funeral offerings in some of these may reflect the emergence of local kings.[34]

During the Middle Bronze Age, Jericho was a small prominent city of the Canaan region, reaching its greatest Bronze Age extent in the period from 1700 to 1550 BCE. It seems to have reflected the greater urbanization in the area at that time, and has been linked to the rise of the Maryannu, a class of chariot-using aristocrats linked to the rise of the Mitannite state to the north. Kathleen Kenyon reported "...the Middle Bronze Age is perhaps the most prosperous in the whole history of Kna'an. ... The defenses ... belong to a fairly advanced date in that period" and there was "a massive stone revetment... part of a complex system" of defenses (pp. 213–218).[35] Bronze-Age Jericho fell in the 16th century at the end of the Middle Bronze Age, the calibrated carbon remains from its City-IV destruction layer dating to 1617–1530 BCE. Notably this carbon dating c. 1573 BCE confirmed the accuracy of the stratigraphical dating c. 1550 by Kenyon.

There was evidence of a small settlement in the Late Bronze Age (c.1400s BCE) on the site, but erosion and destruction from previous excavations have erased significant parts of this layer.


Unfortunately, Syncellus gives no date for Joseph in Egypt, that I could find in the tables, which would be with Djoser, carbon dated, like Narmer.

The most interesting line from Jacob to Syncellus is Levi, Caath, Amram, Moses.

I have omitted lots of material from Syncellus, though it is interesting. Some is a bit more bewildering than I can deal with, I am still no great knower of the enture kings of Judah and Israel.

On a totally other note, while I think Eusebius and St Jerome and Roman Martyrology are more correct than Syncellus, the editor of the work is actually, probably, a Catholic, from Germany, Niebuhr, and in 1829 it was published in Bonn, and involves a dedication by a Paris Dominican (I have seen their Church!) namely Jacques Goar OP to one Pierre Séguier, Chancellor of France.

That was written in Rue St Honoré (a road where now the French Presidents reside) and this was under King Charles X, who conquered Algeria.

Hans Georg Lundahl
ut supra (vel infra)

Around Five Thousand Years Ago, There was a World Wide Flood?


Here I have rebooted the last table I gave Ussher's chronology. Namely with other BC years for Biblical chronology.

And inserted a few hints about how fitting or less fitting this chronology would be:

I 2957 BC
2.142 pmc, + 31 800 years, 34757 BC
II 2803 BC
25.609 pmc, + 11 250 years, 14053 BC
III 2650 BC
40.195 pmc, + 7550 years, 10200 BC

Low feature in Göbekli Tepe
9559 BP, 7609 BC

IV 2496 BC
54.721 pmc, + 5000 years, 7496 BC

High Feature in Göbekli Tepe
8430 BP, 6480 BC

V 2343 BC
63.751 pmc, + 3700 years, 6043 BC
VI 2189 BC
72.689 pmc, + 2650 years, 4839 BC
VII 2036 BC
78.256 pmc, + 2050 years, 4086 BC

Ur of Woolley starts
a little before Birth of Abraham
Narmer's raw carbon date
before 3332, around Birth of Isaac

VIII 1882 BC
83.844 pmc, + 1450 years, 3332 BC
IX 1728 BC
87.316 pmc, + 1100 years, 2828 BC

Date of Joseph
is close to a raw carbon date of Djoser

X 1575 BC
90.665 pmc, + 810 years, 2385 BC

Exodus (1510 BC)
would carbon date between 2385 and 2041, if we had a trace of it.

XI 1421 BC
92.752 pmc, + 620 years, 2041 BC
XII 1268 BC
94.992 pmc, + 430 years, 1698 BC

Trojan War Date 1190 BC
falls between 1114 and 1268 BC, which means the carbon date would be between 1424 and 1698 BC. Could we be dealing with Troy V?

XIII 1114 BC
96.376 pmc, + 310 years, 1424 BC

Both Troy dates (VIh and VIIa)
from Hisarlik fall between 961 BC and 1114 BC, since carbon dated between 1171 BC and 1424 BC.

XIV 961 BC
97.486 pmc, + 210 years, 1171 BC
XV 807 BC
98.188 pmc, + 150 years, 957 BC
XVI 654 BC
99.298 pmc, + 60 years, 714 BC
XVII 500 BC
100 pmc, no extra years, 500 BC


The greatest weakness of this idea is perhaps introducing Troy V as the Troy of Priam. I don't know any archaeologist who suggests that.

So, on this view, either Trojan War would be a myth, or a chronologically displaced story, or we need to look harder at possible traces of destruction in Troy V - and I don't think looking other places than Hissarlik is a great option.

Hans Georg Lundahl
ut supra

(or, as seen on blog : ut infra).

What about Ussher and Kent Hovind? Checking with Troy


This Sunday, St Joseph's Day, I set out to refute the carbonic implications of Kent Hovind's timeline. We'll see how the attempt ended, but first the statement and my first sketching out of implications.

"About 4400 years ago, there was a world wide Flood"

Anyone who has heard Kent Hovind say those words on a video, raise a hand (jk).

2400 BC
2.15 pmc
1400 BC
51.075 pmc
400 BC
100 pmc


This is if the levels form a straight line on a graph.

Otherwise we get instead

2400 BC
2.15 pmc
1400 BC
62.6213 pmc
400 BC
100 pmc


This latter is calculated as a "Fibonacci intermediary", see previous post on how I calculated values II, IV, VI, and so on. Between 2400 BC and 1400 BC, you have 1900 BC.

2400 BC
2.15 pmc
1900 BC
26.6125 pmc
1400 BC
51.075 pmc
400 BC
100 pmc


Or

2400 BC
2.15 pmc
1900 BC
41.9932634 pmc
1400 BC
62.6213 pmc
400 BC
100 pmc


Between 2400 and 1900 BC, there is 2150 BC.

2400 BC
2.15 pmc
2150 BC
14.38125 pmc
1900 BC
26.6125 pmc
1400 BC
51.075 pmc
400 BC
100 pmc


Or

2400 BC
2.15 pmc
2150 BC
26.77313678 pmc
1900 BC
41.9932634 pmc
1400 BC
62.6213 pmc
400 BC
100 pmc


Between 1900 BC and 1400 BC, there is 1650 BC.

2400 BC
2.15 pmc
2150 BC
14.38125 pmc
1900 BC
26.6125 pmc
1650 BC
38.84375 pmc
1400 BC
51.075 pmc
400 BC
100 pmc


Or

2400 BC
2.15 pmc
2150 BC
26.77313678 pmc
1900 BC
41.9932634 pmc
1650 BC
53.92 pmc*
1400 BC
62.6213 pmc
400 BC
100 pmc


And between 1400 BC and 400 BC, there was 900 BC.

2400 BC
2.15 pmc
2150 BC
14.38125 pmc
1900 BC
26.6125 pmc
1650 BC
38.84375 pmc
1400 BC
51.075 pmc
900 BC
75.5375 pmc
400 BC
100 pmc


Or

2400 BC
2.15 pmc
2150 BC
26.77313678 pmc
1900 BC
41.9932634 pmc
1650 BC
53.92 pmc*
1400 BC
62.6213 pmc
900 BC
85.7221 pmc
400 BC
100 pmc


Let's see what these levels would mean as to fake dates to the real dates - and recall, archaeology is usually dated in fake dates, sometimes of this type.

Straight line graph, first:

2400 BC
2.15 pmc, 31700 extra years, 34100 BC
2150 BC
14.38125 pmc, 16050 extra years, 18200 BC
1900 BC
26.6125 pmc, 10950 extra years, 12850 BC
1650 BC
38.84375 pmc, 7800 extra years, 9450 BC
1400 BC
51.075 pmc, 5550 extra years, 6950 BC
900 BC
75.5375 pmc, 2300 extra years, 3200 BC
400 BC
100 pmc, no extra years, 400 BC


According to this model, stone age would still be going on at the approximate time of Exodus, it would just have turned Neolithic some while ago.

I suppose 1650 BC might be an Ussher date for Joseph in Egypt? I check Haydock comment, which gives Year of the World 2369, Year before Christ 1635. This is Genesis 50:25. This would then have been also in Neolithic and clearly before any visible Egyptian unity.

Abraham was according to Ussher called Genesis 12:10: Year of the World 2084, Year before Christ 1920. So Isaac was born five years after 1900 BC, in 1895 BC. And this was Late Palaeolithic?

And King Solomon's Temple coincides roughly with early dynastic Egypt, Solomon is contemporary with Narmer (one pharao who actually has been carbon dated, though the raw date 3400 BC has been revised despite C14 to 3200 BC).

I suppose you can see why this table is useless, other than as illustration of one of its premisses being flawed.

Now, next table, the graph with Fibonacci intermediates:

2400 BC
2.15 pmc, 31700 extra years, 34100 BC
2150 BC
26.77313678 pmc, 10900 extra years, 13050 BC
1900 BC
41.9932634 pmc, 7150 extra years, 9050 BC
1650 BC
53.92 pmc*, 5100 extra years, 6750 BC
1400 BC
62.6213 pmc, 3850 extra years, 5250 BC
900 BC
85.7221 pmc, 1250 extra years, 2150 BC
400 BC
100 pmc


In this version, Exodus from Egypt is before Ur was a real city, but Solomon was at least later than Djoser (another pharao who has been carbon dated, which is rare in Egyptology, I have heard).

With these tables, no wonder that people discard Kent Hovind's and Henry M. Morris' idea of a rising carbon level.

I didn't stay here, I actually thought it might do to give Kent Hovind and Ussher a better chance than this.

That is why I came up with the levels table on the previous message here. I will now insert this timeline in 16 subdivisions into those tables.

I 2400 BC
2.142 pmc, + 31 800 years, 34200 BC
II 2275 BC
25.609 pmc, + 11 250 years, 13525 BC
III 2150 BC
40.195 pmc, + 7550 years, 9700 BC
IV 2025 BC
54.721 pmc, + 5000 years, 7025 BC
V 1900 BC
63.751 pmc, + 3700 years, 5600 BC
VI 1775 BC
72.689 pmc, + 2650 years, 4425 BC
VII 1650 BC
78.256 pmc, + 2050 years, 3700 BC
VIII 1525 BC
83.844 pmc, + 1450 years, 2975 BC
IX 1400 BC
87.316 pmc, + 1100 years, 2500 BC
X 1275 BC
90.665 pmc, + 810 years, 2085 BC
XI 1150 BC
92.752 pmc, + 620 years, 1770 BC
XII 1025 BC
94.992 pmc, + 430 years, 1455 BC
XIII 900 BC
96.376 pmc, + 310 years, 1210 BC
XIV 775 BC
97.486 pmc, + 210 years, 985 BC
XV 650 BC
98.188 pmc, + 150 years, 800 BC
XVI 525 BC
99.298 pmc, + 60 years, 585 BC
XVII 400 BC
100 pmc, no extra years, 400 BC


I think this is still a bit too much squeezing of conventional timelines a bit too late, since last millennium BC was fairly well documented.

Also, just before it, we have Troy sacked. This is too much squeezing for the current identification of sacked Troy with Troy VI. Or is this identification still current? I'll be checking. Here are Troy VII and Troy on wiki. Here is a selective and composite quote:

Troy VII ... was built following the destruction of Troy VIh,[2] probably by an earthquake c. 1300 BC. A number of layers are distinguished:

  • Troy VIIa: ca. 13th century BC
  • Troy VIIb1: 12th century BC
  • Troy VIIb2: 11th century BC
  • Troy VIIb3: until c. 950 BC


The city of the archaeological layer known as Troy VIIa, which has been dated on the basis of pottery styles to the mid- to late-13th century BC, lasted for about a century, with a destruction layer at c. 1190 BC. It is the most often-cited candidate for the Troy of Homer and is believed to correspond to Wilusa, known from Hittite sources dating to the period of roughly 1300–1250 BC.

The layers of ruins in the citadel at Hisarlık are numbered Troy I – Troy IX, with various subdivisions:[note 2]

  • Troy I 3000–2600 BC (Western Anatolian EB 1)
  • Troy II 2600–2250 BC (Western Anatolian EB 2)
  • Troy III 2250–2100 BC (Western Anatolian EB 3 [early])
  • Troy IV 2100–1950 BC (Western Anatolian EB 3 [middle])
  • Troy V: 20th–18th centuries BC (Western Anatolian EB 3 [late])
  • Troy VI: 17th–15th centuries BC
  • Troy VIh: late Bronze Age, 14th century BC
  • Troy VIIa: c. 1300–1190 BC, most likely setting for Homer's story
  • Troy VIIb1: 12th century BC
  • Troy VIIb2: 11th century BC
  • Troy VIIb3: until c. 950 BC
  • Troy VIII: c. 700–85 BC
  • Troy IX: 85 BC–c. AD 500


Now, if the identification here of destruction layer carbon dated as 1190 BC with Trojan War is correct, there is no squeezing at all towards the beginning of first millennium BC.

If on the other hand the destruction identified as of an earthquake 1300 BC is really that of Trojan War, then the squeezing at beginning of the last millennium** BC was about 110 years. Or 60 years, if the earthquake is rather dated 1250 BC.

This is the position I was looking for when I started the tables : 1189 carbon dated as 1289.

If the above last table for Ussher chronology is right, we would have 1275 BC, a bit before Trojan War, dated as 1770 BC. This would make the city of Priam identic, not indeed to Schliemann's Troy II, but at least to Troy V.

On the other hand, if Schliemann was right, supposing this to be carbon dates, which is probable, "Troy II 2600–2250 BC (Western Anatolian EB 2)" would mean 1040 extra years at destruction of Troy. So, taking Schliemann's Troy for Priam's would mean above last table has a bit too little squeezing towards the end.

So, generally speaking, even with this best table, if my new start is better, Ussher's timeline is too short.

But of course, Kent Hovind might want to defend it by NOT taking the divisions I-XVII above in even chronological sequence, he might want to calibrate how fast and slow the progression goes.

I might want to do it myself in a while. For my own preference, the chronology of St Jerome, which is used in the Roman Martyrology, as usually with me. It might even be needed for Syncellus.

But more thereof, for another time.

Hans Georg Lundahl
ut "supra"***

* Omitting some zeros and further decimals.

** Or towards end of second to last millennium BC, rather.

*** Relative to layout on the blog, it is of course "ut infra".

New Fibonacci Calibration


My older Fibonacci Table was more complex in calculation, but had one possible flaw, apart from complexity : by going too far in Fibonacci series, it involved the earliest rise into too fast rising, if it was indeed too fast.

Here I have gone only from 1, 1, 2 to 21. Not to 610.

On the other hand, I have, perhaps unduly simplified, as if the carbon 14 level rising itself were following a Fibonacci curve of decreased augmentation.

In the older table it was one component of the production of new C14 which did so.

I'll explain for non-experts : a stable carbon 14 level in atmosphere means, for one thing, a stable level of normal carbon dioxide in atmosphere, which I take to have been stable since Flood, with less overall than before Flood, since some would have been buried - not sure how much this affects the result, though. Why so, you may ask? Because the C14 level is not measured against volume of atmosphere, since it is taken in samples of organic material which have long since ceased to be part of atmosphere. It is measured against weight of other carbon, all of which basically has been carbon dioxide in atmosphere.

A stable carbon 14 in atmosphere also means the decay rate is stable, which I grant, taking the Cambridge half life : 5730 years = after them any sample will have half as much C14 as it had before them. This includes the sample which is carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

But this means that a stable carbon 14 level involves one more thing too, namely a stable producttion of new carbon 14 which is in balance with what is lost through radioactive decay within the atmosphere itself.

And this means that a rising level of Carbon 14 either involves not enough time having lapsed since the rise from scratch began, if that is how it worked, or that some time the present level was simply given as part of creation, which I do not grant, though God could have done it, precisely as for similar mathematical reasons we cannot have had a rise to a stable level happen through normal today's production of new C14. Or, third possibility, a rising level could also involve new carbon 14 being produced faster than now, while the level is rising.

This is of course my view of the matter, since back in 2015.

Now, the Fibonacci Table of 2015 took the production of new carbon 14 during the period I study into two portions : the portion which is today's level of new production, and the portion which exceeds it, which portion I divided into Fibonaccian multiples of a certain dividend of it.

Here, it is much more clumsy as approach, I only take eight steps of rise in the resulting level itself.

And these I calculated on Sunday, St Joseph's Day and Third Sunday of Lent, or Third Lord's Day of Lent. However, that only gives 9 levels of C14, including 100 percent modern carbon and the presumed Flood level of modern carbon.

I wanted more levels, so this morning, St Benedict's Day, I added 8 intermediary levels, using a formula of intercalation which basically multiplies the difference between two levels by 0.618 and then decides that product is added onto lower level in order to produce the intermediate one.

And here we have the results, I did some rounding, reducing pmc exactitude to three decimal places:

I
2.142 pmc, + 31 800 years
II
25.609 pmc, + 11 250 years
III
40.195 pmc, + 7550 years
IV
54.721 pmc, + 5000 years
V
63.751 pmc, + 3700 years
VI
72.689 pmc, + 2650 years
VII
78.256 pmc, + 2050 years
VIII
83.844 pmc, + 1450 years
IX
87.316 pmc, + 1100 years
X
90.665 pmc, + 810 years
XI
92.752 pmc, + 620 years
XII
94.992 pmc, + 430 years
XIII
96.376 pmc, + 310 years
XIV
97.486 pmc, + 210 years
XV
98.188 pmc, + 150 years
XVI
99.298 pmc, + 60 years
XVII
100 pmc, no extra years


And to make sure that we are dealing* with Cambridge half life, here are some diagnostic pmc's: 70.7 should give half of a halflife, 2865 years, gives 2850. 50 should give a halflife, 5730, gives 5750. 25 should give two half lives, 11 460, gives 11450.

I suspect that the calculator* has been given some either calibration or rounding, and if rounding, I think it can basically be trusted. For our purpose, which is not identical to that of those putting it online.

You may notice that I have not given BC years either for Biblical or "carbon dated" chronologies, this because I think above table can very well be adapted to diverse Biblical chronologies and also get the years between its steps calibrated to faster or slower, if needed.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Benedict's Day
or Tuesday after
III Lord's Day in Lent
21.III.2017

PS, in case some are dense (or just need some tea or coffee) : the pmc levels given are not of what would be expected now from whatever the year, they are meant as normal pmc level of atmosphere and recent normal samples back then. Therefore they do not give the carbon age, they only give the extra years above the carbon age. As it would have been if carbon 14 level had been 100 pmc./HGL

* The Carbon 14 Dating Calculator is the one which I gave a short link http://ppt.li/3m8 because its full link is a bit long:

Carbon 14 Dating Calculator
https://www.math.upenn.edu/~deturck/m170/c14/carbdate.html

samedi 18 mars 2017

Quora : Does the Bible, Torah and the Quran tell us how long humans have been on this Earth and where they first appeared?


Q
Does the Bible, Torah and the Quran tell us how long humans have been on this Earth and where they first appeared?
https://www.quora.com/Does-the-Bible-Torah-and-the-Quran-tell-us-how-long-humans-have-been-on-this-Earth-and-where-they-first-appeared/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl


ARq
Answer requested by 1 person Anonymous

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Studied religions as curious parallels and contrasts to Xtian faith since 9, 10?
Written Wed
The Quran? No.

Islamic tradition, yes, when it says Mohammed was 39 or 40 generations from Adam (which I don’t believe), but the Quran, no.

It is a very short and incomplete document for a religion.

The Bible, notably the Torah, yes.

At least as far as when.

Where, depends on where you place the four rivers, two of them are the limits of Mesopotamia, as they flow now, but it is disputed where the other two went, though one was the Nile.

In one version, Euphrates and Tigris are the North Rivers and Nile and an Arabian river the South rivers, and the common source probably in Holy Land, with Jordan as the source of all four.

In another version, Euphrates and Tigris are the Central Rivers, Nile the West extreme and Ganges (possibly turning to Danube) the East Extreme.

You could also imagine Danube was one of the four and Ganges a false identification, in that case Euphrates and Tigris are the East Rivers and Danube and Nile the West Rivers.

How that hints about the common source is a guess (btw, when I speak of Danube, I mean same river bed but opposite direction before the Flood : palaeontology shows Vienna has been a sea shore.)

As for how long ago, that is not a guess, it is even more stricter limited.

Adam was 130 or 230 when he begat Seth. Depends on which text you find most reliable. Depending on text, the Flood was in 2242 or 1656 or 1305 after Creation.

Genealogies of Genesis - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogies_of_Genesis


After Flood, Abraham can have been born 3414/3184, 1948 or 2247 after Creation.

After that there are more years given in the life of each patriarch up to migration into Egypt. So, between Abraham and Joseph there is little room for doubt on how many years. Between Joseph receiving his family and Moses going out of Egypt with their descendants, there are two versions, 400 years or 215 years, the latter being most probable.

After Exodus, the timeline is 40 years up to entry into land of Canaan, after Moses died and Joshua succeeded him, so many years (40 I think) up to death of Joshua, some convoluted histories in the time known as the Judges between Joshua and King Saul and King David and King Solomon, probably straightened out if you read an overview in Paralipomena (a k a Chronicles), between King Solomon and Babylonian captivity the timeline is fairly straight forward, and Babylonian captivity occurred in … checking wiki:

The Babylonian captivity or Babylonian exile is the period in Jewish history during which a number of Judahites of the ancient Kingdom of Judah were captives in Babylonia. After the Battle of Carchemish in 605 BCE, Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon, besieged Jerusalem, resulting in tribute being paid by King Jehoiakim. [1] Jehoiakim refused to pay tribute in Nebuchadnezzar's fourth year, which led to another siege in Nebuchadnezzar's seventh year, culminating with the death of Jehoiakim and the exile of King Jeconiah, his court and many others; Jeconiah's successor Zedekiah and others were exiled in Nebuchadnezzar's eighteenth year; a later deportation occurred in Nebuchadnezzar's twenty-third year. The dates, numbers of deportations, and numbers of deportees given in the biblical accounts vary. [2] These deportations are dated to 597 BCE for the first, with others dated at 587/586 BCE, and 582/581 BCE respectively.[3]After the fall of Babylon to the Persian king Cyrus the Great in 539 BCE, exiled Judeans were permitted to return to Judah.[4][5]According to the biblical book of Ezra, construction of the second temple in Jerusalem began around 516 BCE. All these events are considered significant in Jewish history and culture, and had a far-reaching impact on the development of Judaism.

Babylonian captivity - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_captivity


This means that the wikipedian article is probably written from Jewish perspective, it is possible that Christian chronologists have a century more between Babylonian captivity and Birth of Christ.

Birth of Christ is also dated in relation to Roman chronology, which was a good one.

Since first Christians were in Roman still Pagan Empire, which later converted under Constantine, we can date them by emperors, and see what pope was martyred under what emperor. And the emperors are well dated.

Other answers
to same question
https://www.quora.com/Does-the-Bible-Torah-and-the-Quran-tell-us-how-long-humans-have-been-on-this-Earth-and-where-they-first-appeared


ARq to Muhammad Ahmed
Answer requested by 1 person Anonymous

Muhammad Ahmed
Design Engineer at And or Logic (2014-present)
Written Wed
i dont know about Torah and Bible but Quran answers that

Hans-Georg Lundahl
How?

Mike Rommel
Retired
Written Tue
The Quran is out of the picture, has very little information that is historical except what it borrowed from the Bible. The Bible has genealogies from Jesus back to Adam, and through those we can be quite sure that the time back to Adam from now is about 6000 years. Where the garden of Eden was is not known.

Meghan Louve
former engineer, trans woman
Written Tue
No. It has been proven that modern man (homo sapiens) has been around for approximately 200,000 years, largely in Africa, and spread from there. The first five chapters of the Bible and the Torah are roughly 3300 years old. The story of Adam and Eve cannot be interpreted literally. The Qur’an was revealed to Muhammad in the seventh century.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"It has been proven that modern man (homo sapiens) has been around for approximately 200,000 years, largely in Africa, and spread from there."

How is that proven?

"The first five chapters of the Bible and the Torah are roughly 3300 years old."

I'd say the written form together with the rest of Genesis in the lifetime of Moses, who was 80 in 1510 BC.

But their content can have been transmitted either purely orally, or with writing support in full though lost or yet in another way:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Genevieve von Petzinger's 32 late palaeolithic signs
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2017/03/on-genevieve-von-petzingers-32-late.html


"The story of Adam and Eve cannot be interpreted literally."

It very often is, so how can you say it cannot be so?

If you mean "a literal translation of it cannot be true" I suppose of course you are referring to the supposed proofs of "200,000 years".

Ken Parson
I drink and I know things
Written Wed
Putting aside the issue of Biblical inerrancy, the Bible has, kinda. There are contradictory genealogies for Jesus in the Bible, but the one in the Gospel of Luke goes all the way to Adam (of “Adam and Eve” fame) to Jesus. The Old Testament lists the age at death for many of the major players, some of which appear in the Luke’s genealogy. There is also one event mentioned in the Bible for which there are multiple reliable secular sources corroborating the date for said event: The Death of Nebuchadnezzar. That happened in 562 BC.

So, many Biblical scholars from early Christianity to the present have added together the age at death for any the descendants whose longevity is listed in the Old Testament and estimated the lifespans for those whose longevity is not mentioned. The date of Nebuchadnezzar's death was then used as a reference point. This led most scholars to place the creation of Adam, as described in Genesis, to around 4000–5000 BC.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
“The Old Testament lists the age at death for many of the major players, some of which appear in the Luke’s genealogy.”

And more importantly, perhaps, age of a major player when siring the relevant son.

Richard Carrier Refutes Certain Evolutionists


Creation vs. Evolution : Richard Carrier Refutes Certain Evolutionists · somewhere else : Carrier on Tacitus

I once asked my natural science teacher at junior high school how he knows Big Bang happened or Evolution happened. Or Abiogenesis.

Or how he knew Solar System arose out of a whirl of gas getting hotter as whirling closer.

Or perhaps even how he knew Solar System was working on Newtonian mechanics.

Well, the reply I got was basically : "we are here, if it didn't work, we wouldn't be".

I had an objection which he broke off my trying to voice in class. Before you guess which one it is, here is Richard Carrier for you:

The probability that the evidence exists given that we are observing it, and the probability that the evidence would exist given that a particular event happened in the past, are not the same probability.


One immediate simplification I would make is:

The probability a given piece of evidence exists that we observe (1/1) and the probability that it is evidence of a particular explanation rather than another (not 1/1) are not same probability.

The observation of a piece of evidence is not a substitute for good logic about what it is evidence about.

Now, this latter is not exactly what Richard Carrier is saying, but what he is saying is one way of finally coming at this.

What he is saying is somewhat more intricate, I'll give that too, and also (though external to this blog) answer his anti-Christian application of it:

And accordingly, FoE, despite saying P(e) is always 1 because “that’s the evidence we have,” correctly shows on screen that this is not true for the meningitis testing. He posits for his example that the probability of e, “a positive test result,” is 0.5% when you don’t have meningitis (aka ~M) and 99.5% if you do have meningitis (aka M); and he posits a base rate of having M of 1 in 1000, which means a prior probability of 0.001, or 0.1%, one tenth of one percent. And that means P(e), the probability of a positive test result “whether or not” you have M, is not 100% but in fact [P(“positive test result for M”|M) x P(base rate of M)] + [P(“positive test result for M”|~M) x P(base rate of ~M)], or, as he correctly shows on screen, (0.995 x 0.001) + (0.005 x 0.999) = (0.000995) + (0.004995) = 0.00599 (or about 0.6%). Which is nowhere near 1 (aka 100%).

One therefore would never say the probability of a positive test result “whether or not you have meningitis” is 100%. Because, in his own example, it’s 0.6%! And FoE seems to know this, as that’s what he shows on the screen. But he doesn’t connect the two examples, so he never notices his mistake in saying P(e) equals 1. The really weird thing here is that if he really thinks P(e), the whole denominator of every Bayesian equation, is always 1 because we always “have the evidence we have,” then you don’t need the denominator at all. The probability of anything is then just P(e|h) x P(h). That should have clued him in that he was making an error in his statement here. I will charitably assume he misspoke and didn’t really mean to say that.

Otherwise, he is confusing two completely different probabilities, and to help anyone else from making that mistake even if he didn’t mean to, remember this:

The probability that the evidence exists given that we are observing it, and the probability that the evidence would exist given that a particular event happened in the past, are not the same probability.

So, for example, if assessing the evidence of a murder, FoE found blood on the accused, he could rightly say “the probability that the accused is bloody, given that I observed and verified the accused is bloody” is 1 (or near enough; there is always some nonzero probability of still being in error about that, but ideally it will be so small a probability we can ignore it). But that doesn’t answer how the blood got there. What we want to know is: What is the probability that the accused is bloody given that they murdered the victim? And then, what is the probability that the accused would be bloody (= that they will test positive for meningitis / that the accounts of Jesus we have would be written when and as we have them) whether or not they murdered the victim (= whether or not they have meningitis / whether or not Jesus existed)?

That is not going to be 1. The blood could be their own; it doesn’t follow that the blood is from the victim. Or the blood could be there because they tried to rescue the victim, not because they murdered them. It doesn’t even follow that every time someone murders someone, they get or keep the victim’s blood on them. Like a positive meningitis test, many people test positive, whether or not they have meningitis. Moreover, many test negative, whether or not they have it. Similarly, many a biography is written of men, whether or not those men existed. So P(e) is frequently not 1. And in fact whenever it is 1, that means there is no evidence for the hypothesis at all.


I disagree with Richard Carrier's following assessment about biographies often getting written about men who never existed.

If we mean biographies of men taken by the normal first readership as historical, this is not true, and biographies of Bilbo or Frodo Baggins or of Peter, Susan, Edmund and Lucy Pevensey have by normal readers not been taken as historical (nor by me, if anyone imagining I am not a normal reader, because I keep returning to these examples, both as inspiring stories and because they fit this point).

What Carrier means is that biographies of Hercules, Romulus, Theseus, Aeneas, Perseus and Andromeda and quite a few more, as well as of Moses and Aaron, Joshua, King David, as well as of King Arthur, some seem ready to add Charlemagne, as well as of Adils and Rolf Kraki, Rolf's father Roar or Hrothgar and Beowulf as well as his uncle Hygelac / Hugleik / Chlochilaicus and a few more have been written without these men existing.

I think he is wrong, these men have existed, even if some details about some of them are wrong.

As a Christian I am not obliged to believe Perseus and Andromeda never lived. I am obliged to believe they did not get first raptured and then trasnformed to constellations instead of dying, and that is it. I am not obliged to believe Hercules never existed, I am obliged to believe he didn't suckle Hera in such a way as to produce the Milky Way. And while disbelief in them is not directly against any dogma, I will not do Richard Carrier the favour of diseblieving them so he can say I am inconsistent in believing Jesus and Moses.

That is on the topic of Richard Carrier's own essay, now back to the topic of this blog.

Some seem to think that the probability of:

  • bodies starting to orbit each other;
  • chemicals starting to combine;
  • living brains including neuron exchanges


producing

  • stable orbits lasting for billions of years;
  • a series of cells produding cells and evolving;
  • consciousness, thought, evolving into reason and language


is very close to 1, given that we observe

  • stable orbits of Earth around Sun and other planets around Sun (except we don't really, since we don't observe Earth orbitting, we have also not observed the billions of years);
  • life in a myriad of forms;
  • the fact that we are conscious.


I think they are wrong, as Richard Carrier just told us:

The probability that the evidence exists given that we are observing it, and the probability that the evidence would exist given that a particular event happened in the past, are not the same probability.


Or, as I concluded from this:

The observation of a piece of evidence is not a substitute for good logic about what it is evidence about.

Those who deduce

  • astronomy is there because bodies starting to orbit each other;
  • biology is there because chemicals starting to combine;
  • mind is there because living brains including neuron exchanges


are making the totally wrong assessment about the real likelihoods of what bodies starting to orbit each other, chemicals starting to combine or brains including neuron exchanges would produce on their own, and are being illogical about what can be certainly deduced from the fact that we have astronomy, biology and mind capable of observing both.

Most likely, bodies starting to orbit each other would not achieve stability, especially not if many are involved, disturbing each others' orbits, see however the discussions about this with a physicist under my post on topic, where however orbits are presumed as already in stable directions and distances:

New blog on the kid* : Newtonianly speaking, Can Earth Still Orbit Sun After 4.5 Billion Years?
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2017/01/newtonianly-speaking-can-earth-still.html


And most likely chemicals starting to combine would disintegrate, and most likely, or even certainly, if neurons in brain cells were only a matter of physics complicated a bit by chemistry, electricity and biology, mind would not be a resulting operation or quality.

And as they are wrong about their explanations being logically deduced, they are (or could at least) also be wrong about God NOT being deduced from these observations. Carrier, thanks for a neat logics lesson!

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Sabbath after
II Lord's Day in Lent
18.III.2017

* It is my present main blog. Geocentrism is so unknown, they would hardly seek out a blog for Geocentrism, and in France, YEC is so unknown, French speakers hardly seek out a blog about YEC. Hence, Geocentrism in any language or Young Earth Creationism in French would rather go to my main blog than here, some exceptions.

lundi 13 mars 2017

Syncellus A bis, the table


The Fibonacci shape has been remade from scratch, somewhat more billowing than previous ones.

I 3258 BC - Flood
35000 BC, 35874 BP
(BC + 1950)/1.03=BP
 
31742 extra years, 2.15 pmc
 
I-II 3196 BC
 
21.857660324-2.15=19.707660324
19.707660324*0.618=12.179334080232
12.179334080232+2.15=14.329334080232
 
16050 extra years, 19246 BC, 20579 BP
 
II 3134 BC
 
34.039418-2.15=31.889418
31.889418*0.618=19.707660324
19.707660324+2.15=21.857660324
 
12550 extra years, 15684 BC, 17120 BP
 
II-III 3072 BC
 
34.039418-21.857660324=12.181757676
12.181757676*0.618=7.528326243768
7.528326243768+21.857660324=29.385986567768
 
10100 extra years, 13172 BC, 14682 BP
 
III 3011 BC
 
53.751-2.15=51.601
51.601*0.618=31.889418
31.889418+2.15=34.039418
 
8900 extra years, 11911 BC, 13457 BP
 
III-IV 2950 BC
 
46.221175676-34.039418=12.181757676
12.181757676*0.618=7.528326243768
7.528326243768+34.039418=41.567744243768
 
7250 extra years, 10200 BC, 11796 BP
 
IV 2888 BC
 
53.751-34.039418=19.711582
19.711582*0.618=12.181757676
12.181757676+34.039418=46.221175676
 
6400 extra years, 9288 BC, 10911 BP
 
IV-V 2826 BC
 
53.751-46.221175676=7.529824324
7.529824324*0.618=4.653431432232
4.653431432232+46.221175676=50.874607108232
 
5600 extra years, 8426 BC, 10074 BP
 
V 2764 BC - Tower of Babel Starts
9559 BP, 7609 BC
9846 BP, 7896 BC
 
5132 extra years, 53.751 pmc
 
VI 2724 BC - Confusion of Tongues
8430 BP, 6480 BC
8683 BP, 6733 BC
 
4009 extra years, 61.572 pmc
 
VI-VII 2647 BC
 
70.726336356-61.572=9.154336356
9.154336356*0.618=5.657379868008
5.657379868008+61.572=67.229379868008
 
3300 extra years, 5947 BC, 7667 BP
 
VII 2570 BC
 
76.384842-61.572=14.812842
14.812842*0.618=9.154336356
9.154336356+61.572=70.726336356
 
2850 extra years, 5420 BC, 7155 BP
 
VII-VIII 2493 BC
 
76.384842-70.726336356=5.658505644
5.658505644*0.618=3.496956487992
3.496956487992+70.726336356=74.223292843992
 
2450 extra years, 4943 BC, 6692 BP
 
VIII 2416 BC
 
85.541-61.572=23.969
23.969*0.618=14.812842
14.812842+61.572=76.384842
 
2250 extra years, 4666 BC, 6423 BP
 
VIII-IX 2339 BC
 
82.043347644-76.384842=5.658505644
5.658505644*0.618=3.496956487992
3.496956487992+76.384842=79.881798487992
 
1850 extra years, 4189 BC, 5960 BP
 
IX 2262 BC
 
85.541-76.384842=9.156158
9.156158*0.618=5.658505644
5.658505644+76.384842=82.043347644
 
1650 extra years, 3912 BC, 5691 BP
 
IX-X 2186 BC
 
85.541-82.043347644=3.497652356
3.497652356*0.618=2.161549156008
2.161549156008+82.043347644=84.204896800008
 
1400 extra years, 3586 BC
 
X 2109 BC - Abraham in En Gedi
3400 BC, 5375 BP
 
1291 extra years, 85.541 pmc


Cleaning up a bit:

I 3258 BC - Flood
35000 BC, 35874 BP, 31742 extra years, 2.15 pmc
I-II 3196 BC
14.329 pmc, 16050 extra years, 19246 BC, 20579 BP
II 3134 BC
21.858 pmc, 12550 extra years, 15684 BC, 17120 BP
II-III 3072 BC
29.386 pmc, 10100 extra years, 13172 BC, 14682 BP
III 3011 BC
34.039 pmc, 8900 extra years, 11911 BC, 13457 BP
III-IV 2950 BC
41.568 pmc, 7250 extra years, 10200 BC, 11796 BP
IV 2888 BC
46.221 pmc, 6400 extra years, 9288 BC, 10911 BP
IV-V 2826 BC
50.875 pmc, 5600 extra years, 8426 BC, 10074 BP
V 2764 BC - Tower of Babel Starts
9559 BP, 7896 BC, 5132 extra years, 53.751 pmc
VI 2724 BC - Confusion of Tongues
8430 BP, 6733 BC, 4009 extra years, 61.572 pmc
VI-VII 2647 BC
67.229 pmc, 3300 extra years, 5947 BC, 7667 BP
VII 2570 BC
70.726 pmc, 2850 extra years, 5420 BC, 7155 BP
VII-VIII 2493 BC
74.223 pmc, 2450 extra years, 4943 BC, 6692 BP
VIII 2416 BC
76.385 pmc, 2250 extra years, 4666 BC, 6423 BP
VIII-IX 2339 BC
79.882 pmc, 1850 extra years, 4189 BC, 5960 BP
IX 2262 BC
82.043 pmc, 1650 extra years, 3912 BC, 5691 BP
IX-X 2186 BC
84.205 pmc, 1400 extra years, 3586 BC
X 2109 BC - Abraham in En Gedi
3400 BC, 5375 BP, 1291 extra years, 85.541 pmc


Credits as usual to http://web2.0calc.com/
and to https://www.math.upenn.edu/~deturck/m170/c14/carbdate.html
which is shortened http://ppt.li/3m8

And, once again, to the University Library of Heidelberg!

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Monday after
II Lord's Day in Lent
13.III.2017