"The Popes"

Directly for Deep Time, we have these:

• Pius XII
• "John Paul II"
• "Benedict XVI"
• "Francis"

Directly for Adam descending from non-humans:

• "John Paul II"
• "Benedict XVI"
• "Francis"

Pius XII was not deciding in Humani Generis, 1950.

"Francis" is supposed to be Pope 266.

So, a man who pretends to be "with the popes" on this basis is with 1.5 % on deep time and with 1.1 % on Adam's descent from non-human beings./HGL

A Recent Catholic Resource on the Topic

An Amazon item:

The Doctrines of Genesis 1-11: A Compendium and Defense of Traditional Catholic Theology on Origins
Paperback – Import, 28 November 2007, by Fr Victor Warkulwiz (Author)
https://www.amazon.in/Doctrines-Genesis-1-11-Compendium-Traditional/dp/0595452434

Quoting the page:

Today the Catholic Church has well-developed theologies of redemption and sanctification but no well-developed theology of creation. That is because so many of her influential thinkers have abandoned the sound creation theology of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church and have embraced instead the false principles of evolutionism.

...

Foreword by Most. Rev. Robert Francis Vasa, Bishop of Baker

Now, a fact check. Does this person really exist?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Vasa

Robert Francis Vasa (born May 7, 1951) is an American prelate of the Roman Catholic Church. On Monday, January 24, 2011, Vasa was named the coadjutor bishop to Bishop Daniel F. Walsh of the Diocese of Santa Rosa in California by Pope Benedict XVI. Until then, he had been the fifth bishop of the Diocese of Baker in Oregon. On 30 June 2011, Walsh's resignation was accepted by Pope Benedict XVI, and Vasa succeeded him as bishop.

Some People Seem Too Willing to See me as Someone Else's Dupe

Example somewhat current in Paris.

Kent Hovind is a Young Earth Creationist. I am a Young Earth Creationist. Ergo, I became a Young Earth Creationist because Kent Hovind had charisma and I had insecurity ...

Kent Hovind also is on record or was on record as stating the Catholic Church had started Islam, because Alberto Rivera heard that in a secret briefing. He also is on record as stating Christ made no fermented wine in Cana and used no fermented wine on the Last Supper. See how I react to those things before you consider me Kent Hovind's dupe ...

Other example.

Graham Hancock believes the Younger Dryas and Göbekli Tepe are intimately connected to the history of mankind and civilisation. And Göbekli Tepe built on a previous and lost culture which was in the main not being expressed in the Palaeolithic culture of the post-Flood Ice Age.

While the hint about Younger Dryas and Göbekli Tepe actually reached me by reading Graham Hancock, and I cite him - wait a second on how we each tease out the details.

First, CMI which never directly responded to my stuff is responding in a very condescending way, not to Graham Hancock (who never reached out to them), but about him:

Ancient Apocalypse ‘hooey’
CMI : Feedback 2023, Gavin Cox responding
https://creation.com/ancient-hancock-hooey

Some of this is actually a useful resource about Graham Hancock.

Importantly, Hancock rejects using Scripture as the only way to interpret historical data. His is a hybrid approach, which discounts the (evolutionary) idea that humans were ‘primitive’ prior to and during the Ice Age and adds the (pseudo-biblical) idea that an advanced culture was destroyed by a cataclysm during a period called the ‘Younger Dryas’ (YD), supposedly around 12,900–11,700 years BP (before present). The YD represented a return to glacial conditions, which reversed the initial warming that happened after the Last Glacial Maximum, supposedly, c. 27,000–20,000 years BP. If you are interested on reading up on the YD see: Ice core oscillations and abrupt climate changes: part 1—Greenland ice cores, and scroll down to the sub-heading “The special Younger Dryas event”.

The reference they give discusses the mechanism.

Now, my view is that Younger Dryas was a few years just prior to the death of Noah. It involved some coastal floodings, and this may have been what gave Nimrod the idea that God wasn't keeping His promise, so men had to get to heaven to avoid the next Flood.

In Göbekli Tepe, Nimrod didn't meet any Ancient Alien Astronauts unlike what Hancock suggested in Chariots of the Gods, but was himself an Ancient Aspiring Astronaut.

And they said: Come, let us make a city and a tower, the top whereof may reach to heaven: and let us make our name famous before we be scattered abroad into all lands.

Why "the top of which" or "the top whereof may reach to heaven"? If the building was going to stay on the ground and only reach heaven by being very tall, why not "a tower which may reach to heaven"?

On the other hand, if Moses knew Nimrod planned and Kennedy and Khrushchev were going to succeed with three step rockets, one sees why "the top whereof" is used. At takeoff a threestep rocket looks like a tower - but steps one and two fall into the sea or burn when falling down the atmosphere, so only the top actually reaches the moon.

Hebrew English interlinear tells me that the relevant words in Hebrew are "weroshow bashamayim" (and the top [is] in the heavens). I click on wə·rō·šōw and find 7 occurrences, two translated "top" (Genesis 11 and 28, the tower and the ladder) and five translated "head" (Leviticus 13, Joshua 2, Job 20, Ps 7, Ezechiel 33). So, it is not the "height" but the actual material top of it that reaches into heaven.

This explains why there is no very high tower or ruins of such in Göbekli Tepe. If (as I think) my identification is correct. Nimrod having very inadequate access to pre-Flood science and technology was not helping him really achieve the goal. God actually helped the project by then and there stopping it. By letting human research get from Nimrod to Wernher von Braun.

But not just what happened socially I differ from Graham Hancock, not just the connexion to Younger Dryas, but equally obviously how he and I date these things.

As I see Göbekli Tepe as Babel, specifically city of Babel, I go to the Biblical dates for Babel, between 350 and 401 after the Flood, between the death of Noah and the birth of Peleg (yes, I know it doesn't work out that way in Masoretic chronology and I know the Vulgate has Masoretic chronology, but the Catholic Church also has a text read at Christmasses which has another chronology, a version of the LXX as to Genesis 5 and 11). This means that Göbekli Tepe's earliest carbon date, charcoal below the actual buildings, dated to 9600 BC, has to match some year close to 350 after the Flood or 2607 BC, and Göbekli Tepe's latest carbon date, a charcoal layer on top, dated to 8600 BC, has to match some year close to 401 after the Flood, or 2556 BC. This is very much not what Graham Hancock is doing, as he is taking the carbon dates as they stand.

As some may know, I use this equation for my New Tables, as two of the nodes between archaeology and Biblical chronology.

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

The entries here show how I deal with it:

2607 B. Chr.

0.428224 pmC/100, so dated as 9607 B. Chr.

...

2556 B. Chr.

0.481415 pmC/100, so dated as 8606 B. Chr.

Let me fix some deviations from conventions. In a tired moment, I regretted that English BC is less specific than French av. J. Chr. so I used B. Chr. The other one is, I found normal fractions easier to count with than percentages. Here is how it normally should look:

2607 BC

42.8224 pmC, so dated as 9607 BC

...

2556 BC

48.1415 pmC, so dated as 8606 BC

Now the thing is, feed 42.8224 pmC into a carbon 14 calculator, you get ... 7000 years. 2607 + 7000 = 9607 BC. The carbon date is the sum of the real date and the "instant carbon date" or "phantom age" produced by the lower initial pmC in the charcoal sample.

Same for 48.1415 pmC, gives 6050 years, 6050 + 2556 = 8606 BC.

And obviously, my rationale for the carbon levels I searched for was, as with the other nodes, they must be calculated from the amount of extra years. 9600 - 2607 = 6993 or roughly 7000 extra years. 8600 - 2556 = 6044 or roughly 6050 extra years. Put that into a carbon 14 calculator, and you get:

7000 -> 42.879 pmC
6050 -> 48.101 pmC

But why 42.8224 pmC instead of 42.879 pmC? Why 48.1415 pmC instead of 48.101 pmC?

I actually calculated successive C14 levels on paper, without a C14 calculator. I used decimal fractions obtained by multiple square roots of 0.5, multiplied by each other. This is because I did that work during the first confinement, to correct the Genesis 14 node from estimated carbon date c. 3200 BC to the actual test result 3500 BC, obtained from reed mats evacuated with temple treasures from En-Gedi by the Amorrhaeans. Osgood hadn't given a date, I only found it later.

Here are basically the fractions I used:

Creation vs. Evolution : Bases of C14
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/08/bases-of-c14.html

So, with this in mind, how do I date the glacial maximum and the Younger Dryas Cooling event?

12,900–11,700 years BP = 10,900 - 9,700 BC.

In New tables, I find it here:

2666 BC

35.4608 pmC, so dated as 11 216 BC

2644 BC

38.0408 pmC, so dated as 10 644 BC

2621 BC

40.6138 pmC, so dated as 10 071 BC

2599 BC

43.1708 pmC, so dated as 9549 BC

In other words, during the Younger Dryas, carbon 14 levels rose from 35.4 / 38 pmC to 40.6 / 43.1 pmC. It began in some year between 2666 and 2644 BC, and it ended some time between 2621 and 2599 BC. Let's make rough estimates by going to the medium values, from 2655 BC to 2610 BC. Far from lasting 1000 years, the Younger Dryas lasted only something like 45 years. That's why it was survived.

My theory is not proposed previously by other Young Earth Creationists, because they have neglected Göbekli Tepe. Lita Sanders and Robert Carter in 2011 answered on Göbekli Tepe without mentioning Babel.

My theory is also not proposed previously by Graham Hancock. He takes the carbon dates at face value, and believes the samples started out with c. 100 pmC.

Creationists believe I am a New Ager and a dupe of Graham Hancock. Graham Hancock believes I'm a religious fanatic and a dupe of Creation Ministries International or Kent Hovind.

Result - neither of them looks at what I do. Neither of them credits what I do. My study debt so far remains mostly unpaid, at below 400,000 SEK, below 38 819,18 USD, below 31 371,40 GBP, below 35 827,42 €.

Other result - neither of them needs to take my data into account for possibly reinterpreting his own.

But before I end, I'll be helpful about the Glacial Maximum as well ...

Last Glacial Maximum, supposedly, c. 27,000–20,000 years BP

2935 BC

3.9541 pmC, so dated as 29 635 BC

2912 BC

6.6161 pmC, so dated as 25 362 BC

...

2867 BC

11.9246 pmC/100, so dated as 20 467 BC

How do I obtain these levels? I obviously have no Biblical historic artefact corresponding to Glacial Maximum, so how?

Well, this is calculating a growth curve from the level needed to get 2957 BC (the Flood) as "40 000 BP" (Neanderthal démise, now corrected to "39 000 BP") up to the level for getting 2607 BC as 9600 BC.

I then put the levels of the different years into carbon 14 dating calculators, get the extra years, insert the carbon dates that correspond to the real ones.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Fabian of Rome
Pope and Martyr
20.I.2023

Romae natalis sancti Fabiani, Papae et Martyris, qui, Decii tempore, martyrium passus est, atque in coemeterio Callisti sepultus.

PS, I forgot to make the average between the real dates surrounding the carbon date 27000 BP ... oops, not necessary, since 27000 BP = 25000 BC, one of the values, 2912 BC. However, same mistake further down, I need 18 000 BC as carbon date, and when 2845 carbon dates as 18 745 and 2823 as 17 373, the carbon date 18 000 BC or 20 000 BP would be c. 2834 BC./HGL

Was Indo-European Group a Sprachbund?

Creation vs. Evolution Was Indo-European Group a Sprachbund? · Φιλολoγικά/Philologica Interesting Videos, MegalithHunter, I just provide an Alternative Timeline · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere Babel (and excursus: Can't Take a Screenshot from Here, But ...)

Take a look at these trade networks:

Let's credit the author of the video this is from by linking to it:

The Terramare Culture and the Bronze Age Collapse
Dan Davis History, 23 Dec. 2021
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oL5GDXq1acE

Now for the discussion.

A Sprachbund requires bilingual people. People who carry over habits (words, syntagms, even endings) from one of their languages to another.

This you can have in fairly close neighbourhoods, and obviously the Balkan is one, where you find Greek, Slavic, Romance, Albanian, formerly Turkic languages (actually, there are some Turkish speakers left in Bulgaria). These languages have in different ways taken over speech habits from each other, so they are closer to each other now than Greek was to the others in Classical times, than Romance, Slavic, presumably Turkic are elsewhere, and presumably this goes for Albanian as well.

Trubetskoy was a linguist who founded Balkan linguistics, and he thought that Indo-European, like Balkan languages, was a Sprachbund.

In the Balkans, bilingualism is on the forefront because it is very common. You walk one or two villages away, certain periods, you come to people speaking a different language. Slavs in Thessaloniki, Djudezmo speakers in Thessaloniki, Greek speakers on the Turkish Black Sea coast, these are things of the past. Voyevodina in Serbia has minorities all over the places, like Rusyns, who are cousins to Ukraineans, like Germans, you find Germans, Jews, Hungarians and the other Hungarians called Székely in Romania, and no doubt a few more I have missed, this is what the Balkan is like.

On trade routes, bilingualism would be less common, only those who went on trade routes and the locals who were involved in the exchange and had sometimes to deal with traders who were young and hadn't acquired their language yet, only those would need to be bilinguals. But bilingualism would be prominent anyway, because the bilinguals of the categories I mentioned would have a high status. For the 17th C. France, a Lewis XIV pronounces R like [ʁ] or possibly [ʀ], and a farmer in Bourgogne more likely like [r] - which pronunciation is more common in France now? Well, you'll find [r] for textbooks in Italian, but not for text books in French. Prominence of social status is a key factor in sociolinguistics, not that it is never opposed, but oppositions tend to be more local and divergent ...

I think the trade routes we are dealing with would push bilinguals and polyglots to the forefront in these areas for centuries (the trade routes Dan Davis speak of are not springing into existence in 1550 BC to end in 1450 BC in isolation), and, as said, such people carry on habits from one of their languages into another. Speakers of a language formerly known as Ænglisc and now spoken of as Anglo-Saxon for that period didn't turn into speakers of what we call English just by changing consonants and vowels, but also by acquiring words and more from Norse (Viking era), from Norman French (esp. after 1066), from Welsh (the word "do" may be Anglo-Saxon, but it's use in Modern English isn't) ... that is, by being bilinguals.

Note that for this period, the only two written attested Indo-European languages are Hittite (with Palaic and some) and Mycenaean Greek. We do not have attestations for Celtic from this time, or for Germanic, or for Italic (the Terramare culture was analphabetic, and Celts at a few centuries later than this time are commonly thought to have lived across the Alps in Hallstadt). Or for Slavic, or for Baltic. Or for Old Persian or Old Indian (Vedic or Sanskrit). This means, we cannot know exactly how Indo-European the other ones were at this point. They could right in this period have been about to become somewhat more Indo-European than they were before.

Now, what is the Biblical relevance for this?

One, somewhat less serious, is, the timeframe.

For those holding Indo-European as being a family (a group of languages sharing a common mother language, all being daughter languages of it, like French and Spanish are for Latin), there are two options of when and where.

A) The most common one refers to Yamnaya culture, dated to 4000 BC,
B) Alinei prefers Anatolian Farmers, c. 10 000 BC or BP.

The time problem is not just about the archaeological dating methods, it's also about the speed of language change. How much of the divergence between "branches of" Indo-European is due to separate language change and how much is due to the languages not even ever starting out as same and similar? Well, the more you speak of a family, the more of it is to be put down to processes of divergence, that is these have to have lasted longer.

In my tables, 4069 to 3946 BC are really carbon aliases for 2019 and 1996 BC. 10 000 BP or 8000 BC, well 8111 to 7889 BC are really 2511 to 2489 BC. By contrast, the time we deal with here, 1511 to 1478 BC is 1431 to 1408 BC. We cannot go back to further than say 2556 BC, the birth of Peleg and the division of languages at Babel.

This means, we have 600 to 1100 years for Hittite to diverge from Mycenaean Greek - which, considering their vast difference, is pretty ridiculous if you ask me. Danish and Icelandic are far closer to each other and their story of divergence starts with a common language barely different dialects 1000 years ago. This would be a time problem for Indo-European language family fitting into the Biblical chronology. Perhaps not an insuperable one, see NativLang's videos on Dyirbal, but still somewhat uncomfortable to me.

Another time problem with the Proto-Language Theory in Biblical chronology is, it takes some time for presumed Indo-European invaders into Greece to displace the pre-Greek language. Mind you it wasn't totally displaced, it features pretty often in Greek, Jerker Blomqvist mentioned sth like Greek, like Germanic, having a very solid (and for each of the two different) thesaurus of non-Indo-European vocabulary. But still. This time is obviously reduced by accepting a Biblical chronology, so accepting this is what happened is less compatible with it.

Now, there is a geographic problem too. Greeks are very obviously descended from Javan. Some guys North (North-West? North-East?) of the Black Sea are presumably descended from Magog. For some reason, both Hittites in Anatolia and Celts in Gaul, Spain and Ireland are descended from Gomer. Germanic peoples have been diversely credited to Ashkenaz and to Togormah. Some guys in Spain would at some point have been descended from Thiraz - this could be the Basques (Western Hunter Gatherer genome). Presumably each of these had their own language after Babel.

Obviously, God is able to simulate a language family while imposing languages at Babel - I think this is probably what happened with Afro-Asiatic, formerly divided into Semitic and Hamitic. Hebrew belonging to it was the original language, and yet it can be viewed in reconstructions as descending from Proto-Afro-Asiatic, as can fellow Semitic Akkadian, as can Hamitic Egyptian and Berber and Chad languages. So, presumably Afro-Asiatic is God's way of simulating a language family. If Tolkien could do it with Quenya and Sindarin (each not totally worked out for full communication purposes, though Helge Fauskanger is translating the Bible to Quenya), if David Peterson could do it with Dothraki and High Vallyrian, obviously God could do it as well. So, this could be one cue about the Indo-European mega-group, the languages can be analysed as a family of families, because the original families (plural) on God's decree simulate a language family, as does Afro-Asiatic.

The other possibility is, they look like a language family due to prolonged Sprachbund situations. Not just one prolonged such, but more than one. Like the trade routes shown in above diagramme.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Chair of St. Peter in Rome
18.I.2023

Cathedra sancti Petri Apostoli, qua primum Romae sedit. Ibidem passio sanctae Priscae, Virginis et Martyris; quae sub Claudio Imperatore, post multa tormenta, martyrio coronata est.

PS, later on in above video, a very mobile mercenary-warrior and trader élite is credited to c. 1200 BC, which is also an opportunity for bilingualism and Sprachbund situations./HGL

NativLang's videos on Dyirbal:

How Fast Do Languages Evolve? - Dyirbal glottochronology 1 of 2
NativLang, 25 Aug 2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evJ_E7k1pvY

How long can a language last before it's unrecognizable? - Dyirbal Glottochronology 2 of 2
NativLang, 15 Sept. 2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVBtIPOnNI

480 Years From Exodus to Temple?

Creation vs. Evolution: 480 Years From Exodus to Temple? · Φιλολoγικά / Philologica: Against a Late Date of the Exodus · A Reason Against Egyptian Records

I'll give you three lines from Exodus to death of King David, with Bible verses.

In each case, I will repeat the number of years in the verse, and I will after the first in each after the number in the verse give also the cumulating total.

A mainly Old Testament. But citing Saul's reign after NT, Acts 13

Exodus to Joshua 40
Joshua 30 70
Juda's war ?
"And all that generation was gathered to their fathers: and there arose others that knew not the Lord, and the works which he had done for Israel." ?
"And the Lord being angry with Israel, delivered them into the hands of Chusan Rasathaim king of Mesopotamia, and they served him eight years." 8 78
Othoniel 40 118
Eglon of Moab 18 136
"And Moab was humbled that day under the hand of Israel: and the land rested eighty years." 80 216
After Sisera: " And the land rested for forty years." 40 256
"And the children of Israel again did evil in the sight of the Lord: and he delivered them into the hand of Madian seven years." 7 263
"But Madian was humbled before the children of Israel, neither could they any more lift up their beads: but the land rested for forty years, while Gedeon presided." 40 303
"And he judged Israel three and twenty years, and he died and was buried in Samir." 23 326
"To him succeeded Jair the Galaadite, who judged Israel for two and twenty years." 22 348
"And they were afflicted, and grievously oppressed for eighteen years, all they that dwelt beyond the Jordan in the land of the Amorrhite, who is in Galaad:" 18 366
"And Jephte the Galaadite judged Israel six years: and he died, and was buried in his city of Galaad." 6 372
"He had thirty sons, and as many daughters, whom he sent abroad, and gave to husbands, and took wives for his sons of the same number, bringing them into his house. And he judged Israel seven years:" 7 379
"To him succeeded Ahialon a Zabulonite: and he judged Israel ten years:" 10 389
"And he had forty sons, and of them thirty grandsons, mounted upon seventy ass colts, and he judged Israel eight years:" 8 397
"And the children of Israel did evil again in the sight of the Lord: and he delivered them into the hands of the Philistines forty years." 40 437
"And he judged Israel in the days of the Philistines twenty years." 20 not added, still 437
"And his brethren and all his kindred, going down took his body, and buried it between Saraa and Esthaol in the buryingplace of his father Manue: and he judged Israel twenty years." 20 457
"And it came to pass, that from the day the ark of the Lord abode in Cariathiarim days were multiplied, (for it was now the twentieth year,) and all the house of Israel rested following the Lord." 20 477
"And Samuel judged Israel all the days of his life:" ?
"And after that they desired a king: and God gave them Saul the son of Cis, a man of the tribe of Benjamin, forty years." 40 527
David 40 567

Note the incapacity to add some of the years, as they are not given.

B, alternatively Old Testament only, citing Saul's reign after I Kings (I Samuel) 13 (and prior years are as in previous)

"Saul was a child of one year when he began to reign, and he reigned two years over Israel." 2 479
David 40 519

BUT, against this is Challoner:

[1] "Of one year": That is, he was good and like an innocent child, and for two years continued in that innocency.

C, summary from NT

Acts 13
"And for the space of forty years endured their manners in the desert." 40
"As it were, after four hundred and fifty years: and after these things, he gave unto them judges, until Samuel the prophet." 450 490
"And after that they desired a king: and God gave them Saul the son of Cis, a man of the tribe of Benjamin, forty years." 40 530
[David not mentioned, but as we know 40 570]

Conclusion

First two Bible verses with their comments:

III Kings (I Kings) 6:1

And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel came out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of the reign of Solomon over Israel, in the month Zio (the same is the second month), he began to build a house to the Lord.

Ellopos:
And it came to pass in the four hundred and fortieth year after the departure of the children of Israel out of Egypt, in the fourth year and second month of the reign of king Solomon over Israel

Here is the Haydock Comment:

Ver. 1. Eightieth year. This chronology meets with the approbation of most people. See Usher. C. xii. Some, however, find a difficulty in reconciling it with Acts xiii. 20, which seems to attribute 450 years to the government of the judges. C.

Sept. have 440; Josephus 592, though Ruffin neglects the 90 in his version; Petau 520; Severus 582; Clem.Alex. 566; Vossius 380; Cano 590; Serarius 680.

Houbigant would read 350 in the Acts. But Capellus would add 200 here, &c. H.

Second of the sacred year, corresponding with our April. Syr. Chaldee styles it "of the splendour of flowers." M.

The Hurons, and other nations of America, call this "the moon of plants;" the Flemings, "the month for mowing," Grasmaand. Our Saxon ancestors gave descriptive names to the months. See Verstegan. H.

At first, the Hebrews only described the months by their order; "first, second," &c. In Solomon's time we begin to find other names, taken from the Phenicians, (Scalig.) Chaldees, (Grot.) or Egyptians. Hardouin, A. 2993.

After the captivity, at least, the Chaldee names were adopted; (H.) 1. Nisan; 2. Jar; 3. Sivan; 4. Tammus; 5. Ab; 6. Elul; 7. Tisri; 8. Marshevan; 9. Casleu; 10. Thebet; 11. Schebet; 12. Adar; (C.) 13. Veadar, the intercalary month, when requisite, according to the lunar system, which was not perhaps yet adopted. Each of these months generally corresponded with two of ours; Nisan with the end of March and the beginning of April, &c. Sept. here take no notice of Zio, though they do, v. 37. H.

The temple was begun on Monday, May 21, A. 2992. Usher.

It was finished A. 3000, or in the following year, when it was solemnly dedicated. Button.

Now, what about Acts 13, again?

Ver. 20. Chronology only gives about 350 years from the entrance into the land of promise to the end of Samuel's judicial government, who was the last of the judges. V.

Well, I don't see how they get that result.

My practical conclusion is, I accept the work of St. Jerome, preserved in Historia Scholastica, which has the anointing of King David in 1032 BC and the Exodus in 1510 BC.

The IX table, see New Tables, from Fall of Troy to Temple, was built on presuming the number of years in III Kings 6:1 correct, and presuming the temple completed 50 years after the coronation of King David, that is, with an Exodus in 1510, the temple should be ready in 1032 (as Syncellus had it) and King David anointed in 1082. But with archaeological material from beams found in the temple mound (I think I lost the article that was my reference), dated to 960 BC, this was a key to pmC being above 100 in 1032.

However, it seems I was simply wrong to take 480 at face value. I should have accepted King David anointed in 1032, temple completed in 982 and the distance in years being 528.

Perhaps the solution could be that 528 years are counted as 480, if the subservience to Chusan Rasathaim (8 years) and to Philistines (40 years) are not counted, like years in which one could not celebrate Pesakh not counting as real years or even not allowing Cohanim to sit down and count another year.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Tatiana of Rome
12.I.2023

Romae sanctae Tatianae Martyris, quae, sub Alexandro Imperatore, uncis atque pectinibus laniata, bestiis exposita et in ignem missa, sed nil laesa, demum, gladio percussa, migravit in caelum.

Mount Judi or Durupinar?

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Some Creationists Cannot Get Contradicted on Detail By Me, Without Thinking I Contradict Creationism · Creation vs. Evolution: Mount Judi or Durupinar?

With either, Göbekli Tepe remains my location for Babel.

Mount Judi is in Cizre.
Durupinar is in Doğubeyazıt.
Göbekli Tepe is in Şanlıurfa.

Here are the routes from either landing place candidate to Şanlıurfa (and Göbekli Tepe, my City-of-Babel candidate).

In each case, the journey to Göbekli Tepe is "removing from the East", in each case it passes near Batman, and in the case of Durupinar, the journey is even somewhat close to 666 km. Pretty appropriate with Nimrod being in power there./HGL

PS, did all cultures expand from Göbekli Tepe? Well, Mauritius seems to have some connexion, since Göbekli Tepe features dodo birds:

The still is from this video:
The Missing Link: Floods, Giants, and Ancient Apocalypse
Mr. Mythos | 29 Dec. 2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7CofyBlrYs

I don't necessarily agree with it, but this adds to a collection like Göbekli Tepe showing birdmen from Polynesia and a symbol from Aboriginal Australia./HGL

PPS, a little later on, he mentions a theory Göbekli Tepe could have been astronomical in nature ... fits very well with my view of the purpose. It seems also to have contained an image of the Zodiac, on this view ... anyone said Babel?/HGL

PPPS, to return to distances to Göbekli Tepe, the one from Cizre / Mt Judi being 318 km concurs with Abraham (and his 318 men) coming from Ur Kasdim ... which some identify with nearby Urfa./HGL

PPPPS, he portrays Denisovans as possible giants. I'd agree./HGL