A Tale of Two Migdals ...

Josephus tells us, Nimrod and some of his men had planned to build the tower high enough and then defeat God with their army ....

Jesus seems to be very well aware of this:

Luke 14:28 For which of you having a mind to build a tower, doth not first sit down, and reckon the charges that are necessary, whether he have wherewithal to finish it 29 Lest, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, all that see it begin to mock him, 30 Saying: This man began to build, and was not able to finish. 31 Or what king, about to go to make war against another king, doth not first sit down, and think whether he be able, with ten thousand, to meet him that, with twenty thousand, cometh against him? 32 Or else, whilst the other is yet afar off, sending an embassy, he desireth conditions of peace.

Now, let's recall what Josephus said about Nimrod's motivations. He was trying to save man from another Flood. So, this is in a way a tale of two saviours.

We are waiting for the celebration of the birth of the true one. We are also waiting for His return.

It's a false one who is in Genesis, and another (or according to Rob Skiba even same) false one who'll be on the scene in Apocalypse before Christ returns.

Now, because this blog is very Genesis oriented, just barely strays into Exodus and Joshua for chronology reasons, I have more than once spoken about that first post-Flood false saviour.

What was the exact word used for the tower structure of Nimrod ? It's Migdal.

I looked it up in Hebrew English interlinear, but I already was sure that was the word I would find.

There is a tower in the life of Jesus too. Some say that He was born in Migdal Eder, my friend Damien Mackey being one of them. I am not sure, but it would be fitting, for this very definite anti-Nimrod to also have His own migdal. When I looked up a cross-reference in Genesis 35:21, I saw this is translated as "Flock tower" — a very fitting place of birth to the Shepherd of our souls.

Departing thence, he pitched his tent beyond the Flock tower.

But, I also find it interesting, the present day ruins of this tower and perhaps even the original tower itself, are the right size for ... a rocket. What I think Nimrod's tower was intended to. Let's prefer Bethlehem over Cape Canaveral, Bajkonur and Babel.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
III Lord's Day of Advent, Gaudete
17.XII.2023

PS, if you prefer the Church of the Nativity, consider that a tower meaning "tower of the herd" could have been where the shepherds saw the angels./HGL

Credits: Nativity and the Migdal Eder
Damien Mackey
https://www.academia.edu/111586247/Nativity_and_the_Migdal_Eder

When were those Dinosaurs From?

Radiocarbon in dino bones
International conference result censored, by Carl Wieland
https://creation.com/c14-dinos

A team of researchers gave a presentation at the 2012 Western Pacific Geophysics Meeting in Singapore, August 13–17, at which they gave ¹⁴C dating results from many bone samples from eight dinosaur specimens. All gave dates ranging from 22,000 to 39,000 years, right in the ‘ballpark’ predicted by creationists.

I am no longer predicting a ball park like that for the Flood.

22,000 BP = 20,000 BC = the carbon date, according to my tables, of sth like 2850 BC, a bit more than a century after the Flood.*

39,000 BP = the actual carbon date for the Flood year itself, for 2958 BC.**

A creature as big as a typical dinosaur (typical to our imagination, not average), would have carbon that's decades old. This means, if the dinosaurs a) were from the Flood, and b) not contaminated, then they would carbon date older than 39,000 years.

However, before we totally dismiss these bones from being from the Flood itself, how about ... at least Morrisson Formation or Hell Creek Formation is at a Uranium ore deposit. And that's where many of the dinosaurs of the US were found.

Uranium near Carbon 12 can send off neutrons, which augment the neutron content into the carbon and make for more Carbon 14.

Barring that, I suggest, the dinosaurs could be post-Flood specimens.
/Hans Georg Lundahl

*Creation vs. Evolution: New Tables
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/08/new-tables.html

**Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: So Far Confirming my Theories
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2022/09/so-far-confirming-my-theories.html

Haydock Bible, and Catholic Young Earth Creationism

When Protestant Young Earthers are asked to explain why so many have heard of Old Earth Creationism, they pick out Darby and the Scofield Bible.

The influence of John Nelson Darby (1800–1882), and the Scofield Reference Bible (1909, 1917), led many members of the Plymouth Brethren movement to adopt belief in old-earth creation, as opposed to young-earth creation, or theistic evolution. The preferred old-earth view was the gap theory, with less willingness to accept belief in pre-Adamic races, or the day-age position.

John Nelson Darby, the Scofield Reference Bible, and the rise of old-earth creationism
by Andrew Sibley | This article is from
Journal of Creation 36(3):123–128, December 2022
https://creation.com/darby-and-scofield-bible

Catholics in France were on the bridge between Day-Age (Fulcran Vigouroux) and Young Earth (P. Laurent and A. Saignet).

Catholics in England between Gap Theory (Cardinal Wiseman) and Young Earth (see below).

Catholics in Germany and Austria has pretty equal preferences for Young Earth (C. F. Keil, J. E. Veith, A. Bosizio, A. Trissl, G. J. Burg) and he other too.

I think this extended into Italy, unless it was a more pure Young Earth preference (V. M. Gatti).

Those deviating from Young Earth were pretty much in the same area as the episcopates which at Vatican II pressed for changes. Here's* a little list:

Ulm, Lemgo, Edinburgh, Paris, London, Petit-Montrouge, Brunswick, Leipzig, Vienna, Mainz, Munich, Regensburg, Trier, Quedlinburg, Louvain, Kœnigsberg, Freiburg im Breisgau, Frankfurt am Main, Lyon, Rouen, Rodez, Clermont-Ferrant, Ghent, Brussels, Madrid (twice), Munster, New York (once), Florence (once), Rome (once), Siena (once), Valladolid (once), Brixen, Barcelona (once ), Steyl, Alessandria (once), Paderborn, Bonn, Linz, Friborg (Switzerland), Geneva, Graz, Cologne, Stuttgart, Berlin, Profnitz.

Whichever the solution, 19th C. Roman Catholic orthodoxy felt like the Haydock Bible that genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 and therefore the spectrum of Biblical chronologies deserved at least quasi-integrity from the Creation of Adam on.

Both United Kingdom (back then extending over Ireland too) with Commonwealth and the US used an edition of Douay Rheims (NT published 1582, OT published 1609–1610) in a revision by Bishop Challoner (Revised in 1749, 1750, and 1752 by Richard Challoner (DRC)). One very famous edition of it was probably the model of the Scofield Bible. I mean of course the Haydock Bible.

As a sample of how it would** have looked, I'll give you first and last verses of Genesis 3, and after that footnotes, which are actually below the Bible text, as are, when given, the Ussher years.

Ver. 1. Why hath God? Hebrew, "Indeed hath God, &c." as if the serpent had overheard Eve arguing with herself, about God's prohibition, with a sort of displeasure and presumption. St. Augustine thinks, she had given some entrance to these passions, and the love of her own power, and hence gave credit to the words of the serpent, de Gen. ad lit. xi. 30.		1 Now the serpent was more subtle than any of the beasts of the earth which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman: Why hath God commanded you, that you should not eat of every tree of paradise?
She might not know or reflect that the serpent could not reason thus, naturally; and she had as yet, no idea or dread of the devil. (Lombard, 2 Dist. 21.) This old serpent entered into the most subtle of creatures, and either by very expressive signs, or by the motion of the serpent's tongue, held this delusive dialogue with Eve. Moses relates what happened exteriorily; but from many expressions, and from the curse, ver. 15, he sufficiently indicates, that an evil spirit was the latent actor. (Haydock) --- Of every tree. Satan perverts the word of God, giving it an ambiguous turn: in doing which, he has set heretics a pattern, which they follow. (Menochius)
Ver. 24. Cherubims. Angels of the highest order, and of a very complex figure, unlike any one living creature. Theodoret supposes that God forced Adam to retire from that once charming abode, by the apparition of hideous spectres. The devils were also hindered from coming hither, lest they should pluck the fruit of the tree of life, and by promising immortality, should attract men to their service.		24 And he cast out Adam: and placed before the paradise of pleasure Cherubims, and a flaming sword, turning every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.
The flaming sword, might be a fire rising out of the earth, of which Grotius thinks the pits, near Babylon, are still vestiges. These dreadful indications of the divine wrath would probably disappear, when Paradise had lost its superior beauty, and became confounded with the surrounding countries --- Thus we have seen how rapidly Moses describes the creation of all things, the fall of man, and the promised redemption. But in these few lines, we discover a solution of the many difficulties which have perplexed the learned, respecting these most important subjects. We know that the world is not the effect of chance, but created and governed by divine Providence. We are no longer at a loss to explain the surprising contrast of good and evil, observable in the same man. When we have attentively considered the Old Adam and the New[New Adam, Jesus Christ], we find a clue to lead us through all the labyrinths of our Holy Religion. We could wish, perhaps, for a greater detail in Moses, but he left the rest to be supplied by tradition. He has thrown light enough upon the subjects, to guide the well-disposed, and has left sufficient darkness to humble and to confound the self-conceited and wicked, who love darkness rather than the light. (Calmet) --- Concerning the transactions of these early times, parents would no doubt be careful to instruct their children, by word of mouth, before any of the Scriptures were written; and Moses might derive much information from the same source, as a very few persons formed the chain of tradition, when they lived so many hundred years. Adam would converse with Mathusalem, who knew Sem, as the latter lived in the days of Abram. Isaac, Joseph, and Amram, the father of Moses, were contemporaries: so that seven persons might keep up the memory of things which had happened 2500 years before. But to entitle these accounts to absolute authority, the inspiration of God intervenes; and thus we are convinced, that no word of sacred writers can be questioned. (Haydock)
4: 2 Corinthians xi. 3. 6: Ecclesiasticus xxv. 33.; 1 Timothy ii. 14. 14: Isaias lxv. 25.; Micheas vii. 17.; Isaias xlix. 23.; Psalm lxxii. 9.		15: Apocalypse xii.; Genesis xlix. 17.; 1 Corinthians xiv. 34. 19: Genesis xviii. 27. 20: Psalms cii. 14. and xxii.[xxi.?] 16.; Ecclesiastes vii. 12.[xii. 7.?]

So, it would be ridiculous if a Catholic, having failed to link my Young Earth Creationism to the Watchtower Society (who are Day-Agers, basically) tried to link it now to Darby.

We Catholics have no reason to tell Protestants (even as gentle ones as Andrew Sibley) that Young Earth Creationism is theirs.

Our English reference Bible is clearly more Young Earth than their Scofield, if you go to GENESIS - Chapter 1 and see for yourself that neither verse 2 nor "first day" and so on are marked out in any Old Earth manner. It may of course have helped that George Leo Haydock commented and his brother Thomas got re-published in 1859, fifty years before the Scofield Bible (1909). Thomas first published in 1811—1823.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Andrew, Apostle and Martyr
30.XI.2023

Apud Patras, in Achaja, natalis sancti Andreae Apostoli, qui in Thracia et Scythia sacrum Christi Evangelium praedicavit. Is, ab Aegea Proconsule comprehensus, primum in carcere clausus est, deinde gravissime caesus, ad ultimum suspensus in cruce, in ea populum docens biduo supervixit; et, rogato Domino ne eum sineret de cruce deponi, circumdatus est magno splendore de caelo, et, abscedente postmodum lumine, emisit spiritum.

* Previously (as the list of Young Earth authors) given in:

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Les Prédécesseurs catholiques de Henry Morris (jusqu'à 1920)
https://filolohika.blogspot.com/2019/11/les-predecesseurs-catholiques-de-henry.html

** I had to change the html, so it is no longer two columns all through, but the left hand column is on this page extended to full page width below the right hand column Bible verse. Otherwise, the table would have looked hopelessly narrow on the far right with the actual Bible text.

In Portugal, the Dogma of the Faith Shall Not Be Lost

Creation vs. Evolution: In Portugal, the Dogma of the Faith Shall Not Be Lost · Great Bishop of Geneva!: Another Reason to Believe Novus Ordos are NOT All Apostates

The title is a prediction about the country in which Fátima is located, in the diocese of Ourém. The city is named for an Moorish princess called that after Mohammed's daughter, who converted and married a Christian.

It is the place of a Marian Apparition (or series of them, to be precise) in 1917, the last apparition being the day before the last day on which the Czar was celebrating (still freely) the Protection of the Theotokos.

And the apparitions contained the prediction.

As Portuguese Protestants lack pretty many dogmas of the faith, and as Portuguese Catholics seemed to me totally sold out on believing Evolution, I was starting to have misgivings about Fátima.

Now, look at this map:

Credit: Eupedia.
Shared by Ceres Science.
https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=832473265548499&set=a.488532063275956

20 to 24 % pf the Portuguese would be far more than the Protestant minority.

This means, Portugal still has Catholics who correctly believe that God created Adam without biological ancestry.

The dogma of the faith is NOT lost. Vivat Lusitania!

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Vigil of St. Andrew
29.XI.2023

Vigilia sancti Andreae Apostoli.

PS, it can be added that Austria is more prone to Creationism than Germany. Thank God for Austria! Ein zweites aber besseres Deutsches Land./HGL

Ah, Griffith and White Provided the Source Too

Are CMI Hearing Me? · Does Sennaar mean Sumer? · Ken Griffith and Darrell K. White considered Judi, but not Göbekli Tepe · Ah, Griffith and White Provided the Source Too

An Upper Mesopotamian location for Babel
Ken Griffith and Darrell K. White
VIEWPOINT || JOURNAL OF CREATION 35(2) 2021
https://dl0.creation.com/articles/p149/c14992/j35_2_69-79.pdf

The tablet known as ABC 20 “The Chronicle of Early Kings”32 relates Sargon’s last campaign of conquest to Subartu as follows:

“Afterwards, Subartu attacked Sargon in full
force and called him to arms.
Sargon set an ambush and completely defeated them.
He overpowered their extensive army
and sent their possessions into Akkad.
He dug up the dirt of the pit of Babylon and
made a counterpart of Babylon next to Agade.”

...

However, we see a different solution to the puzzle. The Chronicle of Early Kings relates that Sargon dug dirt from Babylon and built a new Babylon near Akkad in the section describing how he looted and humiliated Subartu after defeating them.

32. Grayson, A.K. (Ed.), Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles (Texts from Cuneiform Sources), Eisenbrauns, Ann Arbor, MI, 2000.

I also find that, like me, they know of Anne Habermehl:

Anne Habermehl5 proposed that Babel and the other three cities of Nimrod were located in the Khabur Triangle of Syria adjacent to the Sinjar Mountains.

...

The fact that the PPNA is known to be older than the Halaf culture of the Khabur Triangle, by Habermehl’s standard, suggests that the PPNA is where Babel should be found. No PPNA sites have been found in the Khabur Triangle.

5 probably 6. Habermehl, A., Where in the world is the Tower of Babel? ARJ 4:25–53, 2011.

I'd like to know if Göbekli Tepe is included in Subartu, as it certainly is in PPNA (Pre-Pottery Neolithic A), as well as in PPNB. In fact, the identity of Subartu is, according to wiki, disputed.

Obviously, their three candidates for Babel are further east than Göbekli Tepe:

a. Small structure under lava flow: 37°40’27.62”N, 40°2’13.81”E
b. 600 x 1000 m rectangle canted 23° east of north: 37°44’57.88”N, 40° 6’30.17”E
c. Tel along old river terrace: 37°47’48.84”N, 40°22’45.39”E.

Göbekli Tepe is 37°13′25″N 38°55′18″E — a bit longer than one degree further West than each of the candidates. I think it's bigger than all three of them, and since I place the time period of the Babel building into between 350 and 401 after the Flood, I can so to speak "afford more workers" than they can. Not that either they or I would be eager to give workers to Nimrod.

I could not find any dates for any of these, carbon dates that is, but for C I found two sources, one being the pdf already linked to and another being a book from Cambridge University Press — which has the title 6000 BC.

Obviously, titles like that can be misleading, but if this one isn't, I think Göbekli Tepe trumps it in age, as per the carbon dates of charcoal layers.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Georges Pompidou Library
Sts Basil, Auxilius and Saturnine
Martyrs of Antioch
27.XI.2023

Antiochiae sanctorum Martyrum Basilei Episcopi, Auxilii et Saturnini.

Ken Griffith and Darrell K. White considered Judi, but not Göbekli Tepe

Are CMI Hearing Me? · Does Sennaar mean Sumer? · Ken Griffith and Darrell K. White considered Judi, but not Göbekli Tepe · Ah, Griffith and White Provided the Source Too

Candidate site for Noah’s Ark, altar, and tomb
by Ken Griffith and Darrell K. White | This article is from
Journal of Creation 35(3):50–63, December 2021
https://creation.com/karaca-dag

We analyzed the traditions of the church fathers, Midrash, Book of Jubilees, and other historical sources for the Ark, with gratitude to Bill Crouse9 who did an excellent job compiling those sources in order to justify Mt Judi as the Ark site. For this comparison we used the following pairings of Ark and Babel sites: Ararat-Babylon, Durupinar-Babylon, Judi-Tel Brak, Karacadag-Çınar. Table 1 compares proposed Ark sites using these criteria. For each of 35 claimed facts, one point was awarded for a strong positive, one half point for a weak positive, and zero points for a negative.

Ararat-Babylon,
Durupinar-Babylon,
Judi-Tel Brak,
Karacadag-Çınar.

No comparisons for Judi-Göbekli Tepe ...

Also no comparisons about claims in or around Genesis 11 in the Bible itself.

It may be mentioned that some features on top Karacadag are pretty sound candidates as possible archaeological objects. Since Karacadag is in the Siverek district of the Urfa province and Göbekli Tepe is 15 km from Urfa itself, SSW of Siverek, it is arguable that Karacadag as well as Judi are compatible with "them" removing from the landing place as from the East to where they came. Especially if they had first descended a slope Southward before then turning West./HGL

PS, Yes, Karaca Dağ is further East than Göbekli Tepe:

Karaca Dağ
37°40′12″N 39°49′48″E
Göbekli Tepe
37°13′25″N 38°55′18″E

PPS, Karahan Tepe is further West than Karaca Dağ, further East than Göbekli Tepe.

Karahan Tepe
37°05′33″N 39°18′13″E

Unlike Karaca Dağ, it is also about the same parallel as Göbekli Tepe, even a bit further South.

And when they removed from the east,

could refer to leaving Karahan Tepe for the Harran Plain and Göbekli Tepe. Karahan Tepe is not in the plain, but in the Tek Tek Mountains./HGL

Is Spanish Military Starting to Persecute Creationism?

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Béa Tremblay Blocked Me After Responding · EN LENGUA ROMANCE EN ANTIMODERNISM Y DE MIS CAMINACIONES: Eso es fanatismo anticristiano, Béa ...

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Fake News sobre los Testigos ...

¿Que es el Creacionismo? · La datación carbónica—¿en conflito con la cronología bíblica? · Denisova en Atapuerca y otras cosas · ¿Y las dudas sobre los faraones eligidos? · Babel y Göbekli Tepe

Misinformation on St. Robert Bellarmine, I'd Say

Creation vs. Evolution: Misinformation on St. Robert Bellarmine, I'd Say · New blog on the kid: How would my solution to why Earth stays in place work out, physically? · First Approximation of Improving the Calculation · Second Approximation

A man from Regina in Saskatchewan wrote:

According to the popular version of this story, the Church taught that the sun orbited the earth because Scripture says it does and Galileo proved otherwise. The Church imprisoned Galileo for teaching this heretical doctrine and is still wiping egg of its face all these centuries later.

Almost none of this is true.

In fact, St. Robert Bellarmine, the head of the Holy Office of the Inquisition during the Galileo case agreed with Galileo that, if the science demonstrated it, certain passages of Scripture that seem to indicate that the sun orbits the earth would have to be reinterpreted! He was sure that faith and science could not contradict one another, and he also knew that having the sun as the center of the solar system was not an essential truth of the faith. The question for Bellarmine was not how to stop Galileo, but whether or not Galileo had proved his hypothesis.

It is easy to forget that the idea that the sun orbited the earth was not a religious doctrine, but rather the state of the question in astronomy that pre-existed the Church. The Ptolemaic system was the best available explanation of the movement of heavenly bodies as yet discovered and would need significant refuting to be overthrown.

Can Catholics Believe in Evolution?
Admin for the site of the Archdiocese of Regina / Brett Salkeld
https://archregina.sk.ca/blog_ministry/can-catholics-believe-evolution/

So, let's get through this. Bit by bit.

• According to the popular version of this story, the Church taught that the sun orbited the earth because Scripture says it does
  
  The Book of Joshua, chapter 10, and comments in the book of Habacuc, and exegesis of Church Fathers all agree that it was Sun and Moon that normally moved, and that it was these that stopped moving on Joshua's orders, not the Earth that stopped rotating.
  
  
• and Galileo proved otherwise.
  
  I'm glad Brett Salkeld agrees that Galileo hadn't proved otherwise. Neither has anyone else since then.
  
  
• The Church imprisoned Galileo for teaching this heretical doctrine
  
  In fact, for having taught it. He abjured and even after that remained a prisoner (in gentle home arrest, and visitors severely culled) for the rest of his life for this fact. Pretending this happened purely for a concern for science, is pretending the Church back then sacralised it as much as Communists and similarly minded Atheists sacralise it now.
  
  
• and is still wiping egg of its face all these centuries later.
  
  Unfortunately, Brett Salkeld looks like he is intent on "wiping eff of the face of the Church" by denying the obvious.
  
  
• In fact, St. Robert Bellarmine, the head of the Holy Office of the Inquisition during the Galileo case agreed with Galileo that, if the science demonstrated it, certain passages of Scripture that seem to indicate that the sun orbits the earth would have to be reinterpreted!
  
  As far as I recall, St. Robert first expressed that in a hypothetical, and then immediately added "but I do not think it so can be proven" — and the question was not really even of "reinterpreting certain passages" but of for the future (as some seem to be doing in the service of evolution) looking for every possible way of letting a Bible passage anywhere off the hook of its obvious and traditional interpretation. He was less grudgingly admitting (for such a hypothetic case) the need to reinterpret those passages, than complaining (again, for such a hypothetic case) the loss of exegetic innocence and ease.
  
  For reference for the next parts, he was only head of the Holy Office during the first Galileo case, the one in the 1610's, which condemned his book The Assayer.
  
  
• He was sure that faith and science could not contradict one another, and he also knew that having the sun as the center of the solar system was not an essential truth of the faith.
  
  He was sure that the faith and proven fact cannot contradict one another. Let's recall, his precise words are about proven fact. The problem is, the modern usage of the word science is taking this to be the corpus of output of a special caste of people known as scientists, or at least positions typical of the majority output of them. Obviously, insofar as any such body existed in St. Robert's day, it was one of Geocentrics.
  
  
• The question for Bellarmine was not how to stop Galileo, but whether or not Galileo had proved his hypothesis.
  
  He was theoretically willing to give The Assayer a pass, if Galileo could actually prove his hypothesis. But in the second trial, Galileo's personal freedom was basically already forfeited for relapsing into this position. However, the Church had no discipline and still has no discipline, at least officially, of gaoling people for stating things they haven't proven. It's not an equivalent to the English "law of libel" — as for instance the Achilli trial judges censoring John Henry Newman:
  
  

  Following the first edition, a number of paragraphs were removed following the Achilli trial as "they were decided by a jury to constitute a libel, June 24, 1852."

  
  
  While stating sth bad about a person in English law has to be proven or removed, the Church had no such policy about the reputation of science. If you in 1700 in any work stated that William Harvey's discovery was bunk, while it was certainly accepted by all medical doctors at that point, no one in the Church would have dreamed of gaoling you for disagreeing with science, or for making a statement that not only you hadn't proven, but never could prove.
  
  The Church's one and only gaoling policy in intellectual affairs was about heresy, in some cases even repented heresy.
  
  
• It is easy to forget that the idea that the sun orbited the earth was not a religious doctrine, but rather the state of the question in astronomy that pre-existed the Church.
  
  Given no Heliocentric had had any direct trouble with the Church just for being so prior to a Dominican noticing what Galileo did in exegesis, which is precisely a religious question, this is incorrect.
  
  By the way, the term "sun orbits the earth" is chosing terms that are rich in misunderstanding.
  
  
  • In modern physics, "X orbits Y" tends to refer to a Newtonian process, by which X and Y in diverse measure orbit a central point, and the wording X orbits Y refers to the case when the central point is either inside Y or very close to Y, but very far from X, which Newtonian process can only happen in the case of Y being more massive than X. However, no Newtonian physics entered the discussion, and a modern Geocentric would not say that Earth is more massive or that the Sun is directed partly by its inertia and partly by the inward pull of Earth, but rather that Earth's stability is due to some fact stronger than such factors (if either God or an angel for each day causes the Sun to pull graviationally on Earth from all sides, the pull it exerts at 3 am will be neutralised by the pull it exerts at 3 pm (of a given time zone). Or the pull it exerts on Sao Paolo at noon in Sao Paolo, will be neutralised by the pull it exerts on Honshu at noon in Honshu. The Sun will not to us anymore than to Sts Aquinas and Bellarmine be moving daily around earth because of any stronger pull that Earth is exerting on it, but due to other actors.
  • In Riccioli's astronomy, it would be correct to state that an angel is taking the Sun on kind of a daily orbit around earth, so that its longer orbit around the zodiac each year is incidental on this daily orbit lagging behind the daily orbits of stars in the zodiac. But in St. Thomas view, the angel would only be taking the Sun on a yearly orbit around the zodiac, and another one be taking the Moon on a monthly one around the zodiac, while the daily turn was God turning all of the heavens below the Empyrean one around earth, and orbits happen inside that turn.
  
  
  
• The Ptolemaic system was the best available explanation of the movement of heavenly bodies as yet discovered and would need significant refuting to be overthrown.
  
  Two problems with this one:
  
  
  • There was no scientific community, there was no obligation to have a good or "the best" explanation, society at large and the Church too was not bound in a tielock to astronomy;
  • In fact, St. Robert agreed that Galileo very much had disproven parts of the Ptolemaic system. Just that the Ptolemaic system wasn't the only option for Geocentrism, and Galileo was far from having refuted the position of Tycho Brahe. So are people after his time, the one argument I keep hearing is from Newtonian physics taken as not just a factor that exists, but as the only factor that can affect anything as large and not bound onto a bigger flat surface as Earth or "other" heavenly bodies.

The upshot of this being, no, Galileo was not primarily tried for scientific bad methodology, but for religious bad ideas.

The Church was indeed not "against science" in the Galileo episode, but neither was She acting primarily for science. Galileo really was obliged to abjure what amounted, and still amounts, to bad theology.
/Hans Georg Lundahl

Doxxed in the Bank for Being Creationist?

It seems so.

First, doxxed in the bank.

While waiting for my turn, I noticed a man behind me. He then took a seat across from the desk, where he had a very good view on my interaction with the bank clerk.

He then came to probably depose money in the same automat where I was withdrawing. He was less than a metre behind and could see exactly what I was doing.

Does this seem like doxxing to you? You decide. Does this seem like doxxing to me? Yes.

Second, for being a Creationist.

I am in France, more precisely in Paris. St. Nicolas du Chardonnet (formerly my parish) is also in Paris. I sent a letter yesterday evening with paper copies of these three essays:

J'écris ceci lundi 30 octobre ... · St. Nicolas du Chardonnet : cordial mais imprécis · Pour préciser ...

The first involves a résumé of my letter to the parish. The second my reaction to the short and ambiguous or evasive answer I got. The third involves four clarifications so as to avoid being ambiguous back. It was written yesterday. Today I finished the so far last of this series in Spanish:

¿Que es el Creacionismo? · La datación carbónica—¿en conflito con la cronología bíblica? · Denisova en Atapuerca y otras cosas · ¿Y las dudas sobre los faraones eligidos? · Babel y Göbekli Tepe

But I left the cyber where I did that very little before the (to me at least) apparent doxxing happened.

So, supposing this is doxxing. Who? Someone close to FSSPX (St. Nicolas du Chardonnet)? Someone less close to them, directly, part of their nationalist friends or perhaps friends of those? Or totally opposite, some Commie who wonders how I got involved with St. Nicolas du Chardonnet? I don't know. But considering how unsupportive they were when it came to printing my stuff even back when I regularly went to their masses and confessed to mostly one of their priests (sometimes to other ones, when he wasn't there), I can't totally rule out the former either. Third options would exist, not sure how much I should say of those./HGL

PS, maybe relevant (for those who speak French), here:

"On a tous été trompés par Vladimir Poutine" selon le journaliste Elie Guckert
LCI, 16 nov. 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPI7TynsIWs

Do you Feel I Should Have Used the Ussher Timeline Instead?

Creation vs. Evolution: Do you Feel I Should Have Used the Ussher Timeline Instead? · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Age of the Earth ...

I used the timeline of the Roman Martyrology for Christmas Day.

For Genesis 5 and 11, it follows LXX without the Second Cainan. If you prefer a Masoretic timeline and think Ussher did a good job, here are a few key nodes for the Ussher timeline, if you agree on my identification of the relevant archaeology:

Flood

37 000 BC* - 2349 BC = 34 651 extra years 1.512 pmC

End of Babel

8600 BC** - 2204 BC = 6396 extra years 46.13 pmC

Genesis 14

3500 BC*** - 1912 BC = 1588 extra years 82.523 pmC

Jericho Falls

1550 BC° - 1451 BC = 99 extra years 98.81 pmC

What would the carbon rise be between Flood and End of Babel?

2349 - 2204 = 145 years. 98.261 % of original content.
100 - 98.261 = 1.739 pmC points = normal replenish.

1.512 pmC * 98.261 % / 100 = 1.486 pmC
46.13 - 1.486 = 44.644 pmC actual replenish.
44.644 / 1.739 = 25.672 times the speed of normal carbon 14 production. I make it with 10 ~ 11 times.°°

So, once you have settled on your Biblical timeline, you do the curves between the nodes. I have omitted the beginning of Babel, as unverifiable in Ussher chronology, and I have omitted Sesostris III at birth of Moses, and Djoser dying late in Joseph's carreere, since I know these are not accepted by some Egyptologists on CMI — or Thinkers' Updates/

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Charles Borromeo
4.XI.2023

Sancti Caroli Borromaei Cardinalis, Episcopi Mediolanensis et Confessoris, qui migravit in caelum pridie hujus diei. [3 Nov. Mediolani natalis sancti Caroli Borromaei Cardinalis, Episcopi Mediolanensis et Confessoris, quem, sanctitate conspicuum et miraculis clarum, Paulus Papa Quintus in sanctorum numerum retulit. Ipsius tamen festivitas sequenti die celebratur.]

* Based on 39 000 BP, supervulcano eruption of Campi Flegrei, carbon dated by tephra (volcanic ash, vegetation and other burned by the lava flow and spread and then deposed);
** Based on 8600 BC, charcoals of a fire on the topmost layer of Göbekli Tepe;
*** Based on 3500 BC, reed mats from evacuation of Chalcolithic En Geddi;
° Kenyon's Date for abandonment of Bronze Age Jericho is 1550 BC, I take the 2200 BC date of the walls to indicate they were built from older rubble.
°° See my post:
Creation vs. Evolution : New Tables
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/08/new-tables.html

Tas Walker 2015 vs Tas Walker 2008

Creation vs. Evolution: Some CMI Classics Aren't Classic · Tas Walker 2015 vs Tas Walker 2008 · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Tas Has Sth to Say About the K-Ar Date of a Rock

As I was saying. Some guys in the Young Earth Creationist community are trying to discredit the Young Earth Creationist calibration I did for C14.

Recycling Tas Walker from 2008 but not doing that for 2015 seems to be part of that campaign.

How dating methods work
by Tas Walker, This article is from
Creation 30(3):28–29, June 2008
https://creation.com/how-dating-methods-work

Here is Tas Walker basically making a reply for me:

A preliminary age calibration for the post-glacial-maximum period
by Tas Walker, This article is from
Journal of Creation 29(1):6–8, April 2015
https://creation.com/age-calibration-for-post-glacial-maximum-period

Should I thank you, Tas?/HGL

Apologetics Blogs

Apologetics Blogs · Main Blogs · Debate blogs · Philological and Language Blogs · Artsy Blogs · Autobiographical Blogs (2 from 7 are 13 +) · Small blogs

Creation vs Evolution

Toutes les périodes / all times 397179

On these blogs

Where You Looking For Something Else? 3,42 k · Apologetics Section 3,31 k · Un blog a été donné à vos étudiants. (FR) 3,2 k · Reading this on iPad? 2,39 k · Are All Responses to CMI Here? 1,13 k

Pour francophones tendance monoglottes, sur d'autres blogs (FR) 571 · Index to English Crea-vs-Evolu-series 517 · Link to Haydock Comment 431

On subjects

Weakness of CMI : Church History 2,91 k · A Catholic who will go unnamed 2,84 k · Can we get this straight? I never said I was atheist up to becoming Catholic 2,61 k · Dixit Aquinas 2,27 k · Dawkins said Edgar Andrews had his book From Nothing to Nature "well written", that is one true word from him ... 1,57 k

I Like "Miacis Cognitus" 1,4 k · AronRa, did I mention you are worthless on history? 1,38 k · Bora Zivkovic, Geocentrism, physical age of Adam, Septuaginta, Moon landing or hoax 1,18 k · What Some of You are Thinking / Ce que certains de vous sont en train de penser (FR, ENG) 750 · "They even have little papers they sign that say they must fit everything into the Bible." 741

Radioactive Methods Revisited, Especially C-14 678 · Genesis 2:17 - Same Day? Are There Long-Age Implications? 665 · What Can the Altaic Flood Legend Teach about the Real Flood 610 · Hasn't Carbon 14 been Confirmatively Calibrated for Ages Beyond Biblical Chronology? By Tree Rings? 600 · Dr. Jonathan Sarfati takes out one Heliocentric YEC explanation 581

Karyogrammata 547 · On Reading The Greatest Show by Dawkins - Parts of it! 526 · Since it is My Birthday, I Take Today's Article on CMI as a Birthday Present 523 · Were Evolutionists More Willing to Debate in Early 80's? 497 · New Tables 485

Have "Humans Interbred with Neanderthals and Denisovans"? 460 · Was St. Jerome Calling Genesis a Myth, and if so in what sense? 445 · What is a Miracle? What Does it Take? 110 · My Carreer Shouldn't Depend on Merriam Webster Spelling 64

somewhere else

Toutes les périodes / all times 113394

On these blogs

Apologetics Section 1,22 k · Is there Creation Science on This Blog? 1,09 k

On subjects

So, Dionysus was a Copy of Moses, may One Presume? 2 k · No, true enough Acharya, Varro did not write about Jesus ... 1,66 k · A Case for Considering Western Atheism as Protestantism Losing Christianity 1,28 k · Ten Extra-Biblical Writers or Sources on Reign of Tiberius (Silent Historians Argument Revisited) 1,25 k

Correcting Theodore Gracyk's analysis 1,19 k · What did Early Christians Believe About Greek and Roman Gods? 1,18 k · Two rebuttals of Kalaam rebutted 1,14 k · Kalam, Loftus & Lindsay 1,13 k · Answering Barbara Smoker's Path from Rome 1,13 k

Ave Verum Corpus Natum ... 1,11 k

Answering Three Points in a Paper by Carrier 1,07 k · God vs gods - Keaton Halley, Wilhelm Schmidt, G. K. Chesterton 802 · What a blooper, Dan Barker from Atheist League! 598 · Carrier on Tacitus 529 · The Gospel Truth, by William P. Lazarus, part 1 512

Give me Five ... Five Ways of St Thomas vs Atheism 453 · The Gospel Truth, William P. Lazarus, part 3 436 · Lewis and Nagel Against Materialist Monism 414

A Follow Up on Antonin Scalia and Matthew Archbold 337 · When Robert Price and Acharya S. try to reduce the Sun of Justice to a sungod ... 315 · "maybe Zeus does exist"? 290

Great Bishop of Geneva!

Toutes les périodes / all times 59043

On these blogs

Great Bishop of Geneva, ... 1,3 k · Apologetics Section 1,03 k

On subjects

Answers about "The Forbidden Book" 1,48 k · Answering a Meme About Catholic and Orthodox 1,28 k · How is Chick erroneous about where we got the Bible from? 761 · Whom did Christ call "that fox"? 757 · Hunnius Redivivus on Apostolic Succession 454

Salvation and Schrödinger's Cat 430 · Protestants - Not - Getting Around Matthew 28 Last Three Verses: John Calvin's Attempt 397 · A Suspicious Testimony 342 · Contra Sproul 314 · Three Claims on Saints : XXI, XXXXVII, XXXXVIII 224

"Sufficiency of Scripture" 208 · At Least 48 Reasons why Luther was Excommunicated, as per Armstrong 207 · Congratulating Lita Cosner on agreeing basically with StThomas Aquinas 202 · Resurrection, Holy Eucharist, Holy Poverty (or, Why Was Wycliff Wrong) 202 · Answering Cephas Ministries on "Christ Alone" on twelve points 200

Answering Paul S. Pavao, Part I 180 · The Royal Inquisition, England, Compared to Others 179 · Is There a Plain Reading of the Bible? 168 · Dealing with "Trail of Blood" Claims 158 · Where is Papist in Bible Code? 156

États-Unis 22,5 k + 147 k + 56,2 k = 225,7 k Singapour 8,7 k + 62 k + 3,04 k = 73,74 k Russie 12,8 k + 42,6 k + 9,76 k = 65,16 k France 23,7 k + 4,2 k + 6,58 k = 34,48 k Italie = 31,7 k Ukraine 3,86 k + 3,91 k + 16,5 k = 24,27 k		Allemagne 10 k + 1,81 k + 2,4 k = 14,21 k Canada 1,01 k + 1,12 k + 2,56 k = 4,69 k région indéterminée 1,11 k + 1,44 k = 2,55 k Australie 1,08 k Autre 36,7 k + 5,88 k + 10,9 k = 53,48 k
Sous-total A 225,7 k + 73,74 k + 65,16 k + 34,48 k + 31,7 k + 24,27 k + 14,21 k + 4,69 k + 2,55 k + 1,08 k + 53,48 k = 531,06 k
Pays-Bas 879 = 0,88 k 3,72 k + 1,32 k + 0,88 k = 5,92 k Suède 778 = 0,78 k 3,73 k + 1,17 k + 0,78 k = 5,68 k Turkménistan 338 + 526 = 864 = 0,86 k 4,56 k + 0,86 k = 5,42 k Royaume-Uni 763 + 865 = 1628 = 1,63 k 2,53 k + 1,63 k = 4,16 k Chine 990 = 0,99 k 2,21 k + 0,99 k = 3,2 k		Roumanie 607 + 927 = 1534 = 1,53 k 1,34 k + 1,53 k = 2,87 k Japon 731 + 739 = 1470 = 1,47 k 1,29 k + 1,47 k = 2,76 k Pologne 905 = 0,91 k 1,83 k + 0,91 k = 2,74 k Inde 964 = 0,96 k 1,26 k + 0,96 k = 2,22 k Émirats arabes unis 352 + 704 = 1056 = 1,06 k 1,01 k + 1,06 k = 2,07 k
Sous-total B 5,92 k + 5,68 k + 5,42 k + 4,16 k + 3,2 k + 2,87 k + 2,76 k + 2,74 k + 2,22 k + 2,07 k = 37,04 k
Brésil 277 + 465 = 742 Indonésie 499		Portugal 363 Viêt Nam 283
Sous-total C 742 + 499 + 363 + 283 = 1887 = 1,89 k Total 531,06 k + 37,04 k + 1,89 k = 569,99 k

397179 + 113394 + 59043 = 569616 ~ 569,99 k

Clovis and Monte Verde

Creation vs. Evolution: Glacial Maximum and Younger Dryas? · Clovis and Monte Verde · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Reburial of the Kennewick Man

Abstract. Thirty-two radiocarbon ages on bone, charcoal, and carbonized plant remains from 10 Clovis sites range from 11,110 ± 40 to 10,820 ± 10 14C years before the present (yr B.P.). These radiocarbon ages provide a maximum calibrated (cal) age range for Clovis of ~13,050 to ~12,750 cal yr B.P.

The age of Clovis—13,050 to 12,750 cal yr B.P.
MICHAEL R. WATERS, THOMAS W. STAFFORD JR. AND DAVID L. CARLSON
SCIENCE ADVANCES, 21 Oct 2020, Vol 6, Issue 43, DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.aaz0455
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aaz0455

As the New Tables are supposed to be an alternative calibration, the correct way to use them is not to compare the calibrated dates, but the raw carbon dates, to them.

11,100 BP = 9,100 BC
10,820 BP = 8,820 BC

Unless the carbon dates 9600 — 8600 BC for Göbekli Tepe are calibrated rather than raw, in which case I'd be better remaking the tables, this means we are dealing with a range of very few years during the Babel event, which was about 40 of the 51 years from 350 to 401 after the Flood, i e 2607 to 2556 BC, i e death of Noah to birth of Peleg (the chronology of Roman Martyrology being for Genesis 11 a LXX without the second Cainan).

The entry of the first Asians into the New World is generally thought to have occurred no earlier than 12,000 years ago1,2. Recent archaeological evidence from South America suggests that the migration from Asia to North America might have taken place much earlier. This evidence comes from the Brazilian site of Boqueirao do Sitio da Pedra Fur ad a3,4, with a long cultural sequence possibly extending as far back as 32,000 yr BP, and the Chilean site of Monte Verde5,6. This latter site has one well-documented cultural episode radiocarbon dated at 13,000 yr BP7 and another possible one at 33,000 yr BP. We report here two carbon-14 dates from charcoal taken from cultural features associated with the older materials of ∼33,000 yr BP. These findings provide additional evidence that people colonized the Americas much earlier than was previously thought.

Early cultural evidence from Monte Verde in Chile
Tom D. Dillehay & Michael B. Collins
Nature volume 332, pages150–152 (1988)
https://www.nature.com/articles/332150a0

33 000 BP is soon after the Flood. Someone came to Monte Verde on a visit, while post-Flood mankind was probably still all people who knew each other as Noah's close kin.

13 000 BP is = 11 000 BC, so, earlier than Göbekli Tepe if a raw date.

If Göbekli Tepe itself is not a raw but a calibrated date, as said, then both Clovis and Monte Verde are pre Babel, as I have previously stated, but as stated here, this would make my New Tables slightly less useful./HGL

PS, it would not make them totally useless, as often the only available date, the one given to the broad public (and I don't have Research Gate!) is the calibrated one. Here they are, again:

Creation vs. Evolution : New Tables
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/08/new-tables.html

PPS, it would seem Göbekli Tepe is NOT a raw date, but a calibrated one, so, the Clovis culture actually did still speak Hebrew. You see, Clovis is before the Younger Dryas, and Göbekli Tepe / Babel is after it. My New Tables are roughly speaking useful, but are not a calibration of raw dates as should be done, at this point, but a calibration of an already calibrated date. At Joseph in Egypt, I gave the raw date for Djoser's coffin, a calibrated date would be 2600 BC rather than 2800 BC for the real 1700 BC./HGL

Glacial Maximum and Younger Dryas?

Creation vs. Evolution: Glacial Maximum and Younger Dryas? · Clovis and Monte Verde · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Reburial of the Kennewick Man

The Younger Dryas, which occurred circa 12,900 to 11,700 years BP,[2] was a return to glacial conditions which temporarily reversed the gradual climatic warming after the Last Glacial Maximum,[3] which lasted from circa 27,000 to 20,000 years BP.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas

Translate. 25 000 to 18 000 BC, 10 900 to 9 700 BC.

Now, look at the relevant closest dates (of inflated carbon dates) on New Tables:

2912 B. Chr.

6.6161 pmC, so dated as 25 362 B. Chr.

2890 B. Chr.

9.274 pmC, so dated as 22 540 B. Chr.

2845 B. Chr.

14.5681 pmC, so dated as 18 745 B. Chr.

2823 B. Chr.

17.2045 pmC, so dated as 17 373 B. Chr.

2666 B. Chr.

35.4608 pmC, so dated as 11 216 B. Chr.

2644 B. Chr.

38.0408 pmC, so dated as 10 644 B. Chr.

2621 B. Chr.

40.6138 pmC, so dated as 10 071 B. Chr.

2607 B. Chr.

42.8224 pmC, so dated as 9607 B. Chr.

Now approximate as near as reasonable to when the inflated dates coincide.

(2912	+ 2912 + 2912 + 2912 + 2890) / 5 = 2908 BC
(6.6161	+ 6.6161 + 6.6161 + 6.6161 + 9.274) / 5 = 7.14768 pmC => 21800
21800	+ 2908 = 24708 BC
	2908 BC Beginning Glacial Maximum 7.14768 pmC, so dated as 24 708 BC
(2845	+ 2823) / 2 = 2834 BC
(14.5681	+ 17.2045) / 2 = 15.8863 pmC => 15200
15200	+ 2834 = 18034 BC
	2834 BC Ending Glacial Maximum 15.8863 pmC, so dated 18034 BC
(2666	+ 2644) / 2 = 2655 BC
(35.4608	+ 38.0408) / 2 = 36.7508 pmC => 8300
8300	+ 2655 = 10955 BC
	2655 BC Beginning Younger Dryas 36.7508 pmC, so dated as 10 955 BC
(2621	+ 2607 + 2607 + 2607) / 4 = 2610
(40.6138	+ 42.8224 + 42.8224 + 42.8224) / 4 = 42.27025 pmC => 7100
7100	+ 2610 = 9710 BC
	2610 BC Ending Youngr Dryas 42.27025 pmC, so dated as 9710 BC

According to my New Tables, the Glacial Maximum would have begun a bit before 2908 BC, 50 years after the Flood, and have ended in 2834 BC, 125 years after the Flood. Younger Dryas would have begun 2655 BC, 50 years before Babel, and have ended in 2610 / 2611 BC, 3 to 4 years before Babel./HGL

Some CMI Classics Aren't Classic

Creation vs. Evolution: Some CMI Classics Aren't Classic · Tas Walker 2015 vs Tas Walker 2008 · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Tas Has Sth to Say About the K-Ar Date of a Rock

In the days of Peleg
by Larry Pierce, This article is from
Creation 22(1):46–49, December 1999
https://creation.com/in-the-days-of-peleg

There are three errors common in biblical chronology today. ... Third, there are those who would lengthen the biblical chronology. One of the earliest were those rabbis in Egypt who translated the Hebrew Bible into Greek to produce the Septuagint (LXX) in the third century BC. They arbitrarily added about 700 years to the biblical chronology for the period between Noah and Abraham, to make it agree with the works of Manetho. If what they had done was correct, then Peleg would be dead and gone (as would most of the leaders of the division of the nations) before the Tower of Babel happened.

Strawman.

Many modern biblical archaeologists, like the translators of the LXX, are just as guilty of the same thing today. Just as the LXX’ translators listened to the fairy tales the Egyptian priests told them, most modern biblical scholars follow the just so stories told by secular historians and archaeologists who push the founding of Babylon and Egypt back thousands of years.

Bad comparison.

Why is the comparison bad? Why is it a strawman?

First, why do I answer this in the first place? I have often linked to CMI, as their work is partly parallel and mainly complementary to mine, despite them being Protestants. Also, they were in the field before me. Also, the views per day would be more numerous than mine. Much of my readership has for all three reasons a probability to consult them about what I write. If they are stating sth which would if taken seriously make me look bad, my readers are likely to be aware of it. CMI are aware of it, they have classified me as a spammer who needs no response. The problem with that approach is, it precludes debate. Either way, they are beyond reasonable doubt aware of it.

A few days ago, I actually sent them an article which I gave them the right to use.

It involved the "admission" or rather explanation that my Biblical chronology followed the Roman Martyrology for Christmas Day. The samples I gave in it made it clear, this is a LXX based chronology. I also made a claim that carbon dates can be accurately calibrated to Biblical chronology (it could be made with Ussher chronology too, I suppose, but the problem is this would need a faster carbon 14 rise, which would need more radioactivity to achieve). It also involved as a conclusion from the recalibrated carbon dates, as opposed to the uniformitarian ones, that Yamnaya culture was too late to be the common ancestor of all Indo-European languages, if that is what happened.

The article immediately brought to sight was not the one above, but another retake of an article from the same issue, which made me look up this article. It is Radioactive ‘dating’ failure The problem is, this is worded in the title as if the unreliability basically totally of K-Ar (and it really is unreliable) disproved any and all radioactive dating methods, even carbon 14 in a modified shape. But back to the claim of Larry Pierce that this would contradict the lifespan of Peleg.

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.		10 Καὶ αὗται αἱ γενέσεις Σήμ. καί ἦν Σὴμ υἱὸς ἑκατὸν ἐτῶν, ὅτε ἐγέννησε τὸν ᾿Αρφαξάδ, δευτέρου ἔτους μετὰ τὸν κατακλυσμόν. 11 καὶ ἔζησε Σὴμ μετὰ τὸ γεννῆσαι αὐτὸν τὸν ᾿Αρφαξὰδ ἔτη πεντακόσια καὶ ἐγέννησεν υἱοὺς καὶ θυγατέρας καὶ ἀπέθανε. 12 Καὶ ἔζησεν ᾿Αρφαξὰδ ἑκατὸν τριάκοντα πέντε ἔτη καὶ ἐγέννησε τὸν Καϊνᾶν. 13 καὶ ἔζησεν ᾿Αρφαξὰδ μετὰ τὸ γεννῆσαι αὐτὸν τὸν Καϊνᾶν ἔτη τετρακόσια καὶ ἐγέννησεν υἱοὺς καὶ θυγατέρας καὶ ἀπέθανε. Καὶ ἔζησε Καϊνᾶν ἑκατὸν καὶ τριάκοντα ἔτη καὶ ἐγέννησε τὸν Σαλά. καὶ ἔζησε Καϊνᾶν μετὰ τὸ γεννῆσαι αὐτὸν τόν Σαλὰ ἔτη τριακόσια τριάκοντα καὶ ἐγέννησεν υἱοὺς καὶ θυγατέρας καὶ ἀπέθανε. 14 Καὶ ἔζησε Σαλὰ ἑκατὸν τριάκοντα ἔτη καὶ ἐγέννησε τὸν ῞Εβερ. 15 καὶ ἔζησε Σαλὰ μετὰ τὸ γεννῆσαι αὐτὸν τὸν ῞Εβερ τριακόσια τριάκοντα ἔτη καὶ ἐγέννησεν υἱοὺς καὶ θυγατέρας καὶ ἀπέθανε. 16 Καὶ ἔζησεν ῞Εβερ ἑκατὸν τριάκοντα τέσσαρα ἔτη καὶ ἐγέννησε τὸν Φαλέγ. 17 καὶ ἔζησεν ῞Εβερ μετὰ τὸ γεννῆσαι αὐτὸν τὸν Φαλὲγ ἔτη διακόσια ἑβδομήκοντα καὶ ἐγέννησεν υἱοὺς καὶ θυγατέρας καὶ ἀπέθανε. 18 Καὶ ἔζησε Φαλὲγ τριάκοντα καὶ ἑκατὸν ἔτη καὶ ἐγέννησε τὸν Ραγαῦ. 19 καὶ ἔζησε Φαλὲγ μετὰ τὸ γεννῆσαι αὐτὸν τὸν Ραγαῦ ἐννέα καὶ διακόσια ἔτη καὶ ἐγέννησεν υἱούς καὶ θυγατέρας καὶ ἀπέθανε. 20 Καὶ ἔζησε Ραγαῦ ἑκατὸν τριάκοντα καὶ δύο ἔτη καὶ ἐγέννησε τὸν Σερούχ.
Genesis 11 page 1 and page 2, LXX with English translation.
Arph. 2 to 537 AF (after the Flood) Cainan 137 to 597 AF		Sala 267 to 727 AF Heber 397 to 801 AF Phaleg 531 to 870 AF

In the graph, I see "2242 BC Tower of Babel (Manetho)" ... without much explanation. So, lets assume the Tower of Babel had been mentioned as such by Manetho, and given a time reference which adds up with its relation to his time to 2242 BC, in and of itself possible, Peleg would at least have been pretty old when it came to be. Let's see, Creation* 5500 BC, minus 2242 = Flood* in 3258 BC, minus 870 after Flood, sure enough, in this case, yes, Peleg would have been already dead when it happened, a total counterintuitive oxymoron.

But I have verified, this is not what happened. Manetho's Book of Sothis is not independently available, it is cited in George Syncellus who made an Ussher method based Biblical chronology, but one based on the LXX. So, arguably, if Manetho had claimed the tower of Babel was in 2242 BC, this would preclude this agreeing with Pelegs placement in George Syncellus' chronology. But that would have meant that Syncellus was disagreeing with Manetho.

In fact, Manetho's Book of Sothis is a fragment, that is only available in the citation it gets in Syncellus.** Let's first see a footnote on it.

The Book of Sôthis which Syncellus believed to be the genuine Manetho, but which in its original form was based upon Eusebius and Josephus, is dated by Gutschmid to the third century after Christ. It is not possible to divide the kings of this "Cycle" into dynasties, for their sequence is unchronological: e.g. 18‑24 belong to Dynasties XIX and XX, 26‑29, 32 to the Hyksôs period, 33‑48 to Dynasty XVIII, 49, 58 to Dynasty XIX, 50, 51 to Dynasty XXVI, 59‑61 to Dynasty I, 63‑67 to Dynasty XXI, 68‑70 to Dynasty XXIII, 74 to Dynasty XXIV, 75‑77 to Dynasty XXV, and 79‑86 to Dynasty XXVI.

The Book of Sôthis includes names taken from another source than Manetho.

Hardly likely, if the book of Sothis had given us an indication for 2242 BC, that this would be better proof than the LXX. But if we look at the content of the actual page, it is mainly a series of king names. And the mention of the Tower of Babel is in a comment by Manetho under name 25. Here are that name 25 as well as Syncellus comment.

25. Concharis, 5 years.

In this 5th year of Concharis, the 25th king of Egypt, during the Sixteenth p239 Dynasty of the Sôthic Cycle as it is called in Manetho, the total of years from the first king and founder of Egypt, Mestraïm, is 700 belonging to 25 kings, i.e. from the general cosmic year 2776, in which the Dispersion took place in the 34th year of the rule of Arphaxad 7 and the 5th year of Phalec. 8 Next in the succession were 4 kings of Tanis, who ruled Egypt in the Seventeenth Dynasty for 254 [259] years, according to the following computation.

As you may have noticed, the Biblical mentions are only in Syncellus' comment. Manetho is no independent source for Menes' real name being Mestraim, alias Mitsraim, nor for the Tower of Babel, nor for its relation to Arphaxad (somewhat obscure, a kind of thought lapse?) and to Phaleg. And, even more, no mention of the Tower of Babel being in 2242 BC. He places it in Anno Mundi 2776. In order to translate this to BC, you need to know that Syncellus considered Christ as born some time between 5500 and 5509 Anno Mundi.

5500 BC = 0 AM
2776 AM =
2724 BC

What would be the age of Phaleg in this year?

2242 AM (Flood)
+531 AF
2773 AM

He would have been three years old.

To be fair, there really were authors who (seemingly at least) placed Tower of Babel in the ballpark of 2242 (or nine years later 2234) BC.

The year was 331 BC. After Alexander the Great had defeated Darius at Gaugmela near Arbela, he journeyed to Babylon. Here he received 1903 years of astronomical observations from the Chaldeans, which they claimed dated back to the founding of Babylon. If this was so, then that would place the founding of Babylon in 2234 BC, or about thirteen years after the birth of Peleg. This was recorded in the sixth book of De Caelo (‘About the heavens’) by Simplicius, a Latin writer in the 6th century AD. Porphyry (an anti-Christian Greek philosopher, c. 234–305 AD) also deduced the same number.

But the problem is, does this "founding of Babylon" correspond to Tower of Babel? I would say no. But even over and above that, Syncellus used Manetho and LXX, Simplicius and Porphyry used neither. I cannot locate the sixth book of Simplicius, and the Aristotelic work he comments on has only four books ... Syncellus obviously did not use Aristotle. But if he had, he might have concluded for the date being about the founding of Classical Babylon, not the Nimrodian one. Yes, I think there is a distinction, and since some time back, I think*** Classical Babylon was originally called Agade, was Sargon's capital before he "founded Babylon" and also after he did so, namely by renaming Agade, after conquering a location in Turkey, Sinjar province, which before his time (and I would argue only from some time after Peleg's birth) had been the location known as Bab-ilu or Hebrew Babel. So, 2234 BC could be referring to Sargon rather than Nimrod.

So, while the article seems to throw a bad light on my view of Göbekli Tepe being Babel and LXX being a good chronology, unjustifiedly so.

Now, I found this as said via an article on Radioactive ‘dating’ failure, while this is technically correct, this old article glosses over (or rather hadn't begun to notice) that there could be a difference between K-Ar (what the article actually talks about) and C14.

The reason I got to making a Biblical recalibration for C14 is I had a kind of trust in that one, which someone on FB seemingly independently put to the test. Not sure if he wants credit on my blog, I'll for now just cite the responses I made to him, which include minimal quotations from his comments.

"Also, C14 has not reached equilibrium. It's been calculated by Creation scientists to take 30,000 years to reach equilibrium, making the Earth less than 30,000 years old."

I think "has not reached equilibrium" is wrong, what we see now is variation around it (up to recent emissions of old carbon).

If C14 hadn't reached equilibrium, why would C14 dating work pretty well and in accordance with known history around known historic objects for past centuries back to Christ and beyond to fall of Troy (greatest deviation from 100 pmC being in the times of the Hallstatt plateau)?

"The point is, the C-14 dating method is junk science. It can't be accurate, because other science disproves it."

There is in fact no other science, including theology, that disproves it.

Theology proves it needs recalibration after Biblical events rather than continuing with dendro-chronological calibration after that becomes insecure (further back then etc).

But theology doesn't disprove the method as such. Nor does any natural science.

By theology, I don't mean anything else than Biblical history, its chronology, and potentially theological ramifications of the chronology. Note, I said it doesn't disprove the method as such, but it certainly disproves the older dates in the currently most often used calibration. I e, theology proves a need for this to be recalibrated.

Now, why would I have any kind of trust in just this one radiometric method? Well, for one it works in relation to recent three millennia.

For another, one of the Creationist classics about this one, namely the "still ongoing" rise in it, gave me the hunch that it could be and most importantly for a Biblical recalibration, formerly have been, rising. A rising C14 level would mean the successive real dates are put into successive datings by two processes:

• as even now, and imperfectly, by older samples having decayed more of its initial carbon 14
• but on top of that, to even out the imperfections or swings, by older samples having less and less initial content the further back you go.

This is how 2958 BC, 2557 BC, 1936 BC° carbon date°° to 37 000, 8600, 3500 BC, i e a much wider span of time than in reality.

I could suspect that CMI looked for an old issue which had two articles contradicting me, and then just in case I should miss it also sent someone to the FB group where I am known to make the points there.

But it could also be, they simply prayed, and God answered their prayer in a way that unexpectedly gave me the opportunity to justify my position, rather than retract it. Whether they were devious in the way first suggested or simply "cautious" and then prayed as suggested this paragraph, I think I can thank God for the opportunity.

It remains that Larry Pierce did a far from professional job. Per se fine, but doesn't really put CMI in a position to boycott me for my (real or at least culturally perceived) lack of professionality. I suspect he did some face to face seeking for feedback numbers could have tumbled over each other to his ears, and he could have inserted one year which was a numeral for a time span, not a date, and misunderstood what was Manetho and what wasn't Manetho.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
XXI Lord's Day after Pentecost
22.X.2023

PS, it seems the guy I stumbled on was a documentarist, which means, he would very arguably like the publicity even if I think he's wrong on detail.

Here's a sneak peek at my upcoming documentary, where I will prove the Book of 1 Enoch was written by Noah's great grandfather, and I will provide archaeological evidence, matching astronomical movements, matching the text of Enoch, that shows it is the most significant eye witness evidence of a young Earth

The Mystery of Enoch - Sneak Preview
David Willhite, 21 Dec. 2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=tLp6VgTkbE0

To which I responded by looking up Josephus (mentioned in video) and commenting:

// ...Now this Seth...did leave children behind him who imitated his virtues.... They also were the inventors of that peculiar sort of wisdom which is concerned with the heavenly bodies, and their order. And that their inventions might not be lost before they were sufficiently known, upon Adam's prediction that the world was to be destroyed at one time by the force of fire, and at another time by the violence and quantity of water, they made two pillars; the one of brick, the other of stone: they inscribed their discoveries on them both, that in case the pillar of brick should be destroyed by the flood, the pillar of stone might remain, and exhibit those discoveries to mankind; and also inform them that there was another pillar of brick erected by them. Now this remains in the land of Siriad to this day. //

I will not deny that sons of Seth could well have done this before the Flood, but I think Noah could have brought a model on the Ark, and Göbekli Tepe is a copy of that model by Nimrod.

A k a Babel.

It could also be, Nimrod was more of an astrologer than the sons of Seth, and Josephus being that too but having a negative view of Nimrod (correctly so) replaced that into the pre-Flood world, so as to exonerate it from being by Nimrod (who was obviously a son of Seth by the way) — or some of his predecessors did so.

PPS, same FB group started to get 2 more posts of videos debunking radiometric dating in general. For the one we see an enumeration of methods in the time stamp, it doesn't cover C14. For the other I'm basically verifying it halfways through or a third through, it seemingly wants to give the impression carbon 14 isn't any good either, without actually stating so and without adressing its specificities. The fact that carbon 14 has been found in fossils supposed to be millions of years old doesn't prove the method is fundamentally flawed. The fact it gives in the first instance ages that are inflated beyond Biblical, a k a real timeline shows there needs to be a recalibration. This I have already done, and it's kind of being cancelled./HGL

PPPS, if anyone wonders why I follow CMI at all, some of their classics really are classic. Here is one:

Is Jesus Christ the Creator God?
by Russell Grigg, This article is from
Creation 13(3):43–45, July 1991
https://creation.com/is-jesus-christ-the-creator-god

* Syncellus' chronology involves a few more centuries than that of the Roman martyrology. In the latter, creation is in 5199 and Flood in 2957 BC (or 5200 and 2958 BC, since Christ is not born in "year zero" but in "year 1 BC" = most of the year was before He was born), this also makes 2242 years in the Genesis 5 genealogy.

** Appendix IV The Book of Sôthis or The Sôthic Cycle
This webpage reproduces a section of The Fragments of Manetho
https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Manetho/Appendices/4*.html

*** And here I looked up my source:

An Upper Mesopotamian location for Babel
by Ken Griffith and Darrell K. White | This article is from
Journal of Creation 35(2):69–79, August 2021
https://creation.com/babel-upper-mesopotamia

° Flood, Babel dispersion (end of Babel occupation), Genesis 14.
°° By tephra from a supervolcano, considering these belong to the Flood, by charcoal layer uppermost in Göbekli Tepe, by reed mats for evacuation of temple treasures from Amorrhaean En-Geddi.

Would Proto-Indo-European Diverge Into Hittite, Mycenaean Greek, Indo-Aryan in The Biblical Time-Frame?

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Three Questions on PIE and Yamnaya (with one debate continued under Continued Debate with "Germanic Syntax") · Creation vs. Evolution: Is There a Correct Use of Stone Age, Bronze Age, Iron Age? · Early human remains found to carry R1b · Would Proto-Indo-European Diverge Into Hittite, Mycenaean Greek, Indo-Aryan in The Biblical Time-Frame? · Φιλολoγικά / Philologica: Can a PIE Spread with Anatolian Farmers be Defended?

First we rule out Maykop culture. Quotes will consistently be from wikipedia.

Maykop culture, c. 3700 BC – 3000 BC
New data revealed the similarity of artifacts from the Maykop culture with those found recently in the course of excavations of the ancient city of Tell Khazneh in northern Syria, the construction of which dates back to 4000 BC.[citation needed]
Radiocarbon dates for various monuments of the Maykop culture are from 3950 - 3650 - 3610 - 2980 calBC
According to genetic studies on ancient DNA published in 2018, the Maykop population came from the south, from Imereti, and was descended from the Chalcolithic farmers known as Darkveti-Meshoko who first colonized the north side of the Caucasus. Maykop is therefore the "ideal archaeological candidate for the founders of the Northwest Caucasian language family".

So, Maykop presumably spoke Northwest Caucasian.

Second, we line up cultures that lead up to Yamnaya culture / Afanasievo culture (apart from Maykop). We also line up very early Indo-European languages at the very end.

Starčevo culture, circa 6,200 B.C. — circa 4,500 B.C.
Vinča culture, c. 5700–4500 BC
Linear Pottery culture, c. 5500 BC — c. 4500 BC
Boian culture, divided
Phase I – Bolintineanu Phase, 4300–4200 BC.
Phase II – Giulești Phase (also known as the Giulești-Boian culture), 4200–4100 BC.
Phase III – Vidra Phase, 4100–4000 BC.
Phase IV – Spanțov Phase (also known as the Boian-Gumelnița culture), 4000–3500 BC.
Cucuteni–Trypillia culture, is divided
• Early (Pre-Cucuteni I–III to Cucuteni A–B, Trypillia A to Trypillia BI–II): 5800 to 5000 BC
• Middle (Cucuteni B, Trypillia BII to CI–II): 5000 to 3500 BC
• Late (Horodiștea–Foltești, Trypillia CII): 3500 to 3000 BC
and is influenced:
The roots of Cucuteni–Trypillia culture can be found in the Starčevo–Körös–Criș and Vinča cultures of the 6th to 5th millennia,[7] with additional influence from the Bug–Dniester culture (6500–5000 BC).[21] During the early period of its existence (in the fifth millennium BC), the Cucuteni–Trypillia culture was also influenced by the Linear Pottery culture from the north, and by the Boian culture from the south.[7]
Sredny Stog culture, c. 4500 BC – 3500 BC
The culture ended at around 3500 BC, when the Yamnaya culture expanded westward replacing Sredny Stog, and coming into direct contact with the Cucuteni–Trypillia culture culture in western Ukraine.
Repin culture, 3900–3300 BCE
Anthony suggests that the Afanasievo culture was formed by a migration of people with a material culture of the same type as Repin, probably from the middle Volga-Ural area c. 3700–3500 BCE.
Yamnaya culture, c. 3300 – 2600 BC
Afanasievo culture, 3300 BCE — 2500 BCE
Hittite language, attested 17th to 12th centuries BC
Mycenaean Greek, 16th–12th century BC

Note, I cannot take Mitanni as earliest attestation of Indo-Aryan, since the language they actually spoke was Hurrian, with some Indo-Aryan superstrate, if that was the case.

But from Starčevo 6200 BC to Hittite 1650 BC, no problem. 4550 years.

From Yamnaya 3300 BC to Hittite 1650, still no problem. 1650 years.

Third, here is the problem, in a Biblical time-frame this is shorter. I will now add quotes from my New Tables into the mix:

2309 B. Chr.

62.1506 pmC, so dated as 6259 B. Chr.

Starčevo culture begins 6,200 B.C.

2287 B. Chr.

63.387 pmC, so dated as 6037 B. Chr.

2265 B. Chr.

64.6199 pmC, so dated as 5865 B. Chr.

Early Cucuteni–Trypillia culture begins 5800 BC

Vinča culture begins c. 5700 BC

2243 B. Chr.

65.7496 pmC, so dated as 5693 B. Chr.

Linear Pottery culture begins c. 5500 BC

2220 B. Chr.

68.0023 pmC, so dated as 5420 B. Chr.

2153 B. Chr.

70.6677 pmC, so dated as 5003 B. Chr.

Early Cucuteni–Trypillia culture ends and

Middle Cucuteni–Trypillia culture begins 5000 BC

2131 B. Chr.

71.8838 pmC, so dated as 4881 B. Chr.

2086 B. Chr.

74.3062 pmC, so dated as 4536 B. Chr.

Starčevo culture, Vinča culture and Linear Pottery culture end 4,500 B.C.

while Sredny Stog culture begins

2064 B. Chr.

75.4934 pmC, so dated as 4364 B. Chr.

Boian Phase I – Bolintineanu Phase begins 4300 BC

2041 B. Chr.

76.6964 pmC, so dated as 4241 B. Chr.

Boian Phase I – Bolintineanu Phase ends and

Boian Phase II – Giulești Phase (also known as the Giulești-Boian culture) begins 4200 BC

Boian Phase II – Giulești Phase (also known as the Giulești-Boian culture) ends and

Boian Phase III – Vidra Phase, begins 4100

2019 B. Chr.

77.8962 pmC, so dated as 4069 B. Chr.

Boian Phase III – Vidra Phase ends and

Boian Phase IV – Spanțov Phase (also known as the Boian-Gumelnița culture), begins 4000 BC

1996 B. Chr.

79.0927 pmC, so dated as 3946 B. Chr.

Repin culture begins 3900 BC

1952 B. Chr.

81.476 pmC, so dated as 3652 B. Chr.

Boian Phase IV – Spanțov Phase (also known as the Boian-Gumelnița culture)

and Middle Cucuteni–Trypillia culture

and Sredny Stog culture end 3500 BC, and Late Cucuteni–Trypillia begins

1935 B. Chr.

82.73 pmC, so dated as 3485 B. Chr.

1868 B. Chr.

84.1262 pmC, so dated as 3318 B. Chr.

Repin culture ends 3300 BC

when Yamnaya and Afanasievo cultures begin

1845 B. Chr.

84.5892 pmC, so dated as 3245 B. Chr.

1778 B. Chr.

85.9766 pmC, so dated as 3028 B. Chr.

Late Cucuteni–Trypillia ends 3000 BC

1756 B. Chr.

86.4346 pmC, so dated as 2956 B. Chr.

Yamnaya culture ends 2600 BC

1700 B. Chr.

87.575 pmC, so dated as 2800 B. Chr.

1678 B. Chr.

89.4653 pmC, so dated as 2598 B. Chr.

Afanasievo culture ends 2500 BC

1655 B. Chr.

91.4498 pmC, so dated as 2395 B. Chr.

1521 B. Chr.

98.184 pmC, so dated as 1671 B. Chr.

Hittite language begins 1650 BC

1498 B. Chr.

98.555 pmC, so dated as 1618 B. Chr.

1476 B. Chr.

98.924 pmC, so dated as 1566 B. Chr.

Mycenaean Greek begins 1550 BC

1454 B. Chr.

99.0081 pmC, so dated as 1534 B. Chr.

1185 B. Chr.

100 pmC, so dated as 1185 B. Chr.

Hittite and Mycenaean languages end in 1150 BC

2309 - 1521 = 788 years. Bad. Even if you begin with Starčevo culture
2086 - 1521 = 565 years. Worse, and you have begun with Sredny Stog.
1868 - 1521 = 347 years, from beginning of Yamnaya culture to appearance of Hittite.

Add another 100 years each for coming to Mycenaean Greek.

This is why I tend to feel a YEC is basically committed to Sprachbund type of group for Indo European./HGL

PS, this is consistent with, but may not closely correlate to, the earliest Aryan vocabulary of the Mitanni being in the non-IE language of Hurrian. As mentioned above, also sourced to wikis on Mitanni and on Hurro-Urartian languages/HGL

Is There a Correct Use of Stone Age, Bronze Age, Iron Age?

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Three Questions on PIE and Yamnaya (with one debate continued under Continued Debate with "Germanic Syntax") · Creation vs. Evolution: Is There a Correct Use of Stone Age, Bronze Age, Iron Age? · Early human remains found to carry R1b · Would Proto-Indo-European Diverge Into Hittite, Mycenaean Greek, Indo-Aryan in The Biblical Time-Frame? · Φιλολoγικά / Philologica: Can a PIE Spread with Anatolian Farmers be Defended?

If by Stone age you mean an era lasting 4 million years, no, that didn't exist.

If by Stone age you mean an era unbroken between 3000 and 2000 BC, no, that span was broken by the Flood.

If by Iron age, you mean the very first use of iron was after the Bronze age, no, that's inaccurate, Tubal Cain made iron before the Flood.

However, there is a correct usage, and it mostly refers to the post-Flood world.

Probably some tools were on the ark, in metal. But very probably these soon became inadequate to those on board. And after the Flood, they were not finding metal ore any time soon. This is the main beginning of the stone age.

However, this was not the first stone age. Before Tubal Cain, stone tools had been used, and some populations, like the Neanderthals we found, held on to that technology up to the Flood. Someone of Neanderthal lineage was on the Ark, and could instruct the others in stone tool making.

The Lower Palaeolithic, and part of the Upper Palaeolithic (as long as you find purebred Neanderthals) is pre-Flood, regionally stone age, while the contemporary Nodian civilisation was so far not found. But the rest of the Upper Palaeolithic is the 350 years after the Flood when Noah was still alive. Then came the Neolithic, with Nimrod in Göbekli Tepe, as his original Babel is now called. Abraham was born when the Chalcolithic was still ongoing and saw the birth of the Bronze Age, which was still ongoing in Joshua's time./HGL