CMI Back to Good Articles Today!

Creation vs. Evolution : CMI Back to Good Articles Today! · Great Bishop of Geneva! : Got Questions? "what are the differences", and a Catholic answer

Here, have a nice Don Batten:

Dogs breeding dogs? That’s not evolution!
by Don Batten | This article is from
Creation 18(2):20–23, March 1996
https://creation.com/dogs-breeding-dogs

Sure, it's a few decades since first publication, but it is still a good one.

Now, yesterday, by contrast ... imagine you had a friend or relative, usually a sober and intelligent person. But once or twice every half year or three months, that person will have a binge of two bottles same evening, and not beer or cider and not halfbottles either.

That's a bit how I feel about some words by Derek Moore-Crispin:

Rest, Revival, and Creation, Genesis negates evolutionary compromise
by Derek Moore-Crispin, Published: 28 July 2020 (GMT+10)
https://creation.com/rest-revival-and-creation

Five hundred years ago Martin Luther brought the Gospel of justification by faith back to the Church. Why did he need to do that? Because the Roman church had transmuted the simple Gospel of faith in Jesus and his finished work on the cross into a works-based religion, with the power of absolution from sin vested in the hands of the priesthood. Martin Luther lived one and a half millennia after Jesus Christ. So where did he get his message from? From the Bible! Why did he attribute greater authority to the Bible than to a thousand years and more of Church tradition? Because the Bible is God’s definitive and final word, written down. But why had the Church departed from the truth in the first place?

Yes, let's look at the last question again:

But why had the Church departed from the truth in the first place?

This is in fact clearly anti-Biblical. Matthew 28:20 says:

Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

So, the order to keep all truth is accompanied by a promise spanning all days. This promise is given to the highest clergy Christ had chosen:

And the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them.

And, since Derek Moore-Crispin considers it an aberration of the Church to have "the power of absolution from sin vested in the hands of the priesthood" - let's check what the Bible says about the first Catholic bishops (except Judas the traitor, and on this occasion also Thomas who was absent), from John 20:

[19] Now when it was late that same day, the first of the week, and the doors were shut, where the disciples were gathered together, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst, and said to them: Peace be to you. [20] And when he had said this, he shewed them his hands and his side. The disciples therefore were glad, when they saw the Lord. [21] He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. [22] When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. [23] Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained. [24] Now Thomas, one of the twelve, who is called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.

Did only the ten get this power of forgiving sins or retaining sins? Or did Thomas get it too?

Could he get it from them or only directly from Jesus?

Could Matthias (Acts 1) get it from them, now that Jesus was not around in the Holy Land, but already up in Heaven?

Tradition says, Matthias could and did and so did the 72. But even from the Bible, the verse I cited first should make it clear : the power of forgiving or retaining sins did not belong to all faithful indiscriminately, and is around "all days" together with the command of teaching all truth and justice which Christ commanded them.

Was the "Gospel of faith in Jesus and his finished work on the cross" simple? Not really, you need to walk a "Romans road" with one in the Protestant tradition to get it, you also need to ignore the injunction to walk in good works, Ephesians 2:

[8] For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God; [9] Not of works, that no man may glory. [10] For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus in good works, which God hath prepared that we should walk in them.

Anything Catholics do which Derek would consider "a works-based religion" really boils down to the requirement that now that we are created in Christ Jesus, we also do walk in good works. No, Martin Luther did not get his message from the Bible, he got it from a misreading of the Bible, as erroneous as - claiming the Flood never happened.

You also need to ignore James 2:

17 So faith also, if it have not works, is dead in itself.

Here is Romans 3:28, Douay Rheims:

For we account a man to be justified by faith, without the works of the law.

Here is the same verse (if you can call it that) in the Lutherbible of 1545:

So halten wir nun dafür, daß der Mensch gerecht werde ohne des Gesetzes Werke, allein durch den Glauben.

Spot the intruder, if you know German!

Here is an English translation of a relevant paragraph from his Sendbrief vom Dolmetschen:

I know very well that in Romans 3 the word solum is not in the Greek or Latin text — the papists did not have to teach me that. It is fact that the letters s-o-l-a are not there. And these blockheads stare at them like cows at a new gate, while at the same time they do not recognize that it conveys the sense of the text -- if the translation is to be clear and vigorous [klar und gewaltiglich], it belongs there. I wanted to speak German, not Latin or Greek, since it was German I had set about to speak in the translation. But it is the nature of our language that in speaking about two things, one which is affirmed, the other denied, we use the word allein [only] along with the word nicht [not] or kein [no]. For example, we say "the farmer brings allein grain and kein money"; or "No, I really have nicht money, but allein grain"; I have allein eaten and nicht yet drunk"; "Did you write it allein and nicht read it over?" There are countless cases like this in daily usage.

Farmer's grain will do. Let's compare the "works of the law" - old law - as like to the money, barren in itself.

Luther wants to apply this to all he wants to consider as "works" in the Catholic religion, but even so keeps a lot of things others would call "works".

He misses that by doing so, as he cannot show any unbroken Church tradition polemising against Roman Catholicism like he does, same issues, not others like Photius on procession of the Holy Spirit, Caerularius on Eucharist in unleavened bread, if indeed unlike Photius and Caerularius he could not remotely even realistically pretend there was one, his Christianity cannot be the one of Matthew 28:20.

What I require is not the visibility of a building, but of a people. Protestants of a certain type here would like to obfsucate the issue and compare "organisation" to "building". No, the Cathedral of Lund and the parish Church of Wittenberg were Catholic buildings in 1500, but no longer in 1600 (like Notre Dame in 1900 but no longer in 2000), so buildings are not the point. I want the visibility of a people, and Christ did organise His people as a Church with clergy.

Now this is said, go back and read some good articles on CMI, but I'd prefer if they ditched the Reformation binges that recur from time to time.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
King St. Olaf II of Norway
29.VII.2020

PS, one more blooper by Derek:

The rediscovery at the Reformation of the God of the Bible (the true God) encouraged the view that, if God is the Supreme Mind, the Supreme Reasoner, then he must have created a rational world.

Er, he has not heard about St. Thomas Aquinas or the Scholastics, something? Or are they just incapable of imagining rational science without Heliocentrism, which like Evolution was first promoted widely by Protestants?/HGL

Value of 3 pmC Points?

What Happened with the Carbon 14 over Created Time? · Value of 3 pmC Points?

It depends on where in the scale the 3 pmC points are.

The 3 between 97 and 100? 250 years.

3 pmC only in the sample? 29 000 years.

The three between 3 and 6 pmC? One halflife, 5730 years.

29 000 - 23 250 = 5750.

The three between 1 and 4 pmC? Two halflives, one between 1 and 2, another between 2 and 4. 11 460 years.

38 100 (for 1 pmC) - 26 600 (for 4 pmC) = 11 500 years.

Between 0.5 and 3.5?

43 800 - 27 700 = 16 100.

This is because any division and multiplication of the halflife corresponds to a root extraction or a power of 0.5.

16 100 / 5730 = 2.80977312391

0.5^{2.80977312391} = 0.1426178906

3.5 * 0.1426178906 = 0.4991626171 (0.5)

43 800 / 5730 = 7.64397905759

0.5^{7.64397905759} = 0.00499957419 (0.005)

Remember, when I say carbon dates as far back as 43 800 BP are wrong dates, I am not saying the scientists are wrong in the least thousandth of a pmC point on what is left in the sample. I am saying, as they must be wrong (see Bible), they must be wrong in guessing the original pmC content was around 100 pmC.

That's where my work comes in.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Sts Nazarius and Celsus of Milan
boy martyrs
28.VII.2020

Mediolani natalis sanctorum Martyrum Nazarii, et Celsi pueri, quos Anolinus, sub rabie persecutionis quae per Neronem excitata est, diu maceratos et afflictos in carcere, gladio feriri jussit.

PS, my latest version of original pmC points and correspondence between Biblical (real) dates and (often inflated inflated) carbon dates, from Flood to Temple of Solomon, are available in French: Tables de carbone 14 sur les bases révisées (I - VI), Tables continués (VI - IX)/HGL

Checked Since Yesterday

Sobekemhat instead of Imhotep? Sesostris III instead of Djoser? · Checked Since Yesterday

If V in my tables* (Joseph in Egypt, given at its most recent as 1700 BC), is instead of Djoser Sesostris III, we get:

1935 BC (Genesis 14), dated as 3500 BC, 1565 extra years divide into 1432 and 133 years** for which the fractions of 1 mC (1 modern Carbon) multiply to 0.82736 (which = 82.736 pmC).

235 years later we have 1700 dated as 1838, 138 is not far from 133 (0.9839).

230 years later than that we have 1470, Joshua taking Jericho, 80 extra years, which I approximated as 90, giving the ratio 0.98924.

Between 223 and 268 we would have with ultra short term 223 + 22 = 255, and between that and 223 we have 234. 223 has ratio 0.97331, 22 has ratio 0.9973, multiply and then use mean between that and 0.97331, gives 0.972996.

The carbon present in 1935 BC would have been 0.82736, multiply with 0.972996 and you get 0.80502 * mC. This is what would have been left with no replacement, but we get in actual fact (in this hypothesis) 0.9839.

0.9839 - 0.80502 = 0.17888

Normal replacement is 1 - 0.972996 = 0.027004.

0.17888 / 0.027004 = faster production factor of 6.624.

Between this V and VII we get no VI, and in 230 years the faster production factor is 1.18.

On the pure carbon side, not much to worry about. It is perfectly acceptable, and more regular than my own version.

My beef with this is, I want the Exodus prior to the Hyksos invasion. If Sesostris III was Joseph's Pharao rather than the child killer of Exodus 1, there is too little Egyptian history to account for the 215 years between Jacob settling in Egypt and the Exodus. Usually, there is too much.

Also, I think the tombs of Djoser and Sesostris III were preserved to carbon dating by God's providence. I wondered if Imhotep could have been the Philistine king of Gerara who made inquiries about Rebecca, but I looked up, nope, Abimelech doesn't sound the least like Imhotep. (Neither does Joseph, but making Imhotep Joseph agrees with Egyptian legend and makes the preservation of Djoser's tomb explicable by Providence).

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Alexius
17.VII.2020

* I make tables between certain pinpoints of Biblical history with matches in archaeology, from I, Flood to IX, Temple of Solomon.

** see the tables on this post:

New blog on the kid : Calculé sans le logiciel, pour carbone 14
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2020/06/calcule-sans-le-logiciel-pour-carbone-14.html

Sobekemhat instead of Imhotep? Sesostris III instead of Djoser?

Sobekemhat instead of Imhotep? Sesostris III instead of Djoser? · Checked Since Yesterday

Off the bat, while listening to Douglas Petrovich, this sounds like a strain on carbon buildup between Genesis 14 and Joseph in Egypt, plus a very stable carbon level from Joseph in Egypt to Exodus.

I prefer the idea that Sesostris III was the child killer, Amenemhat III the Pharao whose daughter picked up Moses, and Amenemhat IV* (who has no full grave but a cenotaph) was Moses. That is the hypothesis on which I model the carbon build up. I may try a modelling on this one later, tonight I am short of time.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Our Lady of Mount Carmel
16.VII.2020

* Credits to David Down, this article:
Searching for Moses
by David Down | This article is from
Journal of Creation 15(1):53–57, April 2001
https://creation.com/searching-for-moses

Why I avoid a "late" carbon date for the Flood

Citing CMI / Carl Wieland:

A sample purporting to be from the Flood era would not be expected to give a ‘radiocarbon age’ of about 5,000 years, but rather 20,000–50,000 years.

Footnote 1 on:

CMI : Radiocarbon in dino bones
International conference result censored
by Carl Wieland | Published: 22 January 2013 (GMT+10)
https://creation.com/c14-dinos

Now, 50 000 years old means 0.236 pmC remain.

20 000 years old means 8.898 pmC remain.

This means, if all of these were from the Flood, without special cases like higher pmC for radioactive contamination, or lower for reservoir effect, the carbon level in the Flood year would have had to be randomly fluctuating between 0.432 and 16.292 pmC. Not very likely to me.

My take has been, a lot reflects post-flood burials, if younger than "40 000 BP" which I take as carbon date for the Flood year, for 2957 BC. But in theory, the carbon level could have been higher than 1.5 pmC in and just before the Flood year.

After 2242 years, there should be 76.246 left of a theoretical 100 pmC. This means the replacement in that time is, since carbon level is stable, 23.754 pmC. This is the level which should have been reached, had creation day 4 started with one atom C14 and had production rate been the now normal. One factor making pre-Flood production slower would have been atmosphere being higher up and therefore Nitrogen 14 being more spare between the Oxygen and Carbon Dioxyde. But could one have reached 13 pmC? Perhaps, for the factors I know.

2240 : 10 = 224, 13 pmC : 10 = 1.3 pmC, skipping most multiples:

224 AM

1.3 pmC 35 900 extra years, dated 40 875 BC

448 AM

2.6 pmC 30 200 extra years, dated 34 951 BC

 

2240 AM

13 pmC 16 850 extra years dated 19 809 BC

Carbon dates like 40 000 BP would be so extremely early on in history, it would be unlikely Neanderthals had already racially diverged, besides, there would be quite a lot of dead people right around the time Cain killed Abel, not just one.

If you use the shorter Masoretic timeline for the pre-Flood world, you get an even shorter span of time from which skeleta dated 40 000 BP could come, even if that "is" somewhat later than the mentioned 40 000 BC. (Such dates don't really are, but they appear as carbon dates).

Therefore, I tend to "keep carbon 14 low" up to the Deluge.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Emperor St. Henry I
15.VII.2020 This gives me another problem, how do I explain fossils and fossil fuels dated later than 40 000 BP?

Would Eridu work with a LXX based chronology?

Brief answer, before even doing calculations : no, because Babel would presumably be the first post-Flood city and Göbekli Tepe is clearly gone by the even start of Eridu, and it is also pretty clearly post-Flood. I once believed Mohenjo Daro or Harappa could be remains of pre-Flood cities one of which could be Henoch in the land of Nod east of Eden. I no longer believe that, since Göbekli Tepe is not east of Eden and is older than Mohenjo Daro and Harappa.

But let's do some calculations.

We will start with a very "recent" carbon date of the Flood, 20 000 BC. We will then see how much one needs to raise the pmC for reaching lower levels of Eridu by the beginning of Babel, putting this at forty years before 529 after the Flood (full LXX, with II Cainan).

Here is a comparison between Syncellus and my usual St. Jerome (Roman Martyrology for Christmas):

Creation vs. Evolution : Syncellus A bis, B and St Jerome C & D - uncalibrated dates found, setup before making tables
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2017/03/syncellus-bis-b-and-st-jerome-c-d.html

Citing (with omission of Göbekli Tepe references):

3258 BC - Flood

2764 BC - Tower of Babel Starts

2724 BC - Confusion of Tongues

2109 BC - Abraham in En Gedi

20 000 (late carbon date for Flood) - 3258 = 16742 extra years

5300 (Eridu date for beginning of Babel) - 2764 = 2536 extra years

This is a rise from 13.196 pmC to 73.582 pmC in (3258 - 2764) = 494 years (Syncellus has Peleg born 534 after the Flood, and Arphaxad 12 after the Flood).

494 years leave 94.199 pmC and therefore normally replace 5.801 pmC.

13.196 * 94.199 / 100 = 12.4305

73.582 - 12.4305 = 61.1515

And faster factor of replacement :

61.1515 / 5.801 = 10.542.

Not worse than mine in Roman Martyrology and Göbekli Tepe.

But the problem is, as said, where does this leave Göbekli Tepe?

Eridu is left for good, and its culture leaves traces all over the Middle East. Göbekli Tepe is also left for good, and its culture leaves traces in or receives traces from as far away as Polynesia (bird man) or Australia (a symbol that looks like an oblong divided into a figure eight).

From Göbekli Tepe on you have continuous agriculture in the Middle East (while "Noah was a husbandman" probably near the landing place of the Ark, the more general economy after the Flood would have been a hunter gatherer one, as for Neanderthals prior to the Flood). You cannot put Göbekli Tepe into pre-Flood archaeology.

Some have suggested that Göbekli Tepe was the altar that Noah built, Genesis 8:20 - but why would Göbekli Tepe then portray distinctly unclean animals, like a fox? Like birds of prey?

And how come decapitated skulls are found there? Sounds more like Nimrod to me. The Jew Roger Pearlman suggested Nimrod could have perverted Göbekli Tepe after Noah built it, but before getting to Babel ... this would put very great strains on how fast carbon could rise in some ten years ...

It makes more sense, Noah built the altar near the landing place, just as later the vineyard, and we know Göbekli Tepe, unlike Eridu, is West and not South of the landing place. Which Genesis 11:1 seems to indicate.

Plus, 20 000 BC is a very recent carbon date for the Flood, with an overall span from 50 000 to 20 000 in carbon dated fossils that CMI count as from the Flood. One could explain the most recent ones either with contamination from nuclear explosions or with these coming from post-Flood landslides. Let's redo it with 30 000 BC ...

3.598 * 94.199 / 100 = 3.389

73.582 - 3.389 = 70.193

70.193 / 5.801 = 12.1 times as fast. Still feasible.

But, as said, it fails by comparison with Göbekli Tepe. Those given. Only one site earlier, to which the references on the web are now lost to me, but which is West of Euphrates and so technically not in Shinar (unless the Queik river was an older river bed for Euphrates).

Plus, Eridu starting in carbon date 5300 would be contemporary to lots of other archaeological sites:

It has been estimated that humans first settled in Malta c. 5900 BC, arriving across the Mediterranean from both Europe and North Africa.[2]

Evidence of cheese-making in Poland is dated c. 5500 BC.[3]

The Zhaobaogou culture in China began c. 5400 BC. It was in the north-eastern part of the country, primarily in the Luan River valley in Inner Mongolia and northern Hebei.[4]

Four identified cultures starting around 5300 BC were the Dnieper-Donets, the Narva (eastern Baltic), the Ertebølle (Denmark and northern Germany) and the Swifterbant (Low Countries). They were linked by a common pottery style that had spread westward from Asia and is sometimes called "ceramic Mesolithic", distinguishable by a point or knob base and flared rims.[5][6][7]

Use of pottery found near Tbilisi is evidence that grapes were being used for winemaking c. 5980 BC.[8]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6th_millennium_BC

But even worse, since clearly involved in Neolithic farming, Egypt:

Neolithic culture and technology had spread from the Near East and into eastern Europe by 6000 BC. Its development in the Far East grew apace and there is increasing evidence through the millennium of its presence in Prehistoric Egypt and the Far East.

Which however comes in after Göbekli Tepe.

This may be one reason why the RATE project has not published (as far as I know) any updated versions of the table given 2015 by Tas Walker:

CMI : A preliminary age calibration for the post-glacial-maximum period
by Tas Walker
http://creation.com/age-calibration-for-post-glacial-maximum-period

And I update and update (latest tables here : Tables de carbone 14 sur les bases révisées (I - VI) and Tables continués (VI - IX)*)

Ultimately, I think my view of what happened after the Flood makes more sense than the one of CMI - the differences are mainly in detail, but it may be important that Nimrod's realisation of a popular vote project was technocratic rather than superstitious or that Neanderthals came in both good vegetarians and evil meat eaters who also ate men ... (one of my reasons to place them before the Flood, and I presume the Neanderthal genome on the Ark came from Spain rather than Belgium).

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Pope St. Pius I
11.VII.2020

* Biblical events : I Flood, II death of Noah / beginning of Babel, III birth of Peleg / end of Babel, IV Genesis 14, V Joseph's Pharao's coffin (Djoser's), VI birth of Moses at death of Sesostris III, VII Jericho taken, VIII Troy taken, IX Temple of King Solomon). Yes, taking of Troy is not strictly Biblical, but like founding of Rome taken into account by Biblical chronologies (like when stating Christ was born 752 after founding of Rome). Not yet available in English.

Babel in Eridu?

Creation vs. Evolution: Babel in Eridu? · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Dispute with Douglas Petrovich · Babel or Exodus Myths? · Babel Skyscraper, Portal or Rocket? · Creation vs. Evolution: "On the Evolutionary Timescale" is NOT in my vocabulary

Here is wiki on dates:

Eridu appears to be the earliest settlement in the region, founded c. 5400 BC, close to the Persian Gulf near the mouth of the Euphrates River. Because of accumulation of silt at the shoreline over the millennia, the remains of Eridu are now some distance from the gulf at Abu Shahrain in Iraq. Excavation has shown that the city was founded on a virgin sand-dune site with no previous occupation. Piotr Steinkeller has hypothesised that the earliest divinity at Eridu was a Goddess, who later emerged as the Earth Goddess Ninhursag (Nin = Lady, Hur = Mountain, Sag = Sacred), with the later growth in Enki as a male divinity the result of a hieros gamos, with a male divinity or functionary of the temple.

There doesn't seem to be any ziggurat there, references to "Ziggurat of Eridu" are probably Ziggurat of Ur, quod vide. But there is an Enki Temple in Eridu, known as E-Abzu. Its levels are numbered from top or youngest to bottom or oldest, and level XVIII is dated to 5300 BC. I will suppose carbon dating is involved.

What did I just say about "Masoretic plus II Cainan"?

In Ussher (I'm supposing he does not include the II Cainan), creation is 4004 BC, Flood 1656 years later in 2344 BC, Abraham would then be born in 2052 BC, add 420, pushes Flood back to 2472 BC. Babel's [e]nd would be 2243 and Genesis 14 would be 1972 BC.

So, we would have as very lowest carbon level at "Babel" one which would date 2243 to 5300. 3067 extra years.

This is a carbon level of 69.004 pmC.

0.69004 - 0.03501593175
= 0.65502406825

Normal replacement rate in 229 years ... checking by the carbon calculator this time, would be 2.732 pmC, giving a faster factor of:

65.502406825 / 2.732
= 23.97599078514

Somewhat worse than 16.054 times as fast.

But, of course, Babel anywhere in Classic Babylonia (Sumer or Akkad) contradicts Genesis 11:1, as I have already argued:

Creation vs. Evolution : Changing the Text, NIV?
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/01/changing-text-niv.html

Creation vs. Evolution : Why N. Mesopotamia / E. Anatolia Might Fit Better then S. Mesopotamia, Genesis 11
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2018/01/why-n-mesopotamia-e-anatolia-might-fit.html

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Martyrdom of Seven Sons
of Saint Felicity
10.VII.2020

Romae passio sanctorum septem Martyrum fratrum, filiorum sanctae Felicitatis Martyris, id est Januarii, Felicis, Philippi, Silvani, Alexandri, Vitalis et Martialis, tempore Antonini Imperatoris, sub Praefecto Urbis Publio. Ex ipsis vero Januarius, post virgarum verbera et carceris macerationem, plumbatis occisus; Felix et Philippus fustibus mactati; Silvanus praecipitio interemptus; Alexander, Vitalis et Martialis capitali sententia puniti sunt.

PS, to the credit of CMI and AiG, they are not promoting "Ziggurat of Eridu" as Babel./HGL

Masoretic plus II Cainan?

Lita Cosner suggested this relation between Masoretic OT, LXX OT and NT, in answer to "Faith and Fossils" by Grabbe:

He also claims that NT quotes of the OT that are different from the MT are a problem for inerrancy (pp. 108–110), but they fall under the same category. Either the MT is original, and the NT authors are quoting the LXX, thus making that LXX reading authoritative New Testament Scripture while not affecting the biblical status of the MT reading, or the LXX reading is actually original and the copyist error arose in the MT, meaning that the LXX reading reflects the original, inspired Hebrew reading. And such instances are usually very minor and do not involve a radically different meaning.

One-sided discussion of theistic evolution
A review of Faith and Fossils: The Bible, creation, and evolution by Lester Grabbe
Reviewed by Lita Cosner
https://creation.com/review-faith-and-fossils-grabbe

One of the major implication points would be Genesis 5 and 11.

So, suppose Masoretic text has the original reading of Genesis 11. Suppose also that St. Luke by admitting the II Cainan in chapter 3 makes this inclusion valid NT Scripture - it would still be a valid fact about the genealogy - would this be possible?

Textually, yes, though I insist that the chronology was changed (perhaps according to Book of Jubilees) from a LXX one to a MT one, in the lifetime of Josephus, since he gives an MT total and enumerates a LXX series of particulars.

Ignore this, as CMI (Lita and Robert Carter) do, is an inerrant text of MT Genesis 11 possible, while an inerrant text of Luke 3 has the II Cainan? Yes, could be if the inclusion of II Cainan in LXX text is what I would call "contextual translation". Matthew 1 shows a Hebrew genealogy pregnantly omitting three consecutive generations, and this not just for the purpose of getting a subtotal of 14 generations in that part of the genealogy : they are the three generations following Athalia, and omitting them may very well be damnatio memoriae. Omitting a mention of II Cainan in Genesis 11 could be so too. If so, this Cainan sinned worse than just by idolatry when other people idolised, since Nachor and Sarug were included, while we know they committed idolatry - it would have been something like black magic or inaugurating idolatry.

But the other question is, would it be possible with carbon dates?

For Babel, instead of ending 101 after the Flood, it ends then 229 after the Flood (supposing Cainan's year when becoming father is the one year that's correct in LXX). For Abraham's birth, instead of 292 after the Flood, it becomes 420 after the Flood. And for Genesis 14 events (with archaerological implications for En Geddi, see Osgood, often enough referenced at least implicitly by me), they would be like 500 after the Flood.

In Ussher (I'm supposing he does not include the II Cainan), creation is 4004 BC, Flood 1656 years later in 2344 BC, Abraham would then be born in 2052 BC, add 420, pushes Flood back to 2472 BC. Babel's end would be 2243 and Genesis 14 would be 1972 BC.

I'll now give them a carbon date 30 000 BP for the Flood. Even BC. Makes 27 528 extra years. Twice minus two halflives (0.25*0.25) leaves 4608, gives another three quarters of a half life, 4297, (0.59461), leaves 309, nearly exactly 313 or 7/16 of 1/8 of a halflife (0.96806).

0.25*0.25*0.59461*0.96806
= 0.03597613479

Babel, I will first show implication of using Göbekli Tepe ... its highest layer of carbon dates are at 8600 BC, for an actual birth of Peleg in 2247, making 6353 extra years, which gives one halflife (0.5) and leaves 623 years, nearly the 627 years of 7/8 of 1/8 of a halflife (0.92701).

0.5*0.92701
= 0.463505

This happened during 229 years, nearly exactly 223 or 5/16 of 1/8 of a halflife 0.97331. In this time, the original 0.035976 ... would be shrinking like this:

0.03597613479*0.97331
= 0.03501593175

But we have 0.463505, so the replacement was:

0.463505 - 0.03501593175
= 0.42848906825

What would a normal replacement rate have been?

1 - 0.97331 = 0.02669

How much faster was the replacement, the production of new carbon 14, then?

0.42848906825 / 0.02669
= 16.05429255339

And here comes the conundrum - would this be straight off how much more radiation one suffered? Would it have to square or cube to give that? We don't really know.

Square : 257.74030938983
Cube : 4137.83832974558

The normal radiation dose from space is a very moderate 0.34 milliSieverts per year, at medium height. The total background radiation varies from 3 to 10, typically above 3 in Europe and around 6 in US.

0.34 * 16.05429255339
= 5.45845946815

0.34 * 257.74030938983
= 87.63170519254

0.34 * 4137.83832974558
= 1406.8650321135

Only the linear would be acceptable. Confer my timeline, where the values for linear, square and cubic are: 3.494, 35.896, 368.828 mSv / per year.* My square would be a bit above the now accepted danger zone, estimated at 20 or 30 mSv / year (Fukushima has measured 20 mSv). The square for MT + II Cainan, with Babel = Göbekli Tepe is however near 88 mSv / year.

I'll spare you the calculations for now, since my time is running up, but ignoring GT as Babel makes for an overall rise from Flood to Genesis 14 with 13.8 times the current production, up to a value of 0.83185 times current ratio (83.185 pmC) meaning the linear function is a comfortable 4.692 mSv / year, but the square function is 64.7496 mSv / year.

Unfortunately for a balanced debate, we do not perfectly know how carbon 14 production and mSv / year relate, neither is a function of the other, but both are direct functions of number of particles and energy they arrive with and inverse function of strength of magnetic field. So is production of a radiogenic isotope of Beryllium. These relations have been modelled, but not up to 10, let alone 13 or 16 times the current production of C14. The modeller, one Ilya Usoskin at the University of Turkku in Finland has refused to make a modelling which would reach anything like that far up:

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

However, I recall an answer on quora (link later, if I find it) modelling in context of palaeoclimate sth that one part of the graph was square function resembling, one part cube function resembling, no part was resembling a linear function.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Sts. Cyril and Method
7.VII.2020

PS, I forgot to mention, CMI currently favours taking Babel as prior to Palaeolithic rather than as early Neolithic. This has an even steeper carbon curve for times of Peleg's birth up to Genesis 14. On the other hand, I may have been unfair in making Flood's carbon date on their view = 30 000 BP, even though on mine it is 40 000 BP (death of last pureblooded Neanderthal and Denisovan remains). I have not dealt with how reservoir effect could affect carbon dates of palaeolithic men, but that should go with lots of shellfish and fish in the diet, which one can check by dental calcar./HGL

Erratum : "Babel's and" should be "Babel's end". Corrected now, 10.VII.2020./HGL

* See:
New blog on the kid : Implications des vitesses de production
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2020/06/implications-des-vitesses-de-production.html

What Happened with the Carbon 14 over Created Time?

What Happened with the Carbon 14 over Created Time? · Value of 3 pmC Points?

Let's first take, in some detail, a scenario that did not happen.

No Carbon 14 was created at creation, from day 4 carbon 14 has been produced at the present rate and within Biblical time this has reached a stable 100 pmC at least 2000 years ago. Here is, most of the rest, why:

In 5730 years, any sample, including the big sample called the atmosphere, loses exactly 50 % of its carbon 14 ratio as it stands in relation to carbon 12. But the atmospheric content is by hypothesis stable. This means that 50 % of the 100 pmC, of the total present atmospheric content (or ratio to carbon 12) is replaced each 5730 years, as long as the production is at the present rate.

So, in the first 5730 years, you get up to 50 pmC. In the next 5730 years you get another 50 pmC, and you might expect that 50 + 50 = 100, so after 11 460 years you have 100 pmC. No, that's forgetting that the original 50 pmC will decay during the second spell of 5730 years, they will exactly go down to half, that is from 50 to 25 pmC, so after two halflives you would have 75 pmC, not 100.

To check, let's subdivide ... two halflives are eight times a quarter of a halflife, eight times 1432 years and a half. This obviously also adds up to 11 460, which is already beyond the Biblical timeline.

In a quarter of a halflife, 100 pmC go down to 84.09 pmC - as has in fact happened from AD 588 to our day. Any sample cut off from atmosphere in 588 AD should have 84.09 pmC (corrected for pre-industrial values for the C-14 ratio for 100 pmC). But this means, the atmosphere needs to get 15.91 pmC points in new production of C-14 to stay at 100 pmC.

So, in any subdivided example, we would get 8 times and input of 15.91 pmC points, theoretically (if there were no decay) adding up to 127.28 pmC. In actual fact, the first batch of 15.91 pmC points is in that case decaying for seven quarters of a halflifen the next through six quarters of a half life and so on. You add the remainder of the inputs from earliest to latest, they are:

4.73		9.46
5.67		11.25
6.69		13.38
7.96		15.91 pmC

and they add up to:

75.06 pmC

which is pretty close to the 75 pmC we would get after two not subdivided halflives. So, subdivision doesn't change the rate.

Would a third halflife do it? No, while another 50 pmC are forming, the 75 pmC decay to 37.5 pmC, giving 87.5 pmC in total.

In a fourth halflife, this would shrink to 43.75 pmC, and after that the total with the new 50 would be 93.75.

So, 4 halflives = 4 * 5730 years = 22 920 years. This would bring us clearly off the Biblical timeline which was one of the characteristics.

What are then the options?

• we are in Anno Mundi way beyond 7219 - against Catholic theology, as expressed in Church Fathers and in Roman Martyrology for 25th of December, I pick it NOT;
• we have not yet reached a stable level of carbon 14 - against the observation that we get correct carbon dates with a consistent half life if assuming the level of 100 pmC for the last 2000 years, maybe a bit beyond, I pick it NOT;
• creation included carbon 14 in levels roughly comparable to ours from creation - leads to either denial of very old carbon dates or to accepting carbon dates that go against Biblical chronology at face value, I pick it NOT;
• the original creation was radically poorer in carbon 14 and yet we have since then reached stable levels in less than 22 920 years, means that carbon 14 has been forming faster in the past : this is my pick.

And this is where my research into "how much faster" as well as "what carbon dates translate to what real Biblical dates" began a few evenings before this post:

New blog on the kid : Datation de Carbone 14, comment ça carre avec la Chronologie Biblique
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2015/10/datation-de-carbone-14-comment-ca-carre.html

As you can see from the links in the top of what's under the title of the post, it led quickly to a few more posts, and to a table using Fibonacci sequences for modelling shrinking additions along history:

New blog on the kid : Avec un peu d'aide de Fibonacci ... j'ai une table, presque correcte
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2015/10/avec-un-peu-daide-de-fibonacci-jai-une.html

Now after several improvements, I have this:

New blog on the kid : Tables de carbone 14 sur les bases révisées (I - VI)
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2020/06/tables-de-carbone-14-sur-les-bases.html

New blog on the kid : Tables continués (VI - IX)
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2020/06/tables-continues-vi-ix.html

Written in Paris, Octave of Sts Peter and Paul
6.VII.2020

Hans Georg Lundahl

Carl Krieg : Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire

First, who is he:

Dr. Carl Krieg

Carl received his BA from Dartmouth College, MDiv from Union Theological Seminary in NYC, and PhD from the University of Chicago Divinity School. He is the author of “What to Believe? the Questions of Christian Faith”, and “The Void and the Vision”. As professor and pastor, Dr. Krieg has taught innumerable classes and led many discussion groups. He lives with his wife, Margaret, in Norwich, VT.

Second, what did he state? In what context?

Your question is whether Paul was a literalist, and to answer that it helps to unpack the various dimensions involved. First, we can ask what the author of the Yahwist narrative in Genesis had in mind. Did that person intend that the story be taken literally, and if not, what does it mean? Second, what did Paul have in mind when he used this story? What was he trying to show? And thirdly, are we obligated to agree with the Yahwist and/or Paul as we seek to understand who we are and who God is?

Let’s start with the last question. The focal point of the Christian life is Jesus of Nazareth, who he was, what he taught, what he did, and how we today walk in that path. What the Yahwist thought millennia ago may be helpful in that enterprise and what Paul thought also may be helpful. Whether or not Paul was a literalist is set within the context of whether we are literalists, and if not, can we disagree with Paul, whatever he says? Put otherwise, is the Bible the absolutely inerrant and authoritative word of God? Historically, we should note that this concept of biblical inerrancy initially arose after the Reformation in the period known as Protestant Orthodoxy, and was a factor in the Thirty Years war, in which about 8 million died.

It is possible that some Protestant sects from splitting from Rome up to developing a theology called Lutheran Orthodoxy or Anglican Orthodoxy or Calvinist Orthodoxy momentarily lacked Biblical inerrancy, and so that it arose again within that period.

I'd like to see some solid proof of this even momentary lack, if so. Perhaps he was thinking of Calvin doubting historicity of book of Jonah. I seem to recall such a claim from part of Reflections on the Psalms, my least favourite work by C. S. Lewis, which I laid aside. Deducing from one such "genre transfer" an overall genre transfer of Biblical history in general is at least hasardous.

But saying it initially arose then is claiming Catholics before and just after the Reformation were not Biblical inerrantists, which we clearly were.

And saying it was a factor in the Thirty Years War (whatever the number of battle causalties and innocent victims) is a fudge factor.

If Lutherans and Catholics and Calvinists in the Thirty Years War all believed Biblical inerrancy, it was at least not a factor in dividing them from each other. It was of course a factor in making the divided area of knowledge one of objective knowledge, one one could seriously quarrel about. If they hadn't so believed, they would have been making war about some other area they believed objectively real, like Capitalists, Fascists and Communists have killed quite a lot more of each other during the last century.

If the war was about revealed religion being objective and yet divided, as to its claims, it is at least as arguable the Reformation caused the relevant division and therefore the war. CMI just mentioned Calvin as inerrantist about Genesis 1. Council of Trent did not contradict him, since the position he argued against was that of St. Augustine, which was minoritarian among Church Fathers. We do need to take all Church Fathers seriously in taking Genesis 3 as a literal event of historic type of occurrence and type of our knowledge of it. Which is what the question is about.

And we have no use for the Academic inerrancy that would make the Yahwist a literal historic person, distinct from the Elohist.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Visitation of the Blessed Virgin
to Elisabeth
2.VII.2020

PS, as to source, go to this link and scroll:

https://progressingspirit.com/2020/07/02/even-in-2020-gratitude-is-my-religion/

scroll past "Even in 2020, Gratitude is my Religion
Column by Rev. Fran Pratt on 2 July 2020"

Down to the "Question
In looking at how the Jews see the Adam and Eve story – that it was a story of taking responsibility and moving out of innocence etc. How does this reconcile however with Paul ( a Jew) in Romans Ch5 where he appears to take on a more traditional even literal approach with Adam and Sin entering in , The Fall etc. ?"

and to the "Answer
by Dr. Carl Krieg"

That's it./HGL

PPS, the view here attributed to "the Jews" refers to Modernist Jews (probably extending past Liberal into Conservative), I don't think Torah Emesh writer Roger Pearlman would agree./HGL