Creation vs. Evolution: mai 2018

mercredi 30 mai 2018

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:

A	B	C
"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:

A	B	C
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

mardi 29 mai 2018

Pete Vere Understimates Fundamentalism of Fathers

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?

I came across Dwight Longenecker's post through the blog "where Peter is", where Pete Vere is responding to Dwight:

TRADITIONALISM VS FUNDAMENTALISM: AN ORTHODOX RESPONSE TO FR DWIGHT LONGNECKER
May 27, 2018 Pete Vere
https://wherepeteris.com/traditionalism-vs-fundamentalism-an-orthodox-response-to-fr-dwight-longnecker/

I'll highlight one - or two or three:

The key intellectual error in Orthodox fundamentalism lies in the presupposition that the Church Fathers agreed on all theological and ethical matters.

He is citing from Eastern Orthodox theologian George Demacopoulos: "Traditionalism without Fundamentalism."

Now, it is true the Fathers did not agree on all matters. Notably, Eastern Orthodox rejection of filioque (not just phrase in Creed, but doctrine, as erroneous or even heretical) cannot be backed by patristic consensus. Not just St Augustine (which they generally admit) and Western Fathers depending on him like Pope St Leo and St Hilary of Poitiers, but before them even St Athanasius. Not just Third Council of Toledo "which inserted" (rather inherited with insertion) filioque in Nicene Creed, but First Council of Toledo ending in AD 400, closer to St Martin than to St Augustine, and having some closeness also to Hosius who knew and part time backed St Athanasius.

But it is not true that Biblical inerrancy and "young age" (millennia, not myriennia or millions or billions of years) of created universe are among the disagreed points. Those who say they are are really thinking of "six literal days" - where "one single moment" is the other patristic option. But those who take it, Origen and St Augustine, explicitly reject Pagans considering earth as tens of thousands of years old.

Demacopoulous [sic] cites the example of Biblical inerrancy as a modern idea arising from fundamentalism:

The very notion of Biblical inerrancy is a modern idea. I know of no patristic or medieval author–and I have read quite a few of them–who believe that the Bible was without error, which is what inerrancy means. Nor do I know of any ancient or medieval author who thought that the Scriptures were literally dictated to their authors by the Holy Spirit. Those are modern assertions–not patristic, not Byzantine, not medieval.

So far he is bluffing. He has not cited a single father or medieval author who disbelieved in Biblical inerrancy.

Pour cause : there isn't any.

I'll cite illico one medieval author who did believe it, Bishop Tempier:

[Condemned proposition number 174/5th error on Holy Writ] Quod fabule et falsa sunt in lege christiana, sicut in aliis.

That there are madeup stories and errors (not lies, "falsa" simply means counterfactual) "in the Christian law" (that is, the Bible) "as in other" [laws] (that is, as in Talmudic or Qoranic or Polytheist religious rules).

But Tempier is reputed to have been in conflict with St Thomas Aquinas?

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.

Pete Vere and George Demacopoulos need to reread the last sentence:

Hence it is plain that nothing false can ever underlie the literal sense of Holy Writ.

So, far from disagreeing, St Thomas Aquinas agrees with his ordinary bishop Stephen Tempier (who survived him).

I am less well read in fathers than in Aquinas and Tempier, so, perhaps Vere or Demacopoulos will provide an example of a Father NOT believing Biblical inerrancy, disagreeing with these two and also with Providentissimus Deus by Pope Leo XIII?

Otherwise, the sentence is a rumour from Orthodox of the seventies, influenced by Communists who were obviously promoting an ideology involving Heliocentrism, Old Age and Evolution and which was therefore in variance with the real sentence of the Fathers. Why should I cite one father, if they can every time reply "not every single father is individually infallible"? It is for them to provide one disagreement between Fathers on those ones, before they can claim their new near consensus is patristically acceptable.

Pete Vere highlighted St Athanasius backing death penalty and said this cannot be held as full patristic consensus, basically since:

In traditional Catholic terms, both the sensus fidelium (sense of the Catholic faithful) and the College of Bishops in union with the Roman Pontiff as its head, now oppose capital punishment.

There is such a thing as a fake sensus fidelium : that in Alexandria when George usurped the episcopate of St Athanasius, that in Sweden or England after Reformation. So, is Pete Vere referring to a real or a faked one?

This is despite the near unanimous agreement for its abolition that has arisen in last 40 years among the Church’s popes, patriarchs, bishops, learned theologians, clergy, and–outside of the United States–laity.

Arisen? It is not a traditional and therefore at least hopefully apostolic and holopatristic agreement that arises. It is the kind of agreement where heresy sets in which does. Now, if Pete Vere had wanted patristic evidence against death penalty, how about St Martin not promoting death penalty of Priscillianists? Even refusing to sit down with bishops so promoting it, until the emperor forced him to? All the while saying Priscillianists were heretics.

A modern sensus fidelium, explicitly opposed to a fairly clear previous one is definitely suspect.

This brings me to item two (Demacopoulos):

The rejection of modernity and especially the rejection of those aspects of modern science that appear to contradict core religious beliefs.

Flee even the appearance of evil. If sth appears to contradict a Christian belief, including Biblical inerrancy, as long as this is not shown to be a pseudo-contradiction, flee it. Or fight it, if you are of that temperament and calling.

One item in Christianity is Christendom : Christian nations with Christian laws. It is modernity which brought back abortion from millennias dead paganism and from pagan backwaters. It is modernity which raised legal age of marriage which is one fulfilment of [1 Timothy 4:3]. It is modernity which has swamped schools in theories that do contradict Biblical inerrancy and therefore, despite the dishonesty of Demacopoulos, Fathers and Medievals (less sure of Medieval Byzantines, but as a Westerner I don't have them as my main rule ... and not my rule if after schism and in matters not validated later by Catholic Church). It is modernity which has forced Christian parents to send children to Antichristian teachers, in Russia after Revolution, in Spain under Azaña, in Mexico leading to Cristeros rising. And this contrary to parental rights according to the commandment "honour thy father and thy mother". If Christ and His Church work to make nations part of Christendom, disciples of Christ, modernity working to make nations cease being His disciples is Antichristian.

Obviously, it contradicts Catholic understanding of the soul to say "conscience is a byproduct of biochemical and electrical processes in the brain" (brain conditions conditioning conscience do not prove conscience is a byprodct of them). It contradicts Catholic understanding of afterlife to say "with the modern cosmology, we can no longer see heaven as a place up in the sky". It contradicts Catholic understanding of Original Sin to say Cro Magnon and Neanderthals dated to 50 000 BP and showing no clear trace (as usually thought and taught) of agriculture are pre-Adamites, while it contradicts the Catholic understanding of Biblical history to say they are Adamites, but the dates are correct. These "aspects of modern science" appear to contradict core religious beliefs because they actually do contradict them.

So, if you want to defend modernity and defend those aspects of modern science, as you call them, you have a load of argument to counter ... sth which is apparently such an ungrateful task that some prefer ignoring those arguments and jump to the conclusion this is "only" in appearance.

If modernity is evil and antichristian, a sensus fidelium saying it is not evil and compatible with Christianity is likely to be a false sensus fidelium.

But to show that Biblical inerrancy is indeed patristic, it is not sufficient to ask Demacopoulos or Vere to show one father denying it, they could charge me the same to show one affirming it, and there would be their word against mine, which has less institutional value (or none at all, unlike the canonist and the professor of historic theology). I'll take St Ambrose, picking from Exposition of the Christian Faith, Book I:

The Queen of the South, as we read in the Book of the Kings, came to hear the wisdom of Solomon. 1 Kings 10:1 Likewise King Hiram sent to Solomon that he might prove him. 1 Kings 5:1 So also your sacred Majesty, following these examples of old time, has decreed to hear my confession of faith.

St Ambrose presumes that King Solomon and his exact relations to Hiram and Queen of the South are examplary facts of old times, not fictions of neverneverland. To some this is as outlandish as presuming not only King Arthur lived, but his relation to Guinevere, Lancelot and Mordred are as described in Morte d'Arthur. For my own part, I'd rather suppose Arthur lived in the time between Constantine and Justinian, in which adultery was punished by death penalty and his attitude contributed to changing it, to Justinian's code than deny what Jesus said of King Solomon and Queen of the South.

3. Your sacred Majesty, being about to go forth to war, requires of me a book, expounding the Faith, since your Majesty knows that victories are gained more by faith in the commander, than by valour in the soldiers. For Abraham led into battle three hundred and eighteen men, and brought home the spoils of countless foes; and having, by the power of that which was the sign of our Lord's Cross and Name, overcome the might of five kings and conquering hosts, he both avenged his neighbour and gained victory and the ransom of his brother's son. So also Joshua the Son of Nun, when he could not prevail against the enemy with the might of all his army, Joshua 6:6 overcame by sound of seven sacred trumpets, in the place where he saw and knew the Captain of the heavenly host. For victory, then, your Majesty makes ready, being Christ's loyal servant and defender of the Faith, which you would have me set forth in writing.

To Emperor Gratian, as to St Ambrose, it was evident that Abraham's 318 men, Joshua's taking of Jericho, and presumably the dream of Constantine before Ponte Milvio were not novels, like Lord of the Rings (even if that novel is worthy and similar in thematics).

6. Now this is the declaration of our Faith, that we say that God is One, neither dividing His Son from Him, as do the heathen, nor denying, with the Jews, that He was begotten of the Father before all worlds, and afterwards born of the Virgin; nor yet, like Sabellius, confounding the Father with the Word, and so maintaining that Father and Son are one and the same Person; nor again, as does Photinus, holding that the Son first came into existence in the Virgin's womb: nor believing, with Arius, in a number of diverse Powers, and so, like the benighted heathen, making out more than one God. For it is written: "Hear, O Israel: the Lord your God is one God."

7. For God and Lord is a name of majesty, a name of power, even as God Himself says: "The Lord is My name," Exodus 3:15 and as in another place the prophet declares: "The Lord Almighty is His name." God is He, therefore, and Lord, either because His rule is over all, or because He beholds all things, and is feared by all, without difference.

8. If, then, God is One, one is the name, one is the power, of the Trinity. Christ Himself, indeed, says: "Go, baptize the nations in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." Matthew 28:19 In the name, mark you, not in the names.

9. Moreover, Christ Himself says: "I and the Father are One." John 10:30 "One," said He, that there be no separation of power and nature; but again, " We are," that you may recognize Father and Son, forasmuch as the perfect Father is believed to have begotten the perfect Son, Matthew 5:48 and the Father and the Son are One, not by confusion of Person, but by unity of nature.

10. We say, then, that there is one God, not two or three Gods, this being the error into which the impious heresy of the Arians does run with its blasphemies. For it says that there are three Gods, in that it divides the Godhead of the Trinity; whereas the Lord, in saying, "Go, baptize the nations in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," has shown that the Trinity is of one power. We confess Father, Son, and Spirit, understanding in a perfect Trinity both fullness of Divinity and unity of power.

11. "Every kingdom divided against itself shall quickly be overthrown," says the Lord. Now the kingdom of the Trinity is not divided. If, therefore, it is not divided, it is one; for that which is not one is divided. The Arians, however, would have the kingdom of the Trinity to be such as may easily be overthrown, by division against itself. But truly, seeing that it cannot be overthrown, it is plainly undivided. For no unity is divided or rent asunder, and therefore neither age nor corruption has any power over it.

At each point, St Ambrose is presuming all doctrinal content in the Biblical proof texts is supposed to be read with full factual and semantic value to each word. How can one presume inerrancy on doctrine if not of the text as such? A Modernist (or in Protestant contexts a Liberal Theologian) would say that the men who wrote the texts were using elevated language but not necessarily right in each detail of their use of it. How should we presume they were right on all heavenly things if we disbelieve them on a lot of earthly or (in the natural scientific sense) cosmic ones?

Vere quotes a text from Vatican II, which is ambiguous:

Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings (5) for the sake of salvation.

Or, actually, it is not. Vere would say that only what is for the sake of salvation is without error, but in fact the premiss for that conclusion is that everything asserted by the hagiographers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit. Not just those parts which are directly relevant for each and everyone's salvation. Factual inerrancy on all other words that are authorial is also a conclusion from that premiss - unless one can say this inerrance is also for the salvation of at least some faithful, who would apostatise from the faith, openly or subtly, if not believing it. This sense of the previous words has obviously not been held by the post-Vatican II establishment, notably Benedict XVI / Antipope Emeritus Ratzinger, but it would have been the one apparent to many actually still Catholic, at least in doctrine, bishops who voted for it.

The post-Vatican II establishment, for about the same 40 years on which Vere cites the "sensus fidelium", has more and more unambiguously contradicted the unambiguous grammatical sense of: "everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit" which is in a text of Vatican II. That sentence obviously being inherited from real Catholicism.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Conon, Martyr under Aurelian
with his 12 year old
29.V.2018

Apud Iconium, in Lycaonia, passio sanctorum Cononis, et filii annorum duodecim, qui, sub Aureliano Imperatore, craticulae, prunis suppositis et oleo superinfuso candentis, suspensionis in equuleo atque ignis poenam constanter passi, ad extremum, malleo ligneo manibus eorum contritis, spiritum emiserunt.

Citing mainly from these opponents:

TRADITIONALISM VS FUNDAMENTALISM: AN ORTHODOX RESPONSE TO FR DWIGHT LONGNECKER
May 27, 2018 Pete Vere
https://wherepeteris.com/traditionalism-vs-fundamentalism-an-orthodox-response-to-fr-dwight-longnecker/

Orthodox Fundamentalism Date de publication 29/01/15 11:23 https://blogs.goarch.org/blog/-/blogs/orthodox-fundamentalism

Also by Demacopoulos, accessible by transscript by Vere, an audio.

Citing in my support:

Index in stephani tempier condempnationes
http://enfrancaissurantimodernism.blogspot.fr/2012/01/index-in-stephani-tempier.html

(Own transscript of Stephen Tempier's syllabus, an English reorganised version from an appendix to the book of Piché:

La condamnation parisienne de 1277
David Piché
http://www.vrin.fr/book.php?code=9782711614165 )

I Pars, Q I, A10
[Summa Theologica, St Thomas Aquinas]
http://newadvent.com/summa/1001.htm#article10

Exposition of the Christian Faith (Ambrose) > Book I
http://newadvent.com/fathers/34041.htm

vendredi 25 mai 2018

Dwight Longenecker Maligns Fundamentalists?

There is an essay this week by a fellow called Mike Lewis at a website called Where Peter Is which states that there are two kinds of Catholics now–“ecclesial” and “fundamentalist”

Are Conservative Catholics Fundamentalists?
https://dwightlongenecker.com/are-conservative-catholics-fundamentalists/

Now, he feels that his position (I presume like sceptic of Amoris Laetitia and supportive of Cardinal Burke, but it is some time since I checked his blog) was by Mike Lewis misrepresented as "fandamentalism".

Let's continue on how Dwight Longenecker (not calling him father, not due to misreading Matthew, but due to not being sure of his valid ordination) himself uses the word:

Now, of course, it is a dirty word–associated with racism and terrorism, the Ku Klux Klan and jihadis who behead little children in public.

And:

“Fundamentalist” has nothing to do with conservative Catholics. The term was coined by Biblical literalists.

To be fair, there are some conservative Catholics on the lunatic fringe who could properly be termed “fundamentalist”. I’ve engaged with some traditionalists who really are racist, anti-semitic, ultra right wing, geo centrist conspiracy theory nut jobs.

I am one trad he has engaged with, can by some definitions be described as anti-semitic (like Father Kolbe and like Karl Lüeger, not like Hitler or Bormann, please note), as ultra right wing in the sense of supporting some historical fascisms (Franco and Salazar, Dollfuss and Schuschnigg were and are on my "acceptable" list - some reservations against the former two have turned up since my teens), and am into Geocentrism and some versions of conspiracy theories (consider Henry Makow to be fairly accurate on some points, as well as Lyndon LaRouche).

But his first word was "racist" and that I am not. He could have been referring to my stance on immigration, but he might perhaps call that rather "xenophobia" (and it's a mild one, or was to recently, I have not expressed very radical antiimmigrant stances and some are still distasteful to me). Or he could have spoken of someone else, also geocentric, or been putting me (as geocentric) and the other (as racist) in the same bag. Or he could have maligned me.

But he certainly seems to malign Fundamentalists. He brings up "some traditionalists who really are racist ..." (and the rest of the list, but racist first) the sentence after saying "who could properly be termed 'fundamentalist'".

And for some reason, he mentions Ku Klux Klan before he mentions Jihadis.

So, how did Ku Klux Klan come along and land among Fundamentalists?

I do not have a very intense contact with Alt Righters who might be described as White Suprematists, but I have had some.

They do not applaud Biblical literalism. The position "Adam was not the first man, but the first Jew" (contradicting the fact that a lot of non-Jews, like Egypt - Mizraim - and much of Ethiopia - Kush - and like Greeks descending from Javan, are all described in Genesis 10 as descending from Noah and therefore as per Genesis 5 from Adam) - that position is fairly common among them, as is the position that Cain found his wife among pre-Adamites. Except for those who totally ditch the "Jewish" or "Semite" tradition and consider me a Crypto-Jew or a race traitor because I accept it.

One explanation can be that some in Nigeria are comparing Ku Klux Klan to Boko Haram.

FUNDAMENTALISM RACISM COMPARATIVE STUDY BETWEEN KU KLUX KLAN AND BOKO HARAM
June 24, 2017 / olufunkeogunnaike
https://olufunkeogunnaike.wordpress.com/2017/06/24/fundamentalism-racism-comparative-study-between-ku-klux-klan-and-boko-haram/

How Boko Haram is comparable to Ku Klux is not very hard to figure out : both are violent movements, risen against what at least appears to most as the legal government, and a third comparison would be the Camorra of Naples and the Mafia of Sicily. All three involve taking a conscientious objection against the legal or apparently such government to a violent and (in two cases, but perhaps not the Boko Haram one) secretive, omertà based sabotage of this government.

How Boko Haram is "fundamentalist" is also not hard to figure out : it has a fundamentalist reading of Islamic rules.

But the rules enforced by Mafiosi or Ku Klux are not Catholic or Southern Protestant religious rules, they are actually rules of older secular régimes. Not sure whether Mafia is for Angevins or for Bourbons, but they were against the house of Savoy, and Ku Klux are for reviving the Confederacy : note, the loyalties are not necessarily in themselves bad, Confederacy (in 1860), like US (in 1776) could have been a slave side in a conflict of the past, without remaining a slave side in a future conflict. Restoring Bourbons or Angevins to the Two Sicilies may ultimately be a great idea. But the mode of operation is being secretive and carrying out lynchings and murders, as well as taxing illegal and double taxing legal business. This is evil.

Now, Ku Klux, as said, are not Biblical literalists. So, therein they differ from Boko Haram who are Qoranic ones. Calling Ku Klux Klan fundamentalists because Boko Haram are fundamentalists is like calling the shrimp a mammal because, like whales, they are in the broad sense "fish" and whales are also mammals. In a US and White Anglo Saxon Protestant context, "Fundamentalist" more properly has to do with the history of the word there, as pointed out by Dwight:

The term was coined by Biblical literalists.

So, are now Biblical literalists going to suffer for the crimes of Boko Haram, Breivik and Ku Klux Klan? It's like letting a poor Jew suffer for a conspiracy by the Rothschilds.

If there is a thing which can be called "racist" (in a wider sense than the strictly biometric one) it is judging someone from his demographic, someone else in a negative or oneself in a positive way.

It would be kind of "racist" to call oneself a perfectly orthodox Catholic on the ground that one is Hispanic and therefore from a Catholic demographic. It would be kind of "racist" to consider someone a probable or even certain Nazi because he is German.

In a similar sense it would be kind of "racist" to consider Biblical literalism as Ku Klux Klan related because both have deep roots in some of the US states that were formerly Confederate. Or to consider Ku Klux Klan as Fundamentalist on that ground.

Dwight is guilty of a similar fault:

“Fundamentalist” has nothing to do with conservative Catholics. The term was coined by Biblical literalists.

The Biblical literalists in question about a century ago were in fact Protestants, or Baptists (some of them holding to Baptist Continuity theory would dispute being Protestants, since that theory involves them not coming from Reformation : in sober historic fact, they do come from Reformation, but unlike Lutherans and Zwinglians not at first hand). That does not mean Biblical literalism as such is Protestant (or Baptist). It would be more correct to consider Evolution and Old Earth compromise as Protestant, because at least Old Earth comes from progressive Protestants even earlier, like Lyell and Cuvier - who was, yes, a Protestant).

The Council of Trent which condemned Protestantism, and the Council of the Vatican in 1869 to 70 which condemned a few more Protestant errors never condemned Biblical literalism. Therefore it is doctrinally incorrect to consider this as a Protestant error. It is also historically so, since a Conservative Protestant may take his stance on issues which he shares with Conservative Catholics : as is the case now on abortion issue, as was the case a few decades ago, against Communism, and it was also the actual case with the Biblical literalists, who were approaching the Catholic Church, like the Magisterium of St. Pius X, by being Biblical literalists.

So, I would say Dwight Longenecker does malign Fundamentalists, but I'll give him a chance to answer this.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Ember Friday of Pentecost
25.V.2018

lundi 21 mai 2018

Refining table Flood to Abraham - and a doubt

Flood: 2957 BC
low estim.: c. 1 percent modern carbon (pmc), 38 000 BC (40 000 BP)
Arphaxad *: 2955 BC
2913 BC: 6.333 pmc 25 713 BC
2868 BC: 11.641 pmc, 20 668 BC
2824 BC: 16.917 pmc 17 524 BC
Shelah *: 2820 BC
2780 BC: 22.169 pmc, 15 230 BC
2735 BC: 27.388 pmc 13435 BC
Eber *
2690 - 91 BC: 32.588 pmc 11941 BC
2646 BC: 37.752 pmc 10 696 BC
Noah +: 2607 BC
Babel begins 2602 BC: 42.89 pmc, 9600 BC
Babel ends 2562 BC: 48.171 pmc, 8600 BC
Peleg *: 2556 BC
2523 BC: 50.609 pmc 8173 BC
2484 BC: 53.036 pmc, 7734 BC
Shem +: 2455 BC
2444: 55.451 pmc, 7344 BC
Reu *: 2426 BC
2405 BC: 57.849 pmc, 6955 BC
Arphaxad +: 2390 BC
2366 BC: 60.241 pmc, 6566 BC
Shelah +: 2360 BC
2327 BC: 62.622 pmc, 6177 BC
Serug *: 2294 BC
2288 BC: 64.991 pmc, 5838 BC
2249 BC: 67.347 pmc, 5499 BC
Peleg +: 2217 BC
2209 BC: 69.694 pmc, 5209 BC
Eber +: 2186 BC
2170 BC: 72.031 pmc, 4870 BC
Nahor *: 2164 BC
2131 BC: 74.356 pmc, 4581 BC
2092 BC: 76.665 pmc, 4292 BC
Reu +: 2087 BC
Terah *: 2085 BC
2053 BC: 78.968 pmc, 4003 BC
Abraham *: 2015 BC
2013 BC: 81.261 pmc, 3713 BC
1974 BC: 83.542 pmc, 3474 BC
Serug +: 1964 BC
Nahor +: 1956 BC
Genesis 14, 1935 BC: 85.811 pmc, 3200 BC

Now, to the doubt:

Flood, 2957 BC: c. 1 percent modern carbon (pmc), 38 000 BC (40 000 BP)
2913 BC: 6.333 pmc 25 713 BC (27 713 BC)

Any dino population carbon dated to more than 28 000 BP, and all human skeleta carbon dated between 40 000 and 28 000 BP need to be accounted for as coming from the Ark, and in case of men, casualties among the grandchildren of Noah. And this growth of population, both any dino kind and human kind, needs to have happened in 44 years.

On the other hand any slowing down of the carbon 14 increase needs to be compensated by faster growth later./HGL

mercredi 16 mai 2018

Agreeing with the Biblical World View

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?

I found a blog by Matthew Distefano, on Progressive Christian channel of Patheos, he had made fun of date setting for end of the world, with some sense in showing how not to do it, and I got back to an earlier post on it:

A Biblical Worldview? No Thanks!
May 7, 2018 by Matthew Distefano
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/allsetfree/2018/05/a-biblical-worldview-no-thanks/

For instance, are we really going to sit here and think that folks like Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, and Moses—assuming these were real people and not just archetypal figures—had the same view of the cosmos as Jesus or Paul? Or that their theologies were all the same? Are we honestly going to hold fast to the belief that the writer of Deuteronomy, for instance, had the exact same views as those of the prophets, or of Jesus, or of Paul, or of Peter, or of James? Or even that two brothers, Jesus and James, shared the same views? Or that John the Baptist and Jesus did? Or that Peter and Paul did?

Get real! That is just silly.

Abraham who transmitted the story of the Tower of Babel to Moses (via generations back between Peleg and himself and forth over Joseph in Egypt and his brother Levi to Moses) may have had very low tech and unsophisticated views on what the tower of Babel was. But what Moses finally expressed was:

Genesis 11 : [4] And they said: Come, let us make a city and a tower, the top whereof may reach to heaven: and let us make our name famous before we be scattered abroad into all lands. [5] And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of Adam were building.

This expression is totally compatible with a modern understanding of the "tower" as a projected three step rocket - obviously Nimrod would have been wrong on some detail they got right before Baikonoor and Cape Canaveral, he would probably have tried exploding Uranium to fuel the launch, which would have been disastrous.

There is a difference between ALL the views of a Biblical writer (or, if I may coin the word, for Saints' Moses' and Luke's sources, pre-writer, pre-hagiographer) and what the Bible finally expresses because the hagiographers express their views under God's guidance, meaning that any possibly erroneous view would not in fact be expressed.

There are two persons in flesh and blood whom we need to agree with ALL the views of : Our Lord Jesus Christ and Our Lady, the Blessed Virgin Mary.

For other Biblical characters, we only need to agree with good ones, and only with views expressed by them without repentance. For hagiographers, we only need to agree with the views they finally expressed in the text.

We do need to consider at least the 12 Apostles were sufficiently instructed in human sciences, by God, as to not obstruct a good pastoral of the Church Universal by an error in them* : and this also apart from any views directly expressed in the Bible.

But we do not need to consider they were instructed on all details that can be discovered by men and which are irrelevant for pastoral.

However, we can also not tolerate that any error on the nature of integral calculus or the value of pi** could get actually expressed in the Bible.

The Biblical world view is not simply the sum of the views of Biblical good characters and hagiographers and pre-hagiographers : it is such a sum filtered through the inspiration of the all knowing God.***

That said, if Matthew Distefano thinks the range of opinions and contradicting ones between diverse Jews and Israelites of Old Testament even comes near that of diverse opinions between St Thomas Aquinas and John Wesley or C. S. Lewis and John Calvin, he should think again. The Hebrew people were a thing like the Catholic Church, with a set magisterium (from Moses and Aaron down to when Hannas and Caiaphas betrayed it), not a movement with different opposing sects, like "Christianity" understood as if including diverse branches of Protestantism.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Saint Ubaldo of Gubbio
Tuesday of Pentecost Novena
16.V.2018

* This is one reason why a psychiatrist cannot discover they were wrong on what is a sane man, another one being he is either chosing to or chosen for seeking excuses for the bullying that is psychiatry, a third is they hanker to the Pharisees on some in some axiological issues.

** If you try to cite a part of III Kings describing King Solomon's temple as showing the author thought the value of pi was 3.0 and wrote of a measure he had not seen, the key is, the 30 cubits' circumference and the 10 cubits' diameter are of different circles, both parts of same object (III Kings 7:24 : a round rimmed object has circumference measured under rim, smaller circle, and diameter measured on top over rim on either side, including it, larger circle). The difference between a circle with circumference 30 cubits and circle with diameter 10 cubits would be a rim about a hand's breadth, as mentioned - unless the hand's breadth is exact value and the 30 cubits is somewhat low on some inch or part of it, as suggested by LXX text. Supposing a man like Daniel had believed instead the object was elliptical (10 cubits' long axis) or had believed pi is 3:1, he never expressed such an error in his book and we would not need to agree with him on it, if we were brought back in a time machine and could speak to him.

*** Papal, Conciliar and Ordinary infallible magisteria are also filtered by God, hence infallible in doctrine and in morals. One of the infallible doctrines being that the Bible is even, in original autograph of each book as it finally left hagiographer (or "team," like Joshua taking last chapter of a book mainly written by Moses), not just infallible in doctrine and morals, but inerrant. We are free to think Moses' reading of Genesis 11 is better preserved in Greek LXX than in Masoretic Hebrew, and that the correct LXX reading is better preserved in liturgy (Roman or Byzantine) than a modern standard edition of LXX.

dimanche 13 mai 2018

Table for St Jerome as per Preliminary Conclusion

Noah *: 3557 BC
Shem *: 3055 BC
Flood: 2957 BC
low estim.: c. 1 percent modern carbon (pmc), 38 000 BC (40 000 BP)
Arphaxad *: 2955 BC
2868 BC: 11.641 pmc, 20 668 BC
Shelah *: 2820 BC
2780 BC: 22.169 pmc, 15 230 BC
Eber *: 2690 BC / 2691 BC; 32.584 pmc 11 941 BC
Noah +: 2607 BC
Babel begins: 2602 BC; 42.89 pmc, 9600 BC
Babel ends: 2562 BC; 48.171 pmc, 8600 BC
Peleg *: 2556 BC
2484 BC: 53.036 pmc, 7734 BC
Shem +: 2455 BC
Reu *: 2426 BC
2405 BC: 57.849 pmc, 6955 BC
Arphaxad +: 2390 BC
Shelah +: 2360 BC
2327 BC: 62.622 pmc, 6177 BC
Serug *: 2294 BC
2249 BC: 67.347 pmc, 5499 BC
Peleg +: 2217 BC
Eber +: 2186 BC
2170 BC: 72.031 pmc, 4870 BC
Nahor *: 2164 BC
2092 BC: 76.665 pmc, 4292 BC
Reu +: 2087 BC
Terah *: 2085 BC
Abraham *: 2015 BC
2013 BC: 81.261 pmc, 3713 BC
Serug +: 1964 BC
Nahor +: 1956 BC
Genesis 14: 1935 BC (high estimate); 85.811 pmc, 3200 BC
Isaac *: 1915 BC
Terah +: 1884 BC
Abraham +: 1860 BC
Jacob *: 1855 BC
1840 BC: 87.869 pmc, 2890 BC
Isaac +: 1735 BC
Jacob +: and Djoser presumed at similar time
1745 BC: 89.902 pmc, 2625 BC
1668 BC: 94.231 pmc, 2158 BC
Moses born: when Sesostris III dies, presumably. But this implies the higher layer at Jericho.
1590 BC: 98.523 pmc, 1713 BC

Produced partly before and finished today, as above date of publication./HGL

1935 BC
1745 BC
0190 years, 97.728 %
Normal production in pmc : 2.272 pmc

85.811 * 97.728 / 100 = 83.86137408 (theoretic remainder with no new carbon 14)
89.902 - 83.86137408 = 6.04062592 (actual production)
6.04062592 / 2.272 = 2.6587261971830986 (ratio as how much faster production)
190 / 2 = 95, 98.857 % (an object with that pmc now is 95 years old)
100 - 98.857 = 1.143 (normal production)
1.143 * 2.6587261971830986 = 3.0389240433802816998 (actual production)
85.811 * 98.857 / 100 = 84.83018027 (remainder in theory)
84.83018027 + 3.0389240433802816998 = 87.8691043133802816998 c. = 87.869 (pmc at mid point)
1745+95 = 1840 BC (real year of mid point)
1840 BC, 87.869 pmc, 1050 extra years
1050+1840 = 2890 (carbon dated year at this mid point)

Oh, one more alternative or even weak assumption : using straight lines on the graph, so to speak, between the calculated pmc values. As above/HGL

samedi 12 mai 2018

Oral Traditions

Today a letter to CMI and Lita Cosner's response gave between them two wrong answers and dismissed the right one.

Do oral traditions have any authority?
Published: 12 May 2018 (GMT+10)
https://creation.com/do-oral-traditions-have-any-authority

Try finding Jannes and Jambres who Paul writes about without using the Talmud, and it is here in the Talmud where you will find many teachings that Jesus taught about (torments, Abraham’s bosom etc) and here that you will find about re-incarnation.

Jannes and Mambres were an oral tradition accessible to both St Paul and the Talmudic writers.

That Greek version NT's have Jannes and Jambres, like Talmud, seems to indicate Vulgate having Jannes and Mambres is less contaminated by Talmud.

While the Talmud certainly CLAIMS to faithfully continue the oral tradition from Moses on Mount Sinai, it doesn't : it's like saying Pentecostals faithfully continue the oral tradition of holiness in the Catholic Church. Pentecostal tradition is contaminated by Reformation. Talmudic tradition is contaminated by the Rejection of Christ.

You want the real Catholic tradition on holiness? Catholic Church. You want the real Jewish oral tradition from Old Testament era? Also Catholic Church. Not Pentecostals and not Talmud.

Now, what is Lita's response?

Paul citing Jannes and Jambres does not make the Talmud inspired by God any more than him citing the Greek philosophers to the pagans in Athens makes them inspired by God.

While the philosophers were not inerrantly inspired by God, they were at least guided by God to reject in theory (though it did not work out in practise) the pagan errors of Polytheism.

While Talmud is as a whole very much not inspired, the parts that not distorting OT oral tradition voice it are also remnants of a guidance by God. Though Josephus is a surer source.

What does Lita say against this?

And Jesus’ own words condemn those who would put the traditions of the elders at the same level or above Scripture. See Matthew 15:1ff.

Actually, it is more like twisting traditions of the elders to evade Scripture. Or, we must note, traditions "of the elders" - i. e. recent Pharisaic ones, not even claiming to be ancient tradition.

If you have in fact promised a particular jar of spices to God, through offering to the temple (Protestants, please note, the donations to Catholic Church in the Middle Ages are prefigured), it makes some sense you don't need to give it to your father if he asks for it. BUT if you hadn't made such an offering already, your father asks for it and you invent "it is corban" because you think your father (among the generation of old men admiring Our Lord when he was 12) will use it badly, well, that is a different thing, I think that was the exact twisting that Christ described. Taking a tradition out of its law of God context. Suppose one had really offered but not yet given a jar to God through the temple and father asks for it? Well, possibly, give your dad the jar of spices, let him do his (in my opinion probable) corban to Jesus, and you do yours with another jar. Or you do yours with that jar, but give your dad quickly another jar.

Christ was not envious of the jars of spices he was missing, but angry because His admirers were humiliated by their own children who thought they knew better. Old people deprived of autonomy by "responsability".

Catholic Theologians on II Timothy 3:8, here:

Ver. 8. Jannes and Mambres. The names of the magicians, who in Egypt, resisted Moses, says S. Chrys. and though not mentioned in the Scriptures, their names might be known by tradition. Wi. — Since the Old Testament does not mention these magicians of Pharao, who opposed Moses, it seems probable that S. Paul either learnt their names by a particular revelation, as S. Chrys. Theophyl. and Tirinus think, or by some tradition of the Jews, agreeably to the opinions of Theodoret, Grotius, Estius, &c. Others think he might have found their names in some ancient histories, which have not reached our time; or perhaps from the apocryaphal book of Jannes and Mambres, mentioned by Origen and Ambrosiaster. Certain it is, that in S. Paul's time the names of these two famous magicians were very well known; thus it is by no means necessary in this instance to have recourse to a particular inspiration. The Orientals say there were many magicians who opposed Moses. Among others, they mention Sabous and Gadous, who came from Thebias; Graath and Mospha, from some other country. They wished, as they inform us, to imitate the miracle by which Moses turned his rod into a serpent, by throwing their canes on the ground, and ropes filled with quicksilver. These ropes began to move a little, one twisting with another, on account of the heat of the earth warmed by the sun. But the rod of Moses in a moment broke them to pieces. Calmet. — These magicians are called by different names. The Greek has Jannes and Jambres. Some ancient writers, Jannes and Mambres; as Cyprian, Optatus, (c. 7.) Born. &c. The Jews call that Joanne, or Johanna, whom the Greeks name Jannes; and that called by the Jews Jambres, the Greeks name Mambres. The Hebrews would have them to be the sons of Balaam, the soothsayer, and the masters of Moses in the sciences of the Egyptians. Calmet.

And on Matthew 15:

Ver. 1. The Pharisees observed a rigid and simple mode life, disdaining all luxurious delicacies. They scrupulously followed the dicta of reason, and paid the greatest veneration and implicit obedience to the opinions and traditions of their seniors. All contingencies they ascribe to fate, but not to the exclusion of free-will. The immortality of the soul, and a future state of rewards and punishments, were favourite tenets with them, and their fame for wisdom, temperance, and integrity was proverbial. Josephus, Antiq. B. xviii, c. ii.

Ver. 2. Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition. The Pharisees had various traditions delivered down from their ancestors, called deuterwseiV, of which some were works of supererogation, others were contrary to the law. E. — It is a great proof of malice in the Pharisees, and of irreproachable character in our Lord, that they should be reduce to notice triffles, no ways connected with either piety or religion. . . They moreover betrayed their superstition, by insisting on the observance of these outward ceremonies, as essential parts of piety, which were not commanded by any law, (were certainly of no divine origin) and which, at most, were duties of civility, or emblems of interior purity. Jans. — The tradition of the ancients? They do not say the written law, which did not prescribe these washings of hands, cups, pots, beds, &c. These traditions came only from the doctors of their law, who are called elders, which is a name of dignity, as was that of senator among the Romans, and so, in English, are the names of major, alderman, &c. See Acts v. 6. &c. Wi.

Ver. 3. Why do you also. The Jews understanding the saying of the prophets, "wash yourselves and be clean," in a carnal manner, they made a precept of not eating without first washing their hands. Ven. Bede. — The traditions here alluded to, and which they call the oral law, were respected equally with the written law, by all the Jews, except the sect of Caraites; they were collected in seventy-two books, and composed the cabbala, and were kept by Gemaliel and other heads of the sanhedrim, till the destruction of Jerusalem. About 120 years after this, Rabbi Judas composed a book of them, called Mishna, or second law; afterwards two supplements and explanations were given, viz. the Talmud of Jerusalem, and the Talmud of Babylon. By these the Jews are still governed in ecclesiastical matters.

Ver. 5. The gift whatsoever proceedeth from me, shall profit thee.[1] This gift is called Corban, Mark vii. 11. Now, as to the sense of this obscure place, I shall mention two expositions that seem preferable to others. The first is, as if a son said to his father or mother, Whatsoever was mine, (with which indeed I might have assisted you, my parents) I have given, i.e. promised to give to the temple: and being to keep this promise, I need not, or I cannot now assist you. The second interpretation is, as if the son said to his father or mother, Whatsoever gift I have made to God will be profitable to you, as well as to me; or, let it be profitable to you, (which is more according to the Greek text, both here and in S. Mark) and therefore I am no further obliged to assist you. Wi. — That is, the offering that I shall make to God, shall be instead of that which should be expended for thy profit. This tradition of the Pharisees was calculated to enrich themselves, by exempting children from giving any further assistance to their parents, if they once offered to the temple and the priests that which should have been the support of their parents. But this was a violation of the law of God, and of nature, which our Saviour here condemns. Ch. — They committed a double crime. They neither offered the gift to God, nor succoured their parents in their distress. Chrys. hom. lii.

Ver. 6. And he shall not honour; that is, assist his father or his mother. It is doubtful whether these may not be the words of the Pharisees; but they rather seem the words of our Saviour Christ, especially seeing that in S. Mark, Christ himself adds: And, farther, you suffer him not to do any thing for his father or mother, making void the word of God by your tradition. Wi.

So, traditions of "ancients" doesn't mean from ancient times, like traditions from Moses, Aaron, Joshua, but traditions from men considered as elders or doctors or ancients, men like Hillel, Shammai, Gamaliel.

Now, it is perfectly true as the feedbacker states that parts of the afterlife were and are known by oral tradition rather than by direct statement in the Scriptures.

The question is only which one : the Talmudic one, which he adhers to, which considered both Purgatory of some sort and Reincarnation, or the Catholic one, which I adher to, which considers Purgatory, but rejects Reincarnation. That depends on which community, Church or Synagogue, guarded the truth. As I believe it was Catholic Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ, I'll take the traditions of this Church, and not all of the Talmud.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Mouffetard
Sts Nereus and Achilleus
12.V.2018

vendredi 11 mai 2018

How Accurate are Chronogenealogies Anyway? Conclusion continued.

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

Let's take me, ma and gramp. If I were to die now, it would be in my fiftieth year, me having lived 49 years and some. Ma had me in her 22:nd year, after she had lived to 21 and some. She was born before my gramp's 47th birthday. Adding low and high counts, this gives us either 46+21+49=116 years, or 47+22+50=119 years. 119-116 = 3. Three years for three lifespans added.

Genesis 11: 10 And these are the generations of Sem: and Sem was a hundred years old when he begot Arphaxad, the second year after the flood. 11 And Sem lived, after he had begotten Arphaxad, five hundred years, and begot sons and daughters, and died. 12 And Arphaxad lived a hundred and thirty-five years, and begot Cainan. 13 And Arphaxad lived after he had begotten Cainan, four hundred years, and begot sons and daughters, and died. And Cainan lived a hundred and thirty years and begot Sala; and Cainan lived after he had begotten Sala, three hundred and thirty years, and begot sons and daughters, and died. 14 And Sala lived an hundred and thirty years, and begot Heber. 15 And Sala lived after he had begotten Heber, three hundred and thirty years, and begot sons and daughters, and died. 16 And Heber lived an hundred and thirty-four years, and begot Phaleg. 17 And Heber lived after he had begotten Phaleg two hundred and seventy years, and begot sons and daughters, and died. 18 And Phaleg lived and hundred and thirty years, and begot Ragau. 19 And Phaleg lived after he had begotten Ragau, two hundred and nine years, and begot sons and daughters, and died. 20 And Ragau lived and hundred thirty and two years, and begot Seruch. 21 And Ragau lived after he had begotten Seruch, two hundred and seven years, and begot sons and daughters, and died. 22 And Seruch lived a hundred and thirty years, and begot Nachor. 23 And Seruch lived after he had begotten Nachor, two hundred years, and begot sons and daughters, and died. 24 And Nachor lived a hundred and seventy-nine years, and begot Tharrha. 25 And Nachor lived after he had begotten Tharrha, an hundred and twenty-five years, and begot sons and daughters, and he died. 26 And Tharrha lived seventy years, and begot Abram, and Nachor, and Arrhan.

Sem was a hundred years old when he begot Arphaxad, the second year after the flood.
And Arphaxad lived a hundred and thirty-five years, and begot Cainan.
And Cainan lived a hundred and thirty years and begot Sala
And Sala lived an hundred and thirty years, and begot Heber.
And Heber lived an hundred and thirty-four years, and begot Phaleg.
And Phaleg lived and hundred and thirty years, and begot Ragau.
And Ragau lived and hundred thirty and two years, and begot Seruch.
And Seruch lived a hundred and thirty years, and begot Nachor.
And Nachor lived a hundred and seventy-nine years, and begot Tharrha.
And Tharrha lived seventy years, and begot Abram, and Nachor, and Arrhan.

From later records we know that Abraham was 100 years when he got Isaac, Isaac 60 when he begat the twins Jacob and Esau, and Jacob died at 110 years old. This we get from later chapters in Genesis, up to the last. So, Jacob died 270 years from birth of Isaac, with an error margin of 3 years only.

However, St Jerome seems to have omitted the "second Cainan", meaning we get:

Sem was a hundred years old when he begot Arphaxad, the second year after the flood.
And Arphaxad lived a hundred and thirty-five years, and ... begot Sala
And Sala lived an hundred and thirty years, and begot Heber.
And Heber lived an hundred and thirty-four years, and begot Phaleg.
And Phaleg lived and hundred and thirty years, and begot Ragau.
And Ragau lived and hundred thirty and two years, and begot Seruch.
And Seruch lived a hundred and thirty years, and begot Nachor.
And Nachor lived a hundred and seventy-nine years, and begot Tharrha.
And Tharrha lived seventy years, and begot Abram, and Nachor, and Arrhan.

I know from CMI, some manuscripts of LXX as well as some of St Luke do omit the "second Cainan".

Sem was a hundred years old when he begot Arphaxad, the second year after the flood.: 2955 BC
And Arphaxad lived a hundred and thirty-five years, and ... begot Sala: 2820 BC
And Sala lived an hundred and thirty years, and begot Heber.: 2690 BC
And Heber lived an hundred and thirty-four years, and begot Phaleg.: 2556 BC
And Phaleg lived and hundred and thirty years, and begot Ragau.: 2426 BC
And Ragau lived and hundred thirty and two years, and begot Seruch.: 2324 BC
And Seruch lived a hundred and thirty years, and begot Nachor.: 2194 BC
And Nachor lived a hundred and seventy-nine years, and begot Tharrha.: 2015 BC
And Tharrha lived seventy years, and begot Abram, and Nachor, and Arrhan.: 1945 BC

Something is wrong, 2015 BC should have been Abraham's birth:

a diluvio autem, anno bis millesimo nongentesimo quinquagesimo septimo; a nativitate Abrahae, anno bis millesimo quintodecimo

Deluge 2957 BC, Abraham born 2015 BC. 942 years.

Syncellus?

Sem was a hundred years old when he begot Arphaxad, the second year after the flood.: 3356 BC (false memory? yep, 3256, never mind, I already wrote the table.)
And Arphaxad lived a hundred and thirty-five years, and begot Cainan.: 3221 BC
And Cainan lived a hundred and thirty years and begot Sala: 3091 BC
And Sala lived an hundred and thirty years, and begot Heber.: 2961 BC
And Heber lived an hundred and thirty-four years, and begot Phaleg.: 2827 BC
And Phaleg lived and hundred and thirty years, and begot Ragau.: 2697 BC
And Ragau lived and hundred thirty and two years, and begot Seruch.: 2565 BC
And Seruch lived a hundred and thirty years, and begot Nachor.: 2435 BC
And Nachor lived a hundred and seventy-nine years, and begot Tharrha.: 2256 BC
And Tharrha lived seventy years, and begot Abram, and Nachor, and Arrhan.: 2186 BC

Syncellus has Flood 3358 BC (no, 3258!) and Abraham born 2188 BC. 1170 years ... I get it. Not 128 years difference as I thought, but 228 years difference.

Here I try again

Noah: 600 B.F. - 350 A.F.
Shem: 100 B.F. - 500 A.F.
Arphaxad: 0 - 565
Cainan: 135 - 595 (Exit in St Jerome)
Shelah: 265 - 725 : 135 - 595
Eber: 395 - 899 : 265 - 769
Peleg: 529 - 868 : 399 - 738
Reu: 659 - 998 : 529 - 868
Serug: 791 - 1121 : 661 - 991
Nahor: 921 - 1129 : 791 - 999
Terah: 1000 - 1205 : 870 - 1075
Abraham: 1070 – 1245 : 940 - 1115

Longevity Charts as per LXX
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.fr/2015/11/longevity-charts-as-per-lxx.html

Here I detect the origin of the error, cited text has:

And Nachor lived a hundred and seventy-nine years, and begot Tharrha.

The text available to Pete Williams, whose article I had used, states 79 years:

CMI : Some remarks preliminary to a biblical chronology
by Pete Williams
https://creation.com/some-remarks-preliminary-to-a-biblical-chronology

So, this variation in LXX text, plus no "second Cainan" would be the reason why Abraham is born "940" (really 942, but Pete seems to have ignored Arphaxad born second year after Flood (or I ignored it when using his info, sorry Pete!) after Flood, which is 2957 BC minus 940 gives "2017" or actually 2015 BC.

We have, now, three versions of LXX plus one Masoretic / Vulgate text in use among Christians. Within each version, only as many years as there are generations are the quibble points due to ambiguity of "lived 79 years" (and how many months?).

II Cainan and Nahor begetting at 179 (Abraham born 1170 after Flood, 1770 after birth of Noah, died 1945 after): 13:1945=0.00668 or 0.668 % error margin
II Cainan and Nahor begetting at 79 (Abraham born 1070 after Flood, 1670 after birth of Noah, died 1845 after): 13:1845=0.007046 (with 07046 repeating) or 0.705 % error margin
No II Cainan and Nahor begetting at 79 (Abraham born 942 after Flood, 1542 after birth of Noah, died 1717 after): 12:1717=0.007 or 0.7 % error margin
No second Cainan, Nahor begetting at 29 and various other shorter ones (Abraham born c. 290 after Flood, unless I counted wrong, 890 after birth of Noah, died 1065 after).: 12:1065=0.01127 or 1.127 % error margin

The same type of error margin is - due to shorter life spans - multiplied in Egyptian king lists. These also contradict on more detail than the named versions of the Bible, or of Genesis 11:

Den seal impressions (1st dynasty);: found on a cylinder seal in Den's tomb. It lists all 1st dynasty kings from Narmer to Den by their Horus names.
Palermo stone (5th dynasty);: carved on an olivin-basalt slab. Broken into pieces and thus today incomplete.
Giza King List (6th dynasty);: painted with red, green and black ink on gypsum and cedar wood. Very selective.
South Saqqara Stone (6th dynasty);: carved on a black basalt slab. Very selective.
Karnak King List (18th dynasty);: carved on limestone. Very selective.
Abydos King List of Seti I (19th dynasty);: carved on limestone. Very detailed, but omitting the First Intermediate Period.
Abydos King List of Ramses II (19th dynasty);: carved on limestone. Very selective.
Saqqara King List (19th dynasty), carved on limestone.: Very detailed, but omitting most kings of the 1st dynasty for unknown reasons.
Turin King List (19th dynasty);: written with red and black ink on papyrus. Most possibly the most complete king list in history, today damaged.
Manetho's Aegyptiaca (Greek Period);: possibly written on papyrus. The original writings are lost today and many anecdotes assigned to certain kings seem fictitious.

Source: Wickipeejuh : List of pharaohs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pharaohs

The difference is, we still have the continuation or continuations of the tradition which gave us Genesis. We do not have the pharaonic tradition, we only have it filtered through Greeks and Hebrews - or viewed directly in fragmentary expressions, whose place in tradition is debatable. The source considered the lists omitting kings as selective and the ones including them as detailed - it could be instead that some of the "selective" ones are simply correct and some of the "detailed" ones are stuffed.

And obviously, it is useless to appeal to Carbon 14 until you have a calibration, the one I offer being a so far not refuted alternative to the conventional one.

But what if I am wrong in chosing the chronology of St Jerome? I don't think I am. One way of seeing 25 of March as falling on a Friday both Year 33 AD and creation week (as per Latin tradition) is to use St Jerome's chronology, to consider all or all but last pre-Flood years as 364 days long, and heavens as still turning 364 times around Earth per year, but Earth being hit by an asteroid as turning around itself 1.2425 times each year. It would not alter St Robert Bellarmine's understanding of Joshua's long day, or not radically, since in 24 hours the Sun (and Moon) would phenomenally seem to move only 1° 13' and some ".

But what if I actually were wrong and one of the longer chronologies were the right one? Well, as I have been looking for the speed of carbon production (and getting probable years for archaeology as a byproduct), that would mean carbon 14 was forming less fast than I presume, and so the radiation levels its formation implies would be even safer.

However, exactly how much for instance "11 times faster" implies in cosmic radiation dose during Babel, I don't know. If it is "11 times more", things are fairly cool. 11 times a medium of 0.39 milliSievert per year are 4.29 milliSievert per year (lower or higher depending on altitude and possibly also on Equator vs Poles) - far from the highest radiation dose we see in background radiation today. But I failed to get a response from Usoskin.

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : Other Check on Carbon Buildup
http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2017/11/other-check-on-carbon-buildup.html

If it is instead 121 (11 squared) times faster, that is troublesome. 47.19 milliSievert per year is more than twice the dose Japanese authorities consider as critical after Fukushima disaster. Even if 11 times faster carbon is only the forty years of Babel. And adding 31.59 milliSievert per year for preceding centuries since Flood would hardly make it better (9 times faster buildup). Then one could imagine that speed of carbon 14 buildup and dose are at square and cube of same factor ... 14.23 milliSievert per year (during Babel) and 10.53 centuries before would be possible. I have not taken into account that high radiation from cosmos also produces colder climate and how the Ice Age resulting from this might have modified radiation dose on Earth. I'll hope its the latter or the equal one, not the squared one ... or that Ice Age took care of it. However, a high raditation especially daytime would also explain preference for living in caves and hunting at night.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bibl. Mouffetard
Sts Philip and James
11.V.2018

lundi 7 mai 2018

Preliminary Conclusion, with Corrections

Flood, 2957 BC
low estim.: c. 1 percent modern carbon (pmc), 38 000 BC
high estim.: c. 4.4 pmc, 26 000 BC
Noah dies: 350 after Flood, 2607 BC
Babel begins, 2602 BC: 42.89 pmc, 9600 BC
Babel ends, 2562 BC: 48.171 pmc, 8600 BC
Peleg is born: six years after end of Babel, 401 years after Flood, 2556 BC.
Abraham is born: 2015 BC (given directly in Roman Martyrology, 942 after Flood).
Abraham is 80: in Genesis 14, chalcolithic of En-Geddi/Asasonthamar:
1935 BC
low estim.: 83.76 pmc, 3400 BC
high estim.: 85.811 pmc, 3200 BC
Joseph's pharao: being Djoser, the carbon date 2625 BC being from when Joseph's late carreer in Genesis' last chapters buries his father as well as around the same time but a bit later probably Djoser.* Unless the coffin identified as Djoser's is really Jacob's:
1745 BC: 89.902 pmc, 2625 BC
Moses born: when Sesostris III dies, 1590 BC; 98.523 pmc, 1713 BC
Jericho taken 1470 BC
high estim.: 99.037 pmc, Kenyon's date of 1550 BC
low estim.: 91.548 pmc., 2200 BC**

I'm taking the high estimate, for now.

How about the rise in carbon 14? I'll take the estimates which lead to fastest production in each case, not compatible between them

2957 to 2602, 355 years, 95.797 % of original 1 pmc, rising to 42.89 pmc takes a production of 41.932 pmc points instead of usual 4.203 pmc points - a little less than 10 times faster.
2602 to 2562, 40 years, 99.517 % of original 42.89 pmc, 42.683 pmc but rising to 48.171 pmc takes a production of 5.488 pmc points instead of usual 0.483 pmc points - 11.362 times faster.
2562 to 1935, 627 years, 92.696 % of original 48.171 pmc, leaves 44.653 pmc, rising to (high estimate) 85.811 pmc, producing in 627 years 41.158 pmc points instead of usual 7.304 pmc in that time, 5.635 times faster than now.
1935 to 1745, 190 years, 97.728 % of original (low estimate) 83.76 pmc, leaving 81.857 pmc in theory and rising instead to 89.902, a production of 8.045 pmc points in 190 years, usually it would be 2.272 pmc points, giving 3.541 as fast a production.
1745 to 1590, 155 years, leaving 98.142 % of original 89.902 pmc, that being 88.232 pmc, rising instead to 98.523 pmc, 10.291 pmc points produced contrary to normally in 155 years 1.858 pmc points, 5.539 times faster.
1590 to 1470, 120 years, leaving 98.559 % of original 98.523 pmc, that being 97.103 pmc, rising instead to (high estimate) 99.037, a production of 1.934 pmc points, against normally 1.441 pmc points, 1.342 times faster.

This would mean that at Exodus, as levels are getting close to modern 100 pmc, carbon 14 production slows down. There had been a previous slowing down from Abraham in Genesis 14 to Joseph and Djoser, but not as radical.

The irregularity of carbon production slowing down could imply some kind of error in the matchings I made. I'll mention, but do not believe, the theory of "lost millennium" - the time from Exodus to Solomon's temple being 1000 years longer than the present text of III Kings 6:1.

It says And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel came out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of the reign of Solomon over Israel, in the month Zio (the same is the second month), he began to build a house to the Lord. Some claim it used to say 1480 instead of 480 years.

That would solve some problems, basically no radically lower carbon levels since the time of Joseph, but would involve ditching the Sesostris III match for the Pharao at Moses' birth and therefore the Hyksos match for post-Exodus Egypt. It also seems to be supported in no text at all, it is only a conjecture. Normally, God would have preserved at least one mauscript with the good reading.

For now, at least, I'll stick with carbon production not just slowing down, but fluctuating some while slowing down.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Germaine-Tillion
St Stanislas of Krakow
7.V.2018

* 2015 - 1915 Abraham's birth to Isaac's
1915 - 1855 Isaac's birth to Israel's and Esau's
1855 - 1745 Israel's birth to death
1745 - 1740? Israel's death to Djoser's?

** Promoted by factors of terrain, but in conflict with Sesostris III at birth of Moses.

Credits : most go to CMI for the matches, Imhotep as Joseph, Moses as part time Amenemhet IV, before Hyksos, after Sesostris III, above all Abraham being 80 in Genesis 14, chalcolithic of En-Geddi/Asasonthamar, thank you Osgood, then Göbekli Tepe as Babel is my own hunch, shared (but only partly and from a non-Christian perspective) by Graham Hancock. As usual, carbon 14 levels for so and so many extra years are calculated using:

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

As for idea Peleg was born while Noah divided the Earth, I cannot now find the source for this being a Jewish tradition, but it seems from Bible-Science Guy, previously cited, this also was Ussher's idea.

Volunteering as Contributor Five ...

After James Hoffmeier, Gordon Wenham, and Kenton Sparks, AND Lita Cosner.

Before doing this assignment, I only looked at this quote:

The three contributors were asked to do the following:

1) identify the genre of Genesis 1–11; 2) explain why this is the genre of Genesis 1–11; 3) explore the implications of this genre designation for biblical interpretation; and 4) apply their approach to the interpretation of three specific passages: the story of the Nephilim (6:1–4), Noah and the ark (6:9–26), and the Tower of Babel (11:1–9) (p. 20).

I'll volunteer as contributor 4 ... or five. Lita Cosner is contributor four, as far as I am concerned, and this is were you will find not just above backstory, but also her own response:

CMI : Genesis as ancient historical narrative
by Lita Cosner
https://creation.com/genesis-as-ancient-historical-narrative

Now, here is mine.

1) a) Genesis 1 is a vision by Moses and b) Genesis 2 to 11 is orally transmitted history.
2) a) For most of Genesis 1, we have no human observer and it can be known only by revelation : tradition says Moses was given this revelation; b) for all of Genesis 2 after God created Adam and up to Genesis 11, we do have human observers, these are not (except those last mentioned in Genesis 11) immediate parts of Abraham's Beduin tribe, and chapters are so short that they could be edited orally for ideal memorisation. They contain three patrilinear and monolinear genealogies, the Cainite one in Genesis 4, the Sethite one in Genesis 5 and the post-Flood one from Shem to Abraham in latter half of Genesis 11, and one patrilinear and branching genealogy known as table of nations in Genesis 10. The three spanning several generations were cumulative works. Like the orally transmitted genealogy from Kunta Kinte to Alex Haley, which led the writer back to his African ancestor - except the transmission was under better conditions each time than that of Kunta Kinte's. The table of nations could well be a "family snapshot" from before Noah died. All the rest is normal narrative of events, each event or series of such reduced to bare essentials so as to be easily memorised. Confer the rest of Genesis, 12 to 50, which are richer in detail and which would have been preserved in writing in the tribe of Abraham - a Beduin tribe will find some place to stock a few tablets or papyrus scrolls. (The oral tradition would normally have been first written, and early ones of following chapters, like 12, following these more closely as models in historiography).
3) There is something else than the genre in these chapters which has implications for interpretation : they are (like their "pagan cousin" Mahabharata and Puranas) leftovers from lost societies. The wording was such as to have some comprehensive content for the new society preserving them, but due to technology loss this could differ somewhat from original notional content and have to be rediscovered. If a Behemoth can be rediscovered as a Sauropod, while tradition had wavered between Elephant and Hippopotamus, because both Elephant and Hippo remind of Sauropod, then there could be other things to rediscover.
4) a) Nephelim : I don't think we need to take Zecharia Sitchen into account. He considers it as self evident that man as such is "primitive" and anything sophisticated came from space or secret societies or ... his main choice being space. Now, I disagree. It seems Judaism has four interpretations : "angels taking risks" (as in book of Henoch), Sethite marrying outside Sethite pious society (think if a believer married a witch and this allowed demons to influence offspring), Cainites marrying outside Cainite pious society (same thing, but considering the line of Cain as a pious one), and tyrants "chosing" brides against the will of the concerned or their parents. Christianity has two traditions, these being the first two, and St Augustine being a main promoter of the Sethite view, and casting Cainite society as the impious one, with the impious women who seduced Sethites.

I tend to the angelic view, note that angels don't have bodies (a position considered as sententia certa among Roman Catholics of the Latin rite) meaning the fallen angels impregnating women would be using human semen also gathered by illicit seductions of human - males. Alternatively, angels have ethereal bodies, really did change them to material ones and DNA appearing as part of that process, and women were mating with something biologically nearly human, though immortal and not meant to do that kind of thing.

In any case other than the last one, either Sethites marrying witches or fallen angels acting as inseminators, the exceptional powers of Nephelim could be due to some covenant with demons rather than biological factors. Those of Samson were due to a covenant with God, I tend to think those of Theseus and Hercules were due to a covenant with the devil, and such things would be possible before the Flood too.
4) b) I'll take this line from Noah and the Ark :

[19] And the waters prevailed beyond measure upon the earth: and all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered. [20] The water was fifteen cubits higher than the mountains which it covered.

The Abrahamic society which transmitted this were probably not well aware of the entire globe's geography with Australia and Americas. But Noah would have been very well aware of pre-Flood geography. Hence, if he built the Ark on THE then highest mountain, which would make sense, so you don't bump into it from below as waters rise, he would have known water covered it as well as all lower ones. The Abrahamic society transmitting this would not have been great boat builders, but Noah would have been able to know the waterline was going to be 15 cubits, from shape and weight of Ark with all load. Thus, when they felt the Ark moving, they knew the Ark was having a 15 cubit water line at a height of at least 15 cubits and an inch, or more - i e, at least 15 cubits higher water than the presumably flat mountain top.

One can add that details on this verse pair:

[11] And the earth was corrupted before God, and was filled with iniquity. [12] And when God had seen that the earth was corrupted (for all flesh had corrupted its way upon the earth,)

were probably preserved (with erroneous addition of polytheism and of too direct identification with India) in Mahabharata, where things are mentioned that indicate nuke wars were part of the horrors.
4) c) I don't know what word you would use for "rocket" if you had to describe it in a language which lacked the word and you were not allowed to use the word "rocket" as such.

For firework rockets, three known words are "rochetta" meaning distaff (because of shape), "fusée" meaning pommel part of a sword (because of shape), and "pyraulos/piravlos" meaning fireflute, because of shape and function. I don't know what the Chinese word for rocket is. Or what it meant prior to meaning rocket.

Our space rockets take the word from the firework rockets. But suppose a space rocket were the primary factor. How would you describe it? For me, a "tower" would be a very good approximation. And if it were a three step rocket, ONLY the top would be meant to reach heaven or space. If we take a look at Mahabharata and its indication there was a pre-Flood nuke war, Nimrod, but not all those transmlitting the text, would have been aware of expolsive potential of Uranium - a very bad rocket fuel. Not ideal to handle as liquid Oxygen and Hydrogen are. So ... making sure this stopped would have saved then and there the world from a second nuke disaster and also prepared these latter day perhaps a bit safer experiments in rocketry.

Hoping to not have strayed outside the boundaries of Orthodoxy, I will now enjoy the contributor number 4.

Hans Georg Lundahl
St Maur
St. Stanislaus of Krakow
7.V.2018

Sancti Stanislai, Episcopi Cracoviensis et Martyris, qui sequenti die coronam martyrii consecutus est. .... Cracoviae, in Polonia, natalis sancti Stanislai, Episcopi et Martyris, qui a Boleslao, impio Rege, necatus est. Ipsius autem festum pridie hujus diei celebratur.

The reason we celebrate St Stanislas today rather than tomorrow is, tomorrow's main feast is St Michael's Apparition on Mt Gargano.

Creation vs. Evolution

Pages