dimanche 17 juin 2018

CMI has a Long Ice Age in a Shortish Ussher Chronology

Why no mention of the Ice Age in the Bible?
Published: 16 June 2018 (GMT+10)

From articles on our website you will see that the Post-Flood Ice Age began immediately after the Flood when the ocean temperatures (and possible atmospheric volcanic dust) favoured the build-up of ice on the continents. This build-up continued, it is estimated, for 500 years until it reached peak ice, and then began to melt back over the following 200 years.

So, Ice age definitely ends, i e Younger Dryas, at 700 after Flood.

Usher makes Noe enter the ark on the 18th Dec. 1656.

(From Haydock comment Genesis 7:11)

4004 BC Creatio Mundi
1656 Flood Anno Mundi
2348 BC Flood
1648 BC

Ice Age ending and therefore Younger Dryas at after Abraham ...

This is the third grand epoch of the world, about 2083, when God chooses one family to maintain the one faith, which he had all along supported.

Haydock on Genesis 12:1

2083 Voc Abrahae Anno Mundi
1921 Voc Abrahae BC

I think this is very problematic, since carbon dates for Younger Dryas (to which carbon dating is applied) is 10600 BC to 9600 BC - the "thousand years" just before Göbekli Tepe and its "thousand years".

But Abraham, while alive 2015 BC to 1840 BC would have been c. 80 (Genesis 13 and 14, c. 1935 BC) at a time from which dated objects get carbon dates of c. 3000 BC, maybe a bit more even.

The atmosphere in the day of Abraham's 80th birthday or so would not both have had 85 - 86 pmc to explain the extra one thousand years and some century that Proto-Dynastic Egypt gets dated too old and at the same time be at less than 33 - 34 pmc to explain Younger Dryas as carbon dated (by that carbon content) 8952 years older than the 1648 year when it was really over, on the CMI view.

I am taking the view Abraham lived in an atmosphere with about 14 - 15 percent less carbon 14 than ours in Genesis 13 - 14.

If they see it through, in late patriarchal or Israel in Egypt times, the carbon content was 33.8 pmc, and from 1648 it rose from that to 100 pmc in c. 590 BC (destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar).

How fast would carbon have had to be produced for that to happen?

The 33.8 pmc would in 1000 years decay by 88.606 %. The normal restoration in that time is therefore 11.394 pmc points. Or, let's get to two times 500 years - 500 years leave 94.131 %, so restore 5.869 pmc points, twice that being 11.738 pmc points. Or four times 250 years, each time leaving 97.021 % and normal restoration being 2.979 pmc points, of which the quadruple is 11.916 pmc points. If we break it down to 16 times 62.5 years, 99.247 % means 0.753 pmc points restoration, of which 16 times is 12.048 pmc points - not much more than if you take all 1000 years as a whole.

Now, 100 - 33.8 = 66.2 pmc points. Divide that by 16, 4.1375 pmc points. In 62.5 years, you go from 33.8 pmc points to 37.9375.

33.8 pmc * 99.247 % = 33.545486 pmc.

37.9375 pmc - 33.545486 pmc = 4.392014 pmc points carbon 14 production. 4.392014 / 0.753 = 5.833 times faster than normal (I rounded). This is actually a lower ratio than if I tried to deal with all of the rise in one go.

33.8 pmc * 88.606 % = 29.948828 pmc points. 100 - 29.948828 = 70.051172 pmc points. 70.051172 / 11.394 = 6.148 times faster - except when you break it down, as above, it is only 5.833 times faster.

So, yes, a rise of 33.8 pmc to 100 pmc from 1648 to 648 BC is physically feasible. The problem comes with archaeology.

1648 BC 33.8 pmc + 8950 years
  1648 + 8950 "10598 BC"
1585 BC 37.9375 pmc + 8000 years
  1585 + 8000 "9585 BC"
1523 BC 42.075 pmc + 7150 years
  1523 + 7150 "8673 BC"
1460 BC 46.2125 pmc + 6400 years
  1460 + 6400 "7860 BC"
1398 BC 50.35 pmc + 5650 years
  1398 + 5650 "7048 BC"
1335 BC 54.4875 pmc + 5000 years
  1335 + 5000 "6335 BC"
1273 BC 58.625 pmc + 4400 years
  1273 + 4400 "5673 BC"
1210 BC 62.7625 pmc + 3850 years
  1210 + 3850 "5060 BC"
1148 BC 66.9 pmc + 3300 years
  1148 + 3300 "4448 BC"
1085 BC 71.0375 pmc + 2850 years
  1085 + 2850 "3935 BC"
1023 BC 75.175 pmc + 2350 years
  1023 + 2350 "3373 BC"
Solomon's Temple?
960 BC 79.3125 pmc + 1900 years
  960 + 1900 "2860 BC"
898 BC 83.45 pmc + 1500 years
  898 + 1500 "2398 BC"
835 BC 87.5875 pmc + 1100 years
  835 + 1100 "1935 BC"
773 BC 91.725 pmc + 710 years
  773 + 710 "1483 BC"
710 BC 95.8625 pmc + 350 years
  710 + 350 "1060 BC"
648 BC 100 pmc +/- 0 years
  648 +/- 0 648 BC !

Exodus carbon dated between abandoning of Göbekli Tepe and beginning of Çatal Höyük? King Solomon's Temple contemprary with carbon dated independent Sumeria, before there was a Babylon?

Er, no.

This is why putting the end of the ice age as late as CMI do is not really a good idea, especially if they also use Ussher's chronology.

No wonder that with this in mind, many Creationists are abandoning the idea of getting a reliable carbon table - as in carbon dates related to real and Biblical dates.

Obviously, this problem does not exist if you take my approach, use a longer time between Flood and Abraham (as per St Jerome's chronology where post-Flood patriarchs are like Samaritan version, or as per Syncellus' chronology, where you go full normal LXX), and end ice age, put Younger Dryas, before Babel, i e chronologically identify Göbekli Tepe and Babel.

Hans Georg Lundahl
IV Lord's Day after Pentecost

vendredi 15 juin 2018

You Find a Fossil Whale Here, a Fossil Pterosaur There ...

If boulders of stone have been transported over 500 km, why should fossils tell us exactly where the animal lived?

Well, a stone that has been transported over 500 km might be huge, but it is probably lots smaller than it started out as.

A skeleton which has been transported over 500 km during the Flood ... I don't think there are many recognisable parts of it.

So, if a place in Tyrol has a Pterosaur, Linz has a whale, a place called Nussdorf just outside Vienna has both a whale and a seal, well, the fossils have been recognised. This means chances are they were buried before they had time to get transported far away.

And that means, a place in Tyrol was land or an island, Vienna was sea shore, Linz was sea in pre-Flood times./HGL

How Much was Shinar Devastated by the Flood?

Lita Cosner and Robert Carter have just said, finding the four floods of paradise after the Flood is impossible, due to the devastation of all land by floodwaters also from below.

Here is where they say it:

Option 1: Pre-Flood and post-Flood designations are identical

The first option is that the Havilah, Cush, Assyria, Tigris, and Euphrates in Genesis 2 are the same as their post-Flood designations.

As we noted, this option fails to appreciate the devastation the Flood would have had on the continents, literally reshaping the surface of the planet as miles of sediment were eroded and laid down. Furthermore, as we have shown, it is impossible to match the Bible’s geographical description with the names in Genesis 2. So while biblical creationists such as Luther, Calvin, and many others held this view historically, it is no longer a viable biblical creationist option in light of current geological knowledge.

Now, what is post-Flood Shinar in modern geographic terms? It is Iraq, Syria and Turkey, or rather parts of all these.*

Now, how many geological layers are there in these countries? I checked the palaeocritti** site, "by location", and saw Iraq and Syria missing, and as for Turkey I only saw one "Miocene" whale - from Kurtchuk-Tchekmedje which seems to be part of the Northern shore of Bosphorus - so, wrong part of Turkey.

[11] The name of the one is Phison: that is it which compasseth all the land of Hevilath, where gold groweth. [12] And the gold of that land is very good: there is found bdellium, and the onyx stone. [13] And the name of the second river is Gehon: the same is it that compasseth all the land of Ethiopia. [14] And the name of the third river is Tigris: the same passeth along by the Assyrians. And the fourth river is Euphrates.

Kush and its translation Ethiopia only make sense in a post-Flood context. In other words, Phison has to involve Black Africa, and if not literally all of it (though all of what in Moses' time would have been Cush or Ethiopia) at least fairly much of it. The Nile is clearly at least part of it.

And where Douay Rheims has "the same", LXX has οὗτος. It means "this".

11 ὄνομα τῷ ἑνὶ Φισῶν· οὗτος ὁ κυκλῶν πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν Εὐιλάτ, ἐκεῖ οὗ ἐστι τὸ χρυσίον· 12 τὸ δὲ χρυσίον τῆς γῆς ἐκείνης καλόν· καὶ ἐκεῖ ἐστιν ὁ ἄνθραξ καὶ ὁ λίθος ὁ πράσινος. 13 καὶ ὄνομα τῷ ποταμῷ τῷ δευτέρῳ Γεῶν· οὗτος ὁ κυκλῶν πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν Αἰθιοπίας. 14 καὶ ὁ ποταμὸς ὁ τρίτος Τίγρις· οὗτος ὁ προπορευόμενος κατέναντι ᾿Ασσυρίων. ὁ δὲ ποταμὸς ὁ τέταρτος Εὐφράτης.

Assur or Assyria also clearly is only meaningful after Table of Nations.

Moses was clearly giving rivers and lands contemporary names and predicating identity with pre-Flood topography - if not total, at least partial.

One can debate how probable it is that Cush is instead of "Ethiopia" sth like Kish, near Lagash (also named after patriarch Kush, probably). But one cannot go to a totally "generic" solution, unless I misunderstand the term.

If people’s names could be reused on such a scale, then surely it is not a stretch to imagine that generic names could also be reapplied to places. So post-Flood Havilah (the place) was named after post-Flood Havilah (a person), who happens to share the name with pre-Flood Havilah (the place, but possibly also an unnamed pre-Flood person).

Well, no. Greek has "houtos" = "this" and speaks of it in the present tense. While Hebrew grammar permits, the universality of translations does not permit the meaning shade "that is it which was compassing" or "that which passed along".

Note, as a once (or when redacting Genesis still?) "apprentice Pharao", it stands to reason that Moses would have known where to get good gold or bdellium. By trade (or in certain Egyptian pragmatic solutions : conquest and taxation, if need be, also known as pillage, though Moses probably didn't do that even before hitting the overseer to death).

Havilah could well be in Arabian Peninsula, and as to bdellium, while at present Arabia seems poor in Commiphora wightii, Commiphora africana you do find the Hyphaene thebaica (Doum palm) there : it is referred to by Arabs as Jewish bdellium and it was sacred in Ancient Egypt, meaning there is a chance this is what was meant. Moses would have known and cared about it. Unless one wants to place Cush (Ethiopia) further inland than is now usual, and consider our "Ethiopia" (Abyssinia and Erythrea) as Havilah, in which case Phison could be the Blue Nile. Gihon being then the White Nile.

The problem with any identification with any four modern rivers, like Euphrates and Tigris as obvious ones for third and fourth and Blue and White Niles at least somewhat probable ones for first and second, is obviously, in the post-Flood world they do not show as coming from a single river.

[10] And a river went out of the place of pleasure to water paradise, which from thence is divided into four heads.

Past tense, as in Latin :

Et fluvius egrediebatur de loco voluptatis ad irrigandum paradisum, qui inde dividitur in quatuor capita.

However, the LXX:

10 ποταμὸς δὲ ἐκπορεύεται ἐξ ᾿Εδὲμ ποτίζειν τὸν παράδεισον· ἐκεῖθεν ἀφορίζεται εἰς τέσσαρας ἀρχάς.

Here we have present, though the sense would post-Flood be past tense ... so, I could be overdoing the reasoning from present tense in following verses.

My solution has been, so far, that the common source was post-Flood blocked from flowing into the four rivers and they even started to flow towards each other, probably because tectonic movements reverses the slant of the land. While much land would have been devastated, and slopes could have been reversed, a general dimple like a great riverbed could arguably survive even getting several layers of sediment on it. So, suppose a river went South and then divided into Blue and White Niles, and the White Nile continued into Congo River and the Blue Nile into Ganges ... suppose a river went North and then divided into Tigris and Euphrates, and Tigris continued into the Syr Daria and Amu Daria and perhaps to the rivers of China, and Euphrates continued into Danube and Danube into Rhine and Rhone and Garonne, and Euphrates (or even Tigris) continued into Volga and Don ...

Next question : would Noah have known the geography well enough to know where the rivers flowed pre-Flood? And would he have recognised them post-Flood?

I'd have to answer both in the affirmative. If Noah knew when the highest mountains were covered with 15 cubits of water, it could theoretically have been a pure revelation, but it is more probable he knew the waterline of the Ark (at least when the weather calmed, by experimenting with how long ropes are needed to touch the water, if not by calculation beforehand) and he would also have known he had built the Ark on one of the highest mountains, either the sole highest one or one of two or more of equal height. In that case, Noah would have known when the Ark started moving that "now the highest mountains are covered by water to the waterline of the Ark" and either before or after checked the waterline as being 15 cubits.

But knowing the highest mountains of the pre-Flood world means having a very good sense of pre-Flood geography. This means, he would have known where the four rivers went. And hence he would also have at least a good headway at checking in the post-Flood world where similar great river beds went - and finding some had reversed the direction of the water.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris, Châtelet
St Vitus

PS, to clarify point in title : if Shinar had been very much devastated by the Flood, I'd have expected lots of fossils. In fact, the fossils there are seem to be marine ones. This would mean at least part of Shinar was sea right before the Flood - so any rivers would have been covered in that part, due to an earlier partial flood, told by Josephus./HGL / PPS, some clarifications could perhaps be had by going to Geology of Iraq./HGL

* Main divisions of Shinar : Babylonia and Assyria. Babylonia is in Mid-Iraq, Assyria is straddling NW Iraq, N Syria and E Turkey.

** A Google site which used to have a customised URL and now has the longer and more cumbruous URL:


Back when I thought that not only customised URL but also all content was going down in 2016, I made a back up blog for it, with the agreement of one contributor. http://palaeocritti.blogspot.com/

mercredi 13 juin 2018

What did the Allocution Say?

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : On Catholics Believing Evolution · Creation vs. Evolution : Does Humani Generis say we must subject to a future judgement of the Church as if there was none already pertaining to the matter? · What did the Allocution Say?

I think footnote 11 in Humani Generis refers to the last sentence in this passage:

That day in which God formed man and crowned his head with His own image and likeness, making of him the ruler of all living things in the sea, in the sky and on earth,8 the Omniscient Lord God became his teacher. He taught him agriculture, to cultivate and look after the delightful garden in which he had been placed;9 He drew to man all the animals from the field and all the birds of the air to see what he would call them and so man gave names to all the cattle, all the birds, all the wild beasts;10 but, despite being in the midst of so many living things, man felt sad and lonely and attempted in vain to find a face which looked like him and which would contain a ray of that Divine Image which shines out of the eyes of every son of Adam. Only from man could there come another man who would then call him father and ancestor; and the helpmate given by God to the first man came from man himself and is flesh from his flesh, made into a woman and called such because she came from man.11 At the summit of the ladder of all that lives, man, endowed with a spiritual soul, was made by God to be a prince and sovereign over the animal kingdom. The multiple research, be it palaeontology or of biology and morphology, on the problems concerning the origins of man have not, as yet, ascertained anything with great clarity and certainty. We must leave it to the future to answer the question, if indeed science will one day be able, enlightened and guided by revelation, to give certain and definitive results concerning a topic of such importance.

Footnotes 8 - 11 Genesis 1:26, 2:15, 2:19-20 and 2:23.

So, on the one hand Pius XII extensively cited Genesis as factual history and, on the other hand, awaited future results of science, with a proviso:

if indeed science will one day be able, enlightened and guided by revelation, to give certain and definitive results concerning a topic of such importance.

In other words, he seems to have considered the then present results of palaeoanthropology as inadequate, he even says so:

The multiple research, be it palaeontology or of biology and morphology, on the problems concerning the origins of man have not, as yet, ascertained anything with great clarity and certainty.

Sounds a bit like a Creationist without the backing of Creation Science and trying to make sense of Conventional Science as it was then - and failing.

It does NOT sound like "Moses accepted the best science of his day, St Thomas Aquinas accepted the best science of his day, therefore I accept the best science of my day on this question as on any other". I have heard that sentiment a bit ad nauseam from certain modernist Catholics.

But the footnote 11 in Humani Generis was probably not by himself, and there is a clear difference between "you must submit to the judgement of the Church" (not saying it has to be a future judgement) and "we may see in the future if science can add sth of importance" (not saying a word of any judgement of the Church or submitting to it in this immediate context).

So, as far as the documented words by Pius XII are concerned (prior to 22 November 1951, barring what I could have missed, just counting my research so far):

  • he was a creationist believing Eve came from Adam's side, and he also believed Adam was taught agriculture;
  • he could by submitting to the judgement of the Church have meant a past judgement, or a simple reactualisation of that past judgement (from Trent, for example);
  • he was not totally impressed by secular science of his time;
  • specifically, he considered it to be way too early to consider secular science had proven anything about the origins of man.
  • AND he considered that if science ever does so, it needs to be "enlightened and guided by revelation" - sounds like Creation Science, CMI would hardly disagree with the sentiment.

Source for the quotation is an ebook in pdf containing Papal allocutions to the academy of sciences from Benedict XV to "John Paul II" - a collection made in Vatican City in 2003.

[PDF]Papal Addresses - Pontifical Academy of Sciences

I must admit, I find the consideration for astronomers a bit less encouraging as to geocentrism, but he did not directly mention heliocentrism as far as I can see, though he did mention stellar distances and distant galaxies which in fact are oblique corrolaries of heliocentrism (or perhaps not so oblique ones) and which of course pose the Distant Starlight Problem.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Anthony of Padua

mardi 12 juin 2018

Does Humani Generis say we must subject to a future judgement of the Church as if there was none already pertaining to the matter?

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : On Catholics Believing Evolution · Creation vs. Evolution : Does Humani Generis say we must subject to a future judgement of the Church as if there was none already pertaining to the matter? · What did the Allocution Say?

36. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11] Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.

I did not see "future" as epithet of "judgement".*

There is a perfectly pertinent past judgement on the matter : the Trent definition that Biblical exegesis must follow consensus of Church Fathers./HGL

* While the screenshot from Humani Generis is photoshopped, it is limited to taking lines further apart and adding black lines as underlining the relevant words./HGL (Plus added handwritten text at bottom/HGL) - Oh, click to enlarge!/HGL

PS, footnote 11 says Cfr. Allocut Pont. to the members of the Academy of Science, November 30, 1941: A.A.S., vol. XXXIII, p. 506. Perhaps that allocution (also by Pius XII) did mention sth about future judgement. I have not checked. Nevertheless, the text category encyclical is higher than allocution, and the words in the encyclical just state "judgement" not specifically a future one. Certainly there is a past one, an even higher since infallible text category, a definition by Trent.

Now, for those not familiar with the words "encyclical" means a letter to (en in Greek) the circle (cyclos in Greek) of the world, by the Pope (to all bishops, but thence of course to all of their flocks. Allocution means speech to people who are where the Pope physically is, not an after dinner speech wishing Merry Christmas to his close friends, but an official speech - but it is still less than an encyclical.

And Bible interpreted by Church Fathers means Genesis 1 to 11 is factual history./HGL

jeudi 7 juin 2018

Can Six Days or Eve from Side of Adam be a Metaphor?

New blog on the kid : Is "Vatican II" in Continuity with Trent and Vatican "I"? · Creation vs. Evolution : Agreeing with the Biblical World View · Dwight Longenecker Maligns Fundamentalists? · Pete Vere Understimates Fundamentalism of Fathers · Can Six Days or Eve from Side of Adam be a Metaphor?

Note, some people have said, and I have already rejected, "we cannot take the six days literally, since the Church Fathers believed in the allegoric sense" which they did.

The answer is, the allegoric sense is not another way of making sense of same topic from the text, but using the literal sense of the text on this topic as something to apply also allegorically or typologically or prophetically to another topic, very often a New Testament topic : Eve from the side of Adam when he slept being an allegory for Church from the opened side of Christ on Calvary, for instance.

But what if instead it is literal sense, but a metaphoric sense in the meaning? Well, a first consequence of this approach to the six days or Eve from side of Adam in Eden is, you cannot use Church Fathers' supporting allegory to support this approach, since that is as you admit another topic.

Here are the words of St Thomas Aquinas again:

I Pars, Q 1 A 10:
Objection 3.
Further, besides these senses, there is the parabolical, which is not one of these four. ...
Reply to Objection 3.
The parabolical sense is contained in the literal, for by words things are signified properly and figuratively. Nor is the figure itself, but that which is figured, the literal sense. When Scripture speaks of God's arm, the literal sense is not that God has such a member, but only what is signified by this member, namely operative power. Hence it is plain that nothing false can ever underlie the literal sense of Holy Writ.

Now, let us, without dragging in the red herring of Church Fathers supporting sensus allegoricus, examine the question whether specifically the six days can be a metaphor for something else ... and we should list what we take into consideration.

A - the text "God created the world in six days"

It is very easy to read that very short text in isolation as a metaphor, whether for shorter (God created the world in a nano-second which was viewed as six consecutive nano-seconds by the angels) or for longer (God created the world in six major eras lasting, each, perhaps millions of years).

It is however a somewhat recurrent fallacy or dishonest debating technique to argue from a summary of the relevant propositions rather than from them in themselves. So ...

B - the full text of Genesis 1 and 2

It is very much less easy to read in any metaphor about time into "first day", "morning and evening". St Augustine considered a possibility for days being consecutive that God created all simultaneously, but the angels viewed the process in a vision of six consecutive parts, and they viewed each part in an "evening knowledge" (knowing what was made materially by their perfect knowledge of matter) and "morning knowledge" (reviewing it with gratitude in the glory of God).

It is however somewhat fuzzy how he considered that this reduction of day six to one aspect of one nanosecond compares to the description of many hours in day six from Adam's viewpoint.

I think the difficulties are somewhat even greater if we try the other opposite type of metaphor, as metaphor for much longer periods of time.

C - Genesis 1 and 2 in Context of Bible and Taking Archaeology into Account

Now we are not dealing with the six days only, but with chronogenealogies of Genesis 5, 11, and birth chapters for patriarchs after Abraham. For St Augustine's position, that is not an additional problem ... but :

Since Abraham interacted with a Pharao of Egypt, it is necessary that he lived well after Göbekli Tepe (or at least survived well after Göbekli Tepe, depending on how fast the carbon millennia can be reduced if we suppose a real rise in carbon 14 levels relative to carbon 12). Abraham lived in the time of perhaps pre-dynastic and certainly early dynastic Egypt.

However, on conventional dating Göbekli Tepe is several millennia before the beginning of dynastic Egypt. But Abraham was not several millennia after the Flood of Noah ... so, either Flood was after Göbekli Tepe, perhaps even after Abraham, or Göbekli Tepe falls within the roughly one millennium (at about longest) between Flood and Abraham.

Flood can neither come after Göbekli Tepe, let alone Abraham, since Abraham descends from the three sons and three daughters in law of Noah, and since we all do, and since not only since Abraham, but on a somewhat rougher level even since Göbekli Tepe, human populations have been fairly stably inhabiting their regions, as far as archaeology tells us, nor can we reduce the method of carbon 14 to squeeze Göbekli Tepe in without also reducing early C14 to relative only values and therefore highly putting into doubt the even less certain radiometric dating methods.

But if we scrap much (if not all) of radiometric dating, we therefore eliminate the need to enlarge six days to longer periods too. If not even Flood can be put after Göbekli Tepe, still less parts of day 6.

That also means, we cannot identify what we call Bronze Age with the pre-Flood bronze use of Tubal-Cain.

D - Patristics added

Obviously Fathers are taking literal sense either in literal word meanings of "six days" or as metaphor for sth shorter, never for something longer (when Origen said sth about Earth being less than 10 000 years old, he was probably on LXX authority considering the Earth as more than 5000 years back when Christ was born, but he was not sure how much, only it was lots shorter than 10 000 years).

Both Origen and St Augustine are noted for having reduced six days to one moment, and both are also actively rejecting Pagans who propose longer than Biblical timelines.

And, obviously, no Church Father actually proposed to take the six days as metaphor for something longer than those hours. Those 144 hours.

E - And how was Our Lord taking it?

On Pharisees becoming murderers of prophets, He puts Abel at beginning of creation or foundation of the world:

"That the blood of all the prophets which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation,"
[Luke 11:50]

"That upon you may come all the just blood that hath been shed upon the earth, from the blood of Abel the just, even unto the blood of Zacharias the son of Barachias, whom you killed between the temple and the altar."
[Matthew 23:35]

On marriage meaning one man and one woman, He refers also to beginning of creation:

"But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female."
[Mark 10:6]

One more. Technically, if a tribulation is considered as more horrendous if suffered by rational than by irrational creatures, however sentient, some people (like Father Spitzer, the blind priest) could try to get around the following one:

"For in those days shall be such tribulations, as were not from the beginning of the creation which God created until now, neither shall be."
[Mark 13:19]

To a man like Spitzer, any tribulation before anatomic men were endowed with real rational and immortal souls would of course be inferior - but for one thing, this attitude is not convincing as exegesis of Mark 13, not compared to God creating man and allowing man to suffer all tribulations there are since creation (since they all result from Adam's sin and God's curse), and for another, Spitzer would have to account for Göbekli Tepe - in timeline it would be "pre-Adamite", since he accepts conventual dating, presumably, unless he also wants to attack chronogenealogies as vastly incomplete, which is a further departure from the text than the one we discuss here.

Some would like to get around this by saying "the creation" in this context means only human creation.

This cannot be claimed by Catholics who honour St Francis for preaching to birds, St Anthony for preaching to fish, and the three young boys exhort all non-human creation to glorify God, we use that in the liturgy. Each Matins or Lauds (forget which) involves their canticle. Also, animals, plants and inanimate objects are blessed ... therefore we are in some sense clearly preaching also to non-human creation and "in all creation" in Colossians cannot be made an excuse to introduce a usage of "creation" as limited to men only.

"If so ye continue in the faith, grounded and settled, and immoveable from the hope of the gospel which you have heard, which is preached in all the creation that is under heaven, whereof I Paul am made a minister."
[Colossians 1:23]

So, in a Latin Vulgate, or in a Douay Rheims version, this passage has the Gospel preached "in" and not necessarily "to" all creation : salt cannot understand the Gospel, as far as we can tell, but the Gospel is even so preached in salt, whenever a priest is blessing salt. So "in all creation" is not metonymic for "among all men" which disposes of many bad or half brained arguments against Our Lord's clear meaning.

So, in sum, no, we really and truly cannot take six days as metaphors for millions of years.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St. Paul of Constantinople

mercredi 30 mai 2018

Ultra Brief Summary on Carbon 14 Method

Intro : General Intro to my Carbon Tables (with other parts in links in comments) · Conclusion : Preliminary Conclusion, with Corrections · How Accurate are Chronogenealogies Anyway? Conclusion continued. · Table for St Jerome as per Preliminary Conclusion · Refining table Flood to Abraham - and a doubt · Ultra Brief Summary on Carbon 14 Method

How Carbon Dating is Usually Presented:
 B C
 50 pmC 5730 years ago
 25 pmC 11 460 years ago
 12.5 pmC 17 190 years ago
 6.25 pmC 22 920 years ago
What This Really Means:
"100 pmC" 50 pmC "5730 years ago"
"100 pmC" 25 pmC "11 460 years ago"
"100 pmC" 12.5 pmC "17 190 years ago"
"100 pmC" 6.25 pmC "22 920 years ago"
What One Can Suppose Instead:
81.261 pmC? 50 pmC 4000 years ago?
42.89 pmC? 25 pmC 4450 years ago?
22.169 pmC? 12.5 pmC 4750 years ago?
11.641 pmC? 6.25 pmC 5150 years ago?
A Original C14 content in atmosphere
B Present C14 content in sample
C Decay Time from Original to Present
pmC percent modern Carbon, the carbon content compared to present atmospheric percentage