Fr. Vigoroux on Fathers - is Day-Epoch Still an Option?

David Palm, a fairly devout Novus Ordo Catholic or Vatican II Catholic, or perhaps rather Fr. Robinson, whoever of them is writing "The Realist Guide", has done us the favour to quote Fr. Fulcran Vigoroux, a Sulpician.

We have mentioned that Saint Augustine and the Venerable Bede said that the seventh day did not have an evening; but neither of them held nor suspected the idea of what is today called the day-epoch. All the efforts that have been made to interpret some texts of the Bishop of Hippo in this sense have been fruitless. How could he have maintained that the six days of Genesis designated a long space of time when he taught that they only signified an instant? Several passages of the Fathers that we have cited[viii] attest that they saw clearly that the Bible uses the word ‘day’ in an indefinite sense. But, because of the level of science at their time, they could not have imagined making an application of this sense to the first chapter of Genesis. We cannot doubt, however, that many of them, in conformity with their principles, would have adopted the system of the day-epoch, if they lived today.

From : The Fathers' Understanding of Genesis 1
29 novembre 2018 | Religion article
https://therealistguide.com/blog/f/the-fathers-understanding-of-genesis-1

So, back in his day, one may presume, day-epoch was an option, somewhat attractive to someone considering the Bible inerrant, but the sense of the word "day" in Genesis 1 pliable in other directions than just to infinitely shorter. In his day? He lived in 1837-1915. This was before carbon dating.

Why is the significant? Because his main clue for deep time would have been "pre-Flood cataclysms" (Cuvier style) and stellar distances as well as star formation. Grant him six days as being millions or perhaps even billions of years long, and presumably, he would carry on Biblical chronology from Creation of Adam as previously.

Note very well, that for post-Creation Biblical history, there is no such thing as a deep divergence between two groups of Fathers.

Sure, for up to Creation of Adam and Eve, you have the one moment school and the literal six days school (which is actually the more common one). But from Creation of Adam and Eve on, you have all Church Fathers united in one school : it happened as the Bible says it did. In normal years. You have somewhat different schools on how much time between Creation and Christ, you have St Hippolytus and a school represented by George Syncellus and the Byzantines saying that the lapse was 5500 years, you have one Antiochene claiming a somewhat longer space of time (5600 years) and so on. But you don't find one single father attacking the completeness of the geneaology in Luke 3 ... by the way, this is a thing which can be proven or disproven, by going to Catena Aurea.

Thomas Aquinas THE CATENA AUREA
GOSPEL OF SAINT LUKE CHAPTER III
https://dhspriory.org/thomas/english/CALuke.htm#3

And we scroll down to the red in verses 23 to 38. Then the comments below that. In the following, I am quoting, but giving each author separately, instead of long paragraphs with several:

ORIGEN;

Having related our Lord’s baptism, he next enters upon the generation of the Lord, not bringing it down from the higher to the lower, but beginning with Christ, he carries it up to God Himself. Hence he says, And Jesus Himself began. For when He was baptized, and had Himself undergone the mystery of the second birth, then He is said to have begun, that you also mightiest destroy this first birth and be born in the second.

GREG. NAZ.

We must therefore consider who He was who was baptized, and by whom and when: seeing He was pure, baptized by John, and at a time when His miracles had begun, that we might thence derive the lesson of purifying ourselves beforehand, and of embracing humility, and of not beginning to preach until the maturity of our spiritual and natural life. The first of these was said for their sakes who are receiving baptism; for although the gift of baptism brings remission, yet we must fear lest we return again to our vomit. The second is pointed at those who exalt themselves against the stewards of the mysteries, whom they may excel in rank. The third was uttered for those who trust in their youth, and imagine that any age is fit for promotion and teaching. Jesus is cleansed, and cost you despise purification? By John, and cost you say ought against your teacher. At thirty years old, but cost you in teaching precede your elders? But the example of Daniel and the like are ready in your mouth, for every guilty person is ready with an answer. But that is not the law of the Church which seldom happens, as neither does a single swallow make the spring.

CHRYS.

Or, He waited accomplishing the whole law until that age which takes in every sin, that none might say that He abrogated the law because He was not able to fulfill it.

GREEK EX.

For this reason also He came at thirty years to be baptized, to show that spiritual regeneration makes men perfect as far as regards their spiritual life.

BEDE;

The thrice ten years also which our Savior had passed when He was baptized might intimate also the mystery of our baptism, because of the faith in the Trinity, and the obedience to the Decalogue.

GREG. NAZ.

Still must a child be baptized if necessity demands it. For it is better to be insensibly sanctified, than to pass from this life unsealed. But you will say, Christ is baptized at thirty years old, and He was Clod, but you bid us to hasten our baptism. In that you said God, the objection was done away: He needed no cleansing, nor was any danger hanging over Him while He put off His baptism. But with you it extends to no slight calamity, if you pass from this life born in corruption, but not if you have put on the robe of incorruption. And truly it is a blessed thing to keep unsullied the clean robe of baptism, but it is better at times to be slightly stained, than to be altogether devoid of grace.

CYRIL;

Although in truth Christ had no father according to the flesh, yet some fancied he had a father. Hence it follows, As was supposed the son of Joseph.

AMBROSE;

Rightly as was supposed, since in reality He was not, but was supposed to be so, because Mary who was espoused to Joseph was His mother. But we might doubt why the descent of Joseph is described rather than that of Mary, (seeing that Mary brought forth Christ of the Holy Spirit, while Joseph seemed to be out of the line of our Lord’s descent,) were we not informed of the custom of the Holy Scripture, which always seeks the origin of the husband, and especially in this case, since in Joseph’s descent we also find that of Mary. For Joseph being a just man took a wife really from his own tribe and country, and so at the time of the taxing Joseph went up from the family and country of David to be taxed with Mary his wife. She who gives in the returns from the same family and country, shows herself to be of that family and country. Hence He goes on in the descent of Joseph, and adds, Who was the son of Eli. But let us consider the fact, that St. Matthew makes Jacob, who was the father of Joseph, to be son of Nathan, but Luke says that Joseph (to whom Mary was espoused) was the son of Eli. How then could there be two fathers, (namely, Eli and Jacob,) to one man.

GREG. NAZ.

But some say that there is one succession from David to Joseph, which each Evangelist relates under different names. But this is absurd, since at the beginning of this genealogy, two brothers come in Nathan and Salomon, from whom the lines are carried in different ways.

EUSEBIUS.

Let us then more carefully explain the meaning of the words themselves. For if when Matthew affirmed Joseph to be the son of Jacob, Luke had in like manner affirmed that Joseph was the son of Eli, there would be some dispute. But seeing the case is that Matthew gives his opinion, Luke repeats the common opinion of many, not his own, saying, as was supposed, I do not think that there is any room for doubt. For since there were among the Jews different opinions of the genealogy of Christ, and yet all traced Him up to David because to him the promises were made, while many affirmed that Christ would come through Solomon and the other kings, some shunned this opinion because of the many crimes related of their kings, and because Jeremiah said of Jechonias that “a man should not rise of his seed to sit on the throne of David.” This last view Luke takes, though conscious that Matthew gives the real truth of the genealogy. This is the first reason. The next is a deeper one. For Matthew when he began to write of the things before the conception of Mary and the birth of Jesus in the flesh, very fitly as in a history commences with the ancestry in the flesh, and descending from thence deduces His generation from those who went before. For when the Word of God became flesh, He descended. But Luke hastens forward to the regeneration which takes place in baptism, and then gives another succession of families, and rising up from the lowest to the highest, keeps out of sight those sinners of whom Matthew makes mention, (because that he who is born again in God is separated from his guilty parents, being made the son of God,) and relates those who have led a virtuous life in the sight of God. For thus it was said to Abraham, You shall set out to your fathers, not fathers in the flesh, but in God, on account of their likeness in virtue. To him therefore who is born in God he ascribes parents who are according to God on account of this resemblance in character.

AUG.

Or in another way; Matthew descends from David through Salomon to Joseph: but Luke beginning from Eli, who was in the line of our Savior, ascends through the line of; Nathan the son of David, and joins the tribes of Eli and Joseph, showing that they are both of the same family, and thereby that the Savior was not only the Son of Joseph, but also of Eli. For by the same reason by which the Savior is called the son of Joseph, he is also the son of Eli, and of all the rest who are of the same tribe. Hence that which the Apostle says, Of whom are the fathers, and from whom. Christ came according to the flesh.

AUG.

Or there occur three reasons, by one of which the Evangelist was led. For either one Evangelist has mentioned the father by whom Joseph was, begotten, but the other his maternal grandfather, or some one of his ancestors. Or one of the fathers mentioned was the natural father of Joseph, the other his father who had adopted him. Or after the manner of the Jews, when a man has died without children, the next of kin taking his wife ascribes to his dead kinsman the son whom he has himself begotten.

AMBROSE;

For it is related that Matthas, who was descended from Salomon, begat Jacob as his son, and died leaving his wife living, whom Melchi took unto him as wife, and from her Eli was born. Again, Eli, when his brother Jacob died without children, was joined to his brother’s wife, and begot a son Joseph, who according to law is called the son of Jacob, since Eli raised up seed to his deceased brother, according to the: order of the ancient law.

BEDE;

Or else, Jacob, taking the wife of his brother Eli who had died without children according to the command of the law, begot Joseph, by natural parentage his own son, but by the ordinance of the law the son of Eli.

AUG.

It is most probable that Luke took the origin by adoption, as not being willing to say that Joseph, was begotten by him whose son he related him to be. For more easily is a man said to be his son by whom he was adopted, than to be begotten by him from whose flesh he was not born. But Matthew saying, “Abraham begat Isaac, and Isaac begat Jacob,” and continuing in the word “begat,” until at last he says, but “Jacob begat Joseph,” has sufficiently expressed that he has carried through the succession of the fathers, to that father by whom Joseph was not adopted, but begotten. Although even supposing that Luke should say that Joseph was begotten by Eli, neither ought that word to perplex us. For it is not absurd to say that a man has begotten not in the flesh but in love the Son whom he has adopted. But rightly has Luke taken the origin by adoption, for by adoption are we made the sons of God, by believing on the Son of God, but by His birth in the flesh, the Son of God has rather for our sakes become the Son of man.

CHRYS

But because this part of the Gospel consists of a series of names, men think there is nothing valuable to be derived therefrom. Lest then we should feel this, let us try to examine every step. For from the mere name we may extract an abundant treasure, for names are indicative of many things. For they savor of the Divine mercy and the offerings of thanks by women, who when they obtained sons gave a name significant of the gift.

GLOSS.

By interpretation then Eli means, “My God,” or “climbing”; Who was the son of Matthat, i.e. “forgiving sins.” Who was as the son of Levi, i.e. “being added.”

AMBROSE;

Luke rightly thought, seeing that he could not embrace more of the sons of Jacob, lest he should seem to be wandering from the line of descent in a superfluous course, that the ancient names of the Patriarchs though occurring in others far later, Joseph Judah, Simeon, and Levi, should not be omitted. For we recognize in these four kinds of virtue; in Judah, the mystery of our Lord’s Passion prophesied by figure; in Joseph, an example of chastity going before; in Simeon the punishment of injured modesty; in Levi, the priestly office. Hence it follows, Who was the son of Melchi, i.e. “my King.” Who was the son of Janna, i.e. “a right hand”. Who was the son of Joseph, i.e. “growing up,” but this was a different Joseph. Who was the son of Mattathias, i.e. “the gift of God,” or “sometimes.” Who was the son of Amos, i.e. “loading, or he loaded.” Who was the son of Naum i.e. “help me.” Who was the son of Matthat i.e. “desire.” Who was the son of Mattathias, as above. Who was the son of Simei, i.e. “obedient.” Who was the son of Joseph, i.e. “increase.” Who was the son of Judah, i.e. “confessing.” Joanna, “the Lord, his grace,” or “the gracious Lord.” Resa, “merciful.” Zorobabel, “chief or master of Babylon.” Salathiel, “God my petition.” Neri, “my lanthern.” Melchi, “my kingdom.” Addi, “strong or violent.” Cosam, “divining.” Her, “watching, or watch, or of skins.” Who was the son of Jesus i.e. “Savior.” Eliezer, i. e. “God my helper.” Joarim, i.e. “God exalting, or, is exalting.” Matthat, as above. Levi, as above. Simeon, i.e. “He has heard the sadness, or the sign.” Juda, as above. Joseph, as above. Jonah, a dove, or wailing. Eliachim, i.e. “the resurrection of God.” Melchi, i.e. “his king.” Menan, i.e. “my bowels.” Mattathias, i.e. “gift.” Nathan, i.e. “He gave, or, of giving.”

AMBROSE;

But by Nathan we perceive expressed the dignify of Prophecy, that as Christ Jesus alone fulfilled all things, in each of His ancestors different kinds of virtue might precede Him. It follows, Who was the son of David.

ORIGEN;

The Lord descending into the world took upon Him the person of all sinners, and was willing to be born of the stock of Solomon, (as Matthew relates,) whose sins have been written down, and of the rest, many of whom did evil in the sight of God. But when He ascended, and is described as being born a second time in baptism, (as Luke relates,) He is not born through Salomon, but Nathan, who reproves the father for the death of Uriah, and the birth of Solomon.

AUG.

But it must be confessed that a prophet of this same name reproves David, that he might be thought to be the same man, whereas he was different.

GREG. NAZ.

From David upwards according to each Evangelist there is an unbroken line of descent; as it follows, Who was the son of Jesse.

GLOSS.

David is interpreted, “with a mighty arm, strong in fight.” Obith, i.e. “slavery.” Booz, i.e. “strong.” Salmon, i.e. “capable of feeling, or peacemaking.” Naasson, i.e. “augury, or belonging to serpents.” Aminadal, “the people being willing.” Aram, i.e. “upright, or lofty.” Esro1n, i.e. “an arrow.” Phares, i.e. “division.” Judah, i.e. “confessing.” Who was the son of Jacob, i.e. “supplanted.” Isaac, i.e. “laughing or joy.” Abraham, i.e. “the father of many nations, or the people.”

CHRYS.

Matthew, who wrote as for the Jews, had no further object than to show that Christ proceeded from Abraham and David, for this was most grateful to the Jews. Luke however, as speaking to all men in common, carried his account beyond as far even as Adam. Hence it follows, Who was the son of Thara.

GLOSS.

Which is interpreted, “finding out,” or “wickedness.” Nachor, i.e. “the light rested.” Sarug, i.e. “correction,” or “holding the reins,” or “perfection.” Ragan, i.e. “sick,” or “feeding.” Phares, i.e. “dividing,” or “divided.” Heber, i.e. “passing over.” Sala, i.e. “taking away.” Canuan, i.e. “lamentation,” or “their possession.”

BEDE;

The name and generation of Cainan, according to the Hebrew reading, is found neither in Genesis, nor in the Chronicles, but Arphaxad is states to have begot Sala his son, without any one intervening. Know then that Luke borrowed this generation from the Septuagint, where it is written, that Arphaxad at a hundred and thirty-five years old begot Cainan, but he at a hundred and thirty years begot Sala. It follows, Who was the son of Arphaxad.

GLOSS.

i.e. “healing the laying waste.” Sem, i.e. “a name,” or being “named.” Who was the son of Noah, i.e. “rest.”

AMBROSE;

The mention of just Noah ought not to be omitted among our Lord’s generations, that as our Lord was born the builder of His Church, He might seem to have sent Noah beforehand, the author of His race, who had before founded the Church under the type of an ark. Who was the son of Lambech.

GLOSS.

i.e. “humility, or striking, or struck, or humble.” Who was the son of Mathusalem, i.e. “the sending forth of death,” or “he died,” also “he asked.”

AMBROSE;

His years are numbered beyond the deluge that since Christ is the only one whose life experiences no age, in His ancestors also He might seem to have felt not the deluge. Who was the son of Enoch. And here is a manifest declaration of our Lord’s piety and divinity, since our Lord neither experienced death, and returned to heaven, the founder of whose race was taken up into heaven. Whence it is plain that Christ could not die, but was willing that His death should profit us. And Enoch indeed was taken, that his heart might not change by wickedness, but the Lord, whom the wickedness of the world could not change, returned to that place whence He had come by the greatness of His own nature.

BEDE;

But rightly rising up from the baptized Son of God to God the Father, he places Enoch in the seventy seventh step, who, having put off death, was translated unto Paradise, that he might signify that those, who by the grace of adoption of sons are born again of water and the Holy Spirit, are in the mean time (after the dissolution of the body) to be received into eternal rest, for the number seventy, because of the seventh of the sabbath, signifies the rest of those who, the grace of God assisting them, have fulfilled the decalogue of the law.

GLOSS;

Enoch is interpreted “dedication.” Jared, i.e. descending or “holding together.” Malaleleel, i.e. “the praised of God,” or “praising God.” Cainan, as above. Enos, i.e. “man,” or “despairing,” or “violent.” Seth, i.e. “placing,” “settling,” “he has placed.” Seth, the last son of Adam, is not omitted, that as there were two generations of people, it might be signified under a figure that Christ was to be reckoned rather in the last than the first.

It follows, Who was the son of Adam.

GLOSS.

Which is “man,” or “of the earth,” or “needy.” Who was the son of God.

AMBROSE;

What could better agree than that the holy generation should commence from the Son of God, and be carried up even to the Son of God; and that he who was created should precede in a figure, in order that he who was born might follow in substance, so that he who was made after the image of God might go before, for whose sake the image of God was to descend. For Luke thought that the origin of Christ should be referred to God, because God is the true progenitor of Christ, or the Father according to the true birth, or the Author of the mystical gift according to baptism and regeneration, and therefore he did not from the first begin to describe His generation, but not till after he had unfolded His baptism, that both by nature and by grace he might declare Him to be the Son of God. But what more evident sign of His divine generation than that when about to speak of it St. Luke introduces first the Father, saying, You are my beloved Son?

AUG.

He sufficiently declared by this that he called not Joseph the son of Eli because he was begotten by him, but rather because he was adopted by him, for he has called also Adam himself son, since though made by God, yet by grace (which he forfeited by sin) he was placed as a son in paradise.

THEOPHYL.

For this reason he closes the generations in God, that we may learn that those fathers who intervene, Christ will raise up to God, and make them sons of God, and that it might be believed also that the birth of Christ was without seed; as if he said, If you believes” not that the second Adam was made without seed, you must come to the first Adam, and you will find that he was made by God without seed.

AUG.

Matthew indeed wished to set forth God descending to our mortality; accordingly at the beginning of the Gospel he recounted the generations from Abraham to the birth of Christ in a descending scale. But Luke, not at the beginning, but after the baptism of Christ, relates the generation not descending but ascending, as if marking out rather the high priest in the expiation of sins, of whom John bore testimony, saying, Behold, who takes away the sins of the world. But by ascending he comes to God, to whom we are reconciled, being cleansed and expiated.

AMBROSE;

Nor do the Evangelists seem so to differ who have followed the old order, nor can you wonder if from Abraham down to Christ there are more successions according to Luke, fewer according to Matthew, since you must admit the line to have been traced through different persons. But it might be that some men have passed a very long life, but the men of the next generation have died at an early age, since we see how many old men live to see their grandchildren, while others depart as soon as they have sons born to them.

AUG.

But most fitly with regard to our baptized Lord does Luke reckon the generations through seventy-seven persons. For both the ascent to God is expressed, to whom we are reconciled by the abolition of sins, and by baptism is brought to man the remission of all his sins, which are signified by that number. For eleven times seven are seventy-seven. But by the tenth number is meant perfect happiness. Hence it is plain that the going beyond the tenth marks the sin of one through pride coveting to have more. But this is said to be seven times to signify that the transgression was caused by the moving of man. For by the third number the immortal part of man is represented, but by the fourth the body. But motion is not expressed in numbers, as when we say, one, two, three; but when we say, once, twice, thrice. And so by seven times eleven, is signified a transgression wrought by man’s action.

So, Fathers are NOT willing to consider genealogy of Luke 3 as fragmentary. From Adam on, Biblical chronology holds.

Presumably, it did so for Fr. Vigoroux too.

Now, of the methods that are used to make time look older than 5500 BC, catastrophism or even uniformitarianism as to geology are far from precise. The most precise method we have now, at least relatively, is Carbon 14. And it is either a test for Biblical chronology, or Biblical chronology is a test for it.

5500 BC as archaeology dates with carbon 14, no wait, the wiki article actually goes about all of 6th millennium BC:

Near East

c. 6000 BC: The Chalcolithic comes to the Fertile Crescent. (Roux 1980) First use of copper in Near East.[2]

c. 6000 BC: Brick building was taking place at modern-day Çatalhöyük, Turkey.[3][page needed]

Agriculture appears in the Nile valley.

c. 6000 BC–5900 BC: Earliest evidence of wine, Georgia.[4]

c. 5800 BC: The Hassuna culture in Mesopotamia (t. 5500 BC), with the earliest version of stamp seals. (Roux 1980)

c. 5500 BC: Beginning of Tell Zeidan in Syria (Ubaid).

c. 6th millennium BC: Beginning of Teppe Hasanlu in Iran.

c. 6th millennium BC: Beginning of Zayandeh River Culture in Iran, including Sialk.

c. 5500 BC–4800 BC: Samarra culture at Mesopotamia (present day Iraq) begins (c. 5700 BC – 4900 BC C-14, 6640 BC – 5816 BC calBC).

c. 5400 BC: Irrigation and the beginning of the Sumerian civilization in Southern Iraq.

c. 5100 BC: Temples founded in southern Mesopotamia.

c. 5000 BC: Metsamor Armenia neolithic stone circles.

Europe

Main article: Neolithic Europe

c. 6000 BC: Fully Neolithic agriculture has spread through Anatolia to the Balkans. (1967 McEvedy)

c. 6000 BC: Cycladic culture begin to use a coarse local type of clay to make a variety of objects.

c. 6000 BC: Female figurines holding serpents are fashioned on Crete and may have been associated with water, regenerative power and protection of the home.

c. 5900 BC: Vinča culture emerges on the shores of lower Danube.

c. 5900 BC: Beginning of human inhabitation in Malta.[5]

c. 5500 BC: Beginning of the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture in the region of modern-day Romania, Moldova, and southwestern Ukraine.

c. 5500 BC: Earliest evidence of cheese-making (Kujawy, Poland).[6]

c. 5500 BC Danubian culture

c. late 6th and early 5th millennium BC: Beginning of Samara culture at the Samara bend region of the middle Volga, Russia.

South Asia

c. 6000 BC: Junglefowl kept in India.

c. 5500 BC: Pottery at Mehrgarh in current-day Balochistan, Pakistan.

China

c. 5800 BC: Beginning of the Dadiwan culture in China.

c. 5500 BC: Beginning of the Xinle culture in China.

c. 5400 BC: Beginning of the Zhaobaogou culture in China.

c. 5300 BC: Beginning of the Beixin culture in China.

c. 5000 BC: Beginning of the Hemudu culture in China, cultivation of rice.[7]

c. 5000 BC: Beginning of the Daxi culture in China.

c. 5000 BC: Beginning of the Majiabang culture in China.

c. 5000 BC: Beginning of the Yangshao culture in China.

New World

The oldest forms of Sydney rock engravings are estimated to date to 6000 BC (Sydney, Australia).[8]

c. 5600 BC: The Red Paint People become established in the region from present-day Labrador to the state of New York.

c. 5000 BC: Agriculture may have begun in the Americas.[3][page needed]

In other words, if the carbon dates are absolutely correct, Adam would be only a small trickling contribution in the world population overall at the time. And we can just forget about him having lived in a world where four rivers came from a common source, two of them being Euphrates and Tigris.

On the other hand, if the carbon dates are only relatively correct, there is a way of fitting this into Biblical chronology. All of this is after Babel, but before Genesis 13 and Genesis 14. Here are values from my table:

2327 BC

62.622 pmc, 6177 BC

Serug *

2294 BC

2288 BC

64.991 pmc, 5838 BC

...

2209 BC

69.694 pmc, 5209 BC

Eber +

2186 BC

2170 BC

72.031 pmc, 4870 BC

For the 1307 years between 6177 and 4870 BC, you have only 157 years between 2327 and 2170 BC. We are talking of birth of Serug and death of Eber.

In case you are very new to my blog, you may wonder what three decimal pmc values are about. They are the reconstructed level of carbon 14 back in that year on the atmosphere. They determine how much "instant age" a sample from then would have had. Example:

2327 BC, the carbon level was 62.622 pmc, that is the proportion of carbon 14 in relation to carbon 12 was 62.622 percent of the present value. This means 3850 extra years. If you add 3850 to the real date 2327 BC, you get 3850 + 2327 = "6177 BC" as the carbon date. Some of them - in fact all four of these - are my intercalations. Some are however built on a realistic correspondence of carbon dated such and such with Biblically dated so and so. The intercalated values are based on these. As carbon level rose, extra years decreased down to none, when carbon level reached present level (after Exodus).

Creation vs. Evolution : Refining table Flood to Abraham - and a doubt
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2018/05/refining-table-flood-to-abraham-and.html

So, no, we cannot have a pre-Adam day-epoch style "day six" in 6000 BC, we need to have the "6000 BC" in post-Adam, that is, with inflated carbon dates. Therefore, it makes sense to question the less precise methods also, on which Fr. Vigoroux relied too much.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St. Melchiad, Pope and Martyr
10.XII.2018

PS. After reviewing the post where I go the overall site in the first place, David Palm was saying it was Father Paul Robertson, I missed it./HGL