Genre of Genesis

Dont ask me, ask an authority of the Church, like the Haydock comment:

THE BOOK OF GENESIS. INTRODUCTION. https://johnblood.gitlab.io/haydock/id326.html The Hebrews now entitle all the Five Books of Moses, from the initial words, which originally were written like one continued word or verse; but the Septuagint have preferred to give the titles the most memorable occurrences of each work. On this occasion, the Creation of all things out of nothing, strikes us with peculiar force. We find a refutation of all the heathenish mythology, and of the world's eternity, which Aristotle endeavoured to establish. We behold the short reign of innocence, and the origin of sin and misery, the dispersion of nations, and the providence of God watching over his chosen people, till the death of Joseph, about the year 2369 (Usher) 2399 (Salien and Tirinus) B.C. 1631. We shall witness the same care in the other Books of Scripture, and adore his wisdom and goodness in preserving to himself faithful witnesses, and a true Holy Catholic Church, in all ages, even when the greatest corruption seemed to overspread the land. (Haydock) This Book is so called from its treating of the Generation, that is, of the Creation and the beginning of the world. The Hebrews call it Bereshith, from the word with which it begins. It contains not only the History of the Creation of the World, but also an account of its progress during the space of 2369 years, that is, until the death of Joseph.

Father George Leo Haydock did not put it in parallel, but in opposition to pagan mythology. He takes the timespan (here given for Masoretic / Vulgate chronology, not LXX) as a literal timespan./HGL

Two quick things

• In Newer Tables Flood to Joseph in Egypt, I had to correct the html and a mismatch between real year and carbon year. I just discovered the mismatch when trying to share the tables. OK, I was finishing them in a night when I was renouncing sleep, and two mistakes is bearable.*
• Other mismatch, but not by me, is the idea that the "Evolution of language in hominins" somehow could be a parallel to language development in infants. Infants don't just develop language, unless they are surrounded by it. Not linking to the video.

* Supposing the mistakes were mine and not planted.

Newer Tables, Preliminaries

Newer Tables: Preliminaries · Flood to Joseph in Egypt · Joseph in Egypt to Fall of Troy.

A) The anchor points.

In order to calibrate carbon 14, you need anchor points, where an object of known age is also carbon dated. To me, the Biblical events are (except for I/II and VIII, a physical turning point in the early post-Flood era, and the fall of Troy) are of a known age, at least with approximation about what text is the correct one. Originally there were nine anchor points, but I dropped point IX and I introduced points I/II and VI/VII.

I, the Flood.

2958 BC. Dates as 37 000 BC. 0.0162771032469586

I/II, a midpoint.

2738 BC. Dates as 20 933 BC. 0.1106908081611022

II, death of Noah, beginning of Babel.

2608 BC. Dates as 9500 BC. 0.4344336256776197

III, birth of Peleg, end of Babel.

2557 BC. Dates as 8000 BC. 0.5176637713737836

IV, Genesis 14.

1936 BC. Dates as 3500 BC. 0.8276258493022752

V, c. 1700 BC, death of Djoser.

1700 BC. Dates as 2800 BC. 0.8754082729655837

VI, c. 1590 BC, death of Sesostris.

1590 BC. Dates as 1839 BC. 0.9703280628990107

VI/VII, Exodus.

1511 BC. Dates as 1609 BC. 0.9882151189089242

VII, fall of Jericho.

1471 BC. Dates as 1550 BC. 0.9904890385842258

VIII, fall of Troy.

1179 BC. Dates as 1179 BC. 1 (100 pmC)

B) Distances and speeds.

Between two anchor points, there is a specific distance in time.

That one will involve the carbon 14 level in the atmosphere present at the beginning per se decaying corresponding to the time, a factor of for instance 0.5^(220/5730) for the first of these distances.

It will also involve this atmosphere, which is a sample but an open sample, not lowering the carbon 14 level, but in each of the cases I studied so far actually raising it, because while the original carbon 14 content decays, new carbon 14 is added.

The normal addition over such time as it is today is 1 - that decimal fraction or if it's translated into pmC (a percentage fraction), it is 100 - so many pmC points.

However, these occasions, what's getting added will be added faster, and we well calculate how much faster. The level at the end of the table's time span will consist of a part that's the remainder of the level at the beginning and a part that's the addition over this time. Once you have determined the actual addition, you divide that by the normal replacement. That will mean how much faster the carbon 14 is added over these periods.

The level was not low because the carbon 14 was (after the Flood) added slower than now, which lowered it over time, it was low because it started out low after the Flood and got high this fast since then by adding carbon 14 faster than now.

I—I/II

2958-2738 = 220 years

0.9737380239639717 * 0.0162771032469586 = 0.0158496344 remainder

(0.1106908081611022 - 0.0158496344) / (1-0.9737380239639717) = 3.6113494917 replacement speed

I/II—II

2738-2608 = 130 years

0.9843971533174005 * 0.1106908081611022 = 0.1089637165

(0.4344336256776197 - 0.1089637165) / (1 - 0.9843971533174005) = 20.859649258 replacement speed

II—III

2608-2557 = 51 years

0.9938496186938799 * 0.4344336256776197 = 0.4317616932 remainder

(0.5176637713737836 - 0.4317616932) / (1 - 0.9938496186938799) = 13.9669516199 replacement speed

III—IV

2557-1936 = 621 years

0.9276310630766214 * 0.5176637713737836 = 0.4802009946 remainder

(0.8276258493022752 - 0.4802009946) / (1 - 0.9276310630766214) = 4.8007455894 replacement speed

IV—V

1936-1700 = 236 years

0.9718551869271131 * 0.8276258493022752 = 0.8043324745 remainder

(0.8754082729655837 - 0.8043324745) / (1 - 0.9718551869271131) = 2.5253604741 replacement speed

V—VI

1700-1590 = 110 years

0.986781649588181 * 0.8754082729655837 = 0.8638368197 remainder

(0.9703280628990107 - 0.8638368197) / (1 - 0.986781649588181) = 8.0563186722 replacement speed

VI—VI/VII

1590-1511 = 79 years

0.9904890385842258 * 0.9703280628990107 = 0.9610993101 remainder

(0.9882151189089242 - 0.9610993101) / (1 - 0.9904890385842258) = 2.8510060751 replacement speed

VI/VII—VII

1511-1471 = 40 years

0.9951729639914483 * 0.9882151189089242 = 0.9834449689 remainder

(0.9904890385842258 - 0.9834449689) / (1-0.9951729639914483) = 1.4592950262 replacement speed

VII—VIII

1471-1179 = 292 years

0.9652938815432484 * 0.9904890385842258 = 0.9561130087 remainder

(1 - 0.95611300868100765329074873108872) / (1 - 0.9652938815432484) = 1.2645318252 replacement speed

C) For the calibration, I hack up the timespans to pieces.

Each piece is of equal length. It has its own level of decay, a multiplication with a decimal fraction starting with 0.99 ...

It obviously also has it's own level of normal replacement. One of the numbers, 22 years, is used twice over these tables.

22 years (I—I/II, 10 times, V—VI, 5 times)

0.9973422400389199 * decay

(1 - 0.9973422400389199) = 0.0026577599610801 normal replacement

13 years (I/II—II, 10 times)

0.998428650637827 * decay

(1 - 0.998428650637827) = 0.001571349362173 normal replacement

17 years (II—III, 3 times)

0.9979456554564614 * decay

(1 - 0.9979456554564614) = 0.0020543445435386 normal replacement

23 years (III—IV, 27 times)

0.9972216007456389 * decay

(1 - 0.9972216007456389) = 0.0027783992543611 normal replacement

19.6666666666666667 years (IV—V, 12 times)

0.9976237884822478 * decay

(1 - 0.9976237884822478) = 0.0023762115177522 normal replacement

15.8 years (VI—VI/VII, 5 times)

0.99809052947232 * decay

(1 - 0.99809052947232) = 0.00190947052768 normal replacement

20 years (VI/VII—VII, twice)

0.9975835624104119 * decay

(1 - 0.9975835624104119) = 0.0024164375895881 normal replacement

24.3333333333333333 years (VII—VIII, 12 times)

0.9970607710539279 * decay

(1 - 0.9970607710539279) = 0.0029392289460721 normal replacement

D) Putting it all together

We begin by putting the B and C parts together. I'll take an example from table VII—VIII.

VII—VIII

1471-1179 = 292
0.9652938815432484 * 0.9904890385842258 = 0.9561130087
(1 - 0.9561130087) / (1 - 0.9652938815432484) = 1.2645318252 !!

24.3333333333333333 years (VII—VIII, 12 times)

0.9970607710539279 *
(1 - 0.9970607710539279) = 0.0029392289460721 !!

The two quantities marked with !! will enter a multiplication. It's the speed times the normal replacement.

1.264 531 8252 * 0.0029392289460721
= 0.0037167485 !!

Here I have marked the specific replacement.

Note, while tables I—I/II and V—VI have the same piece length, the same decay, the same normal replacement, the different speeds mean they have different specific replacements.

So, after the specific replacement is calculated, for each new year after the first anchor point, the following calculation module is added, where x = first or any other immediately previous year's carbon level.

0.9970607710539279 * x (decay)
+ 0.0037167485 (specific replacement)

For each new stop, you calculate the year first, like the first or immediately previous year in the table minus the piece. In this case 24 and 1/3 years. The result is not yet rounded to an integer, OK.

Then you insert x, and do that calculation.

1471-24.3333333333333333 = 1446.6666666666666667

0.9970607710539279 * 0.9904890385842258
+ 0.0037167485

You can actually put them on the same line, easier to copy-paste and put it into the calculator.

0.9970607710539279 * 0.9904890385842258 + 0.0037167485

Giving as result the new carbon 14 level:

0.9912945131

As this is put below the year, you continue to next and so on, and in each case I added a formula for obtaining the year.

As honour where honour is due, I have already noted in With a Little Help from MathQueen! how her method has helped me to not despair on getting this perfect. Carbon 14 calculators are not bad, but they will round the result. Her video is Can you crack this beautiful equation? – University exam question. Below the link, on the post, I derive the formula I need. When you have calculated all years (without rounding) and carbon 14 levels, below them, you temporarily give each this formula. The first line obtains the number of instant age extra years from the carbon 14 level (must be expressed as decimal fraction). The second line adds the unrounded year of the real chronology.

1446.6666666666666667
0.9912945131

5730 * log() / log(0.5)
+

Put the variables into the appropriate slots:

1446.6666666666666667
0.9912945131

5730 * log(0.9912945131) / log(0.5)
+ 1446.6666666666666667

Put the whole formula on a single line:

5730 * log(0.9912945131) / log(0.5) + 1446.6666666666666667

Get it through the calculator:

1518.9468913523

The result is only now rounded.

1447
0.9912945131
1519

And some readers may appreciate what you put the decimal fraction into the standard form of a % faction, as pcM go.

1447 BC
99.129 pmC
1519 BC

This is how each of the stops within a table was constructed. And including the last one to check it lines up with the first of the next or with 100 pmC at Troy.

Now, I'm making these posts a bit early, but they are out on Christmas Eve, after First Vespers./HGL

PS, in case you wonder about my Biblical chronology, I use the Martyrology reading for Christmas Day:

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica: What Martyrology, by the way?
Saturday, November 21, 2020 | Posted by Hans Georg Lundahl at 5:40 AM
https://filolohika.blogspot.com/2020/11/what-martyrology-by-way.html

Newer Tables, Flood to Joseph in Egypt

Newer Tables: Preliminaries · Flood to Joseph in Egypt · Joseph in Egypt to Fall of Troy.

I, the Flood It's a Biblical event, and it left traces. The thing is just knowing what traces that carbon date are from the Flood. And I'd say the supereruption of Campi Flegrei cuts the bill. That eruption gave a marked decline of Neanderthals that I consider as pre-Flood, and no bodies or body parts of pure Neanderthals have been found after the date. A recent discovery named "Thorin" as the last Neanderthal. Thorin, the last Neanderthal 52 min documentary directed by Pascal Cuissot produced by Fred Hilgemann Films (ARTE, 2024) https://www.renaud-barbier.com/en/thorin-the-last-neanderthal/ The date of Thorin was 42 000 BP or 40 000 BC, fits a Flood in carbon dated 39 000 BP or 37 000 BC pretty well. The Gorham caves show Neanderthal typical artefacts with charcoal that's younger, but no actual Neanderthal that's younger./HGL

I—I/II

Starts out 2958 BC,

1.6277 pmC, dated as 37 000 BC

2956 BC

Arphaxad born

2958-2738 = 220 years

10 * 22 years

3.611 times as fast

0.9973422400389199 * = decay

0.0026577599610801 = normal replacement

Replacement in these sections

0.96 pmC points

Long calculation of first stop 2958 - 22 = 2936 0.9973422400389199 * 0.0162771032469586 = 0.01623384261366646654192530401614 0.01623384261366646654192530401614 + 0.0095981000845884760579187626401557034644682299180800131735112968 = 0.0258319426982549425998440666562957034644682299180800131735112968 x = 5730 * log(0.0258319426982549425998440666562957034644682299180800131735112968) / log(0.5) x = 30224.031251931194472847209715714682439894756321341837792768328392499 30224 + 2936 = 33160

Or for short

2958 BC

1.6277 pmC, dated as 37 000 BC

2956 BC

Arphaxad born

2936 BC

2.583 pmC, dated as 33,160 BC

2914 BC

3.536 pmC, dated as 30,542 BC

2892 BC

4.487 pmC, dated as 28,552 BC

2870 BC

5.434 pmC, dated as 26,946 BC

2848 BC

6.38 pmC, dated as 25,598 BC

2826 BC

7.323 pmC, dated as 24,437 BC

2821 BC

Shelah born

2804 BC

8.263 pmC, dated as 23,416 BC

2782 BC

9.201 pmC, dated as 22,505 BC

2760 BC

10.136 pmC, dated as 21,683 BC

2738 BC

11.069 pmC, dated as 20,933 BC

I/II—II

Actually no big deal, just a convenient midpoint for changing the speed.

Starts out 2738 BC

11.069 pmC, dated as 20,933 BC

2738—2608 = 130 years,

10 * 13 years

20.86 times as fast

0.998428650637827 * = decay

0.001571349362173 = normal replacement

Replacement in these sections

3.278 pmC points

2725 BC

14.329 pmC, dated as 18,786 BC

2712 BC

17.585 pmC, dated as 17,081 BC

2699 BC (!)

20.835 pmC, dated as 15,666 BC

2691 BC

Eber born

2686 BC

24.08 pmC, dated as 14,456 BC

2673 BC

27.32 pmC, dated as 13,399 BC

2660 BC

30.555 pmC, dated as 12,461 BC

2647 BC

33.784 pmC, dated as 11,618 BC

2634 BC

37.009 pmC, dated as 10,851 BC

2621 BC

40.229 pmC, dated as 10,148 BC

2608 BC

43.443 pmC, 9500 BC

II, Noah dies, beginning of Babel This is only possible in a specific LXX based chronology, which I adher to. In a LXX text without the Second Cainan, Peleg is born 401 after the Flood, meaning a period of 51 years which according to some involve 40 years of building "the tower" whatever that was. I think it probable that Noah was dead only little before Babel started, because I think that Nimrod pretended to have his greenlight for the project (fraudulently, after he had actually died). I think Gilgamesh meeting Utnapishtim reflects this bluff. If Noah had already been dead for over a century before Nimrod began, it's not credible that he could have pulled the bluff off. This rules out the longer more standard LXX chronology with the Second Cainan. On the other hand, if Peleg had been born in 101 BC, Noah would still have been alive. There is also some probability there was a sham consultation of Noah from the fact that (my source is here Josephus) Nimrod presented the project as a way to avoid the next Flood.

II—III

Starting out 2608 BC

43.443 pmC, 9500 BC

2608-2557 = 51 years

3 * 17 years

13.967 times as fast

0.9979456554564614 * = decay

0.0020543445435386 = normal replacement

Replacement in these sections

2.869 pmC points

2591 BC

46.223 pmC, dated as 8970 BC

2574 BC

48.998 pmC, dated as 8471 BC

2557 BC

51.766 pmC, dated as 8000 BC

III, Peleg is born, end of Babel Confer what I said in previous. In a full LXX chronology, Peleg's birth would still have been the end of Babel, but there would have been no corresponding major shift 40 years previous as the death of Noah presumes.

III—IV

Starting out 2557 BC

51.766 pmC, dated as 8000 BC

2557-1936 = 621 years

27 * 23 years

4.801 times as fast

0.9972216007456389 * = decay

0.0027783992543611 = normal replacement

Replacement in this sections

1.334 pmC points

2534 BC

52.956 pmC, dated as 7789 BC

2511 BC

54.143 pmC, dated as 7583 BC

2488 BC

55.327 pmC, dated as 7381 BC

2465 BC

56.507 pmC, dated as 7184 BC

2456 BC

Shem died

2442 BC

57.683 pmC, dated as 6990 BC

2427 BC

Reu born

2419 BC

58.857 pmC, dated as 6801 BC

2396 BC

60.027 pmC, dated 6615 BC

2391 BC

Arphaxad died

2373 BC

61.194 pmC, dated as 6433 BC

2361 BC

Shelah died

2350 BC (!)

62.358 pmC, dated as 6254 BC

2327 BC (!)

63.519 pmC, dated as 6079 BC

2304 BC

64.676 pmC, dated as 5906 BC

2295 BC

Serug born

2281 BC

65.83 pmC, dated as 5737 BC

2258 BC

66.981 pmC, dated as 5571 BC

2235 BC

68.129 pmC, dated as 5407 BC

2218 BC

Peleg died

2212 BC

69.274 pmC, dated as 5247 BC

2189 BC

70.415 pmC, dated as 5089 BC

2187 BC

Eber died

2166 BC

71.553 pmC, dated as 4933 BC

2165 BC

Nahor born

2143 BC

72.688 pmC, dated as 4780 BC

2120 BC

73.82 pmC, dated as 4629 BC

2097 BC

74.949 pmC, dated as 4481 BC

2088 BC

Reu died

2086 BC

Terah born

2074 BC

76.074 pmC, dated as 4335 BC

2051 BC

77.1968 pmC, dated as 4191 BC

2028 BC

78.316 pmC, dated as 4048 BC

2016 BC

Abraham born

Was 4000 BC in Carbon dates in or close to Abraham's birthyear? Let's check previous and following stops, and do some medium and calibrated medium. (2028 + 2005) / 2 = 2016.5 (0.7831617799 + 0.7943242318) _______________ = 0.7887430058 2 5730*log(0.7887430058) _____________________ + 2016.5 = 3978 log(0.5) (2028 + 2028 + 2005) / 3 = 2020.333... (0.7831617799 + 0.7831617799 + 0.7943242318) _______________ = 0.7868825972 3 5730*log(0.7868825972) _____________________ + 2020.333... = 4001.6509744942 log(0.5) So, about 4 years prior to his birth would have been past 4000 BC in carbon dates. And that carbon date is when Cannibalism stopped in the last of the three caves the archaeologists have for the Neolithic cannibals. Fontbrégoua cave involved six corpses from "6000 years ago" with cut marks pointing to cannibalism. Archaeologists Rediscover Cannibals ANN GIBBONS | SCIENCE 1 Aug 1997Vol 277, Issue 5326 pp. 635-637 DOI: 10.1126/science.277.5326.6 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.277.5326.635

2005 BC

79.432 pmC, dated as 3909 BC

1982 BC

80.546 pmC, dated as 3770 BC

1965 BC

Serug died

1959 BC

81.656 pmC, dated as 3634 BC

1957 BC

Nahor died

1936 BC

82.763 pmC, dated as 3500 BC

IV Genesis 14 This tying together is probably the strongest. In Genesis 14, the Amorrhites of Asason-Tamar are shown as attcked, which would be a natural occasion for an evacuation. Asason-Tamar, as Osgood pointed out, is also known as En-Geddi, and basically the only candidate for the Amorrhite occupation of the site would have been the Chalcolithic one. It ended with an evacuation of Temple treasure and this on reed mats that have been carbon dated to 3500 BC.

IV—V

Starting out, 1936 BC

82.763 pmC, dated as 3500 BC

1936-1700 = 236 years

12 * 19 and 2/3 years

2.525 times as fast

0.9976237884420209 * = decay

0.0023762115579791 = normal replacement

Replacement in these sections

0.6 pmC points

1930

Ishmael born

1916 BC

Isaac born.

83.166 pmC, dated as 3440 BC

1897 BC

83.568 pmC, dated as 3381 BC

1881 BC

Terah died

1877 BC

83.97 pmC, dated as 3321 BC

1857 BC

84.371 pmC, dated as 3262 BC

1856 BC

Jacob and Esau born

1841 BC

Abraham died

1838 BC

84.77 pmC, dated as 3204 BC

1818 BC

85.169 pmC, dated as 3145 BC

1816 BC

Esau is 40, Jacob goes to Laban

1798 BC

85.566 pmC, dated as 3087 BC

1797 BC

Joseph born

1796 BC

Jacob leaves Laban

1793 BC

Ishmael died

1779 BC

85.963 pmC, dated as 3029 BC

1759 BC

86.359 pmC, dated as 2971 BC

1739 BC

86.754 pmC, dated as 2914 BC

1736 BC

Isaac died

1726 BC

Jacob came to Egypt.

1720 BC

87.148 pmC, dated as 2857 BC

1709 BC

Jacob died.

1700 BC

87.541 pmC, dated as 2800 BC

V, Djoser, Joseph's Pharao dies I thought I had Joseph = Imhotep in CMI, seems to be incorrect. GotQuestions concludes in the negative, based on a) Djoser lived in the 27th C. BC, b) the theology is different. I would reply, a) Djoser actually died much more recently (and yes, he's one pharao we know existed, we have his tomb). As recently as 1700 BC or there around, c. 20 years after receiving Jacob into Egypt. The REAL 2700 tp 2601 BC would carbon date as 15,666 BC in the Palaeolithic to 9278 BC, in early Babel. And b) what do you expect of Pagans? I expect Krishna was a real person, real pre-Flood participant of a war involved in Genesis 6:11, but I expect it was Pagan error that made Krishna a god, and Pagan error that gave the theological interpretation of the Mahabharata war. Similarily, I'd expect Khemetists to get Joseph wrong, but still certainly to remember him. Aardsma's correspondent Mrs. Beverly J. Neises in Is Imhotep Joseph? makes a further point that Imhotep's father is on some monument in Wadi el Hammammat given as Ka-nefer. However, one could assume the reference being more than 1000 years after the actual Joseph, and Egyptian nationalism being what it was, Ka-nefer would be likely to replace Jacob, unless it was an honorary Egyptian name for him, or Ka-nefer could have been a man Joseph was temporarily adopted by. Or, if his wife was not Asenath, or even if she was, Ka-nefer could have been the father-in-law. If we accept 1609 as the carbon date of 1511 and 3500 as that for 1936, the straight medium carbon level and carbon date for 1700 would be 91.68 pmC, 4.139 pmC points higher, and the carbon date would be 2418 BC. This would fit Merefnebef, whom Patrick Clarke suggested in Joseph’s Zaphenath Paaneah—a chronological key. I have not looked into that much.

Newer Tables, Joseph in Egypt to Fall of Troy

Newer Tables: Preliminaries · Flood to Joseph in Egypt · Joseph in Egypt to Fall of Troy.

V, Djoser, Joseph's Pharao dies See previous.

V—VI

Starting out 1700 BC

87.541 pmC, dated as 2800 BC

1700-1590 = 110 years

5 * 22 years

8.056 times as fast

0.9973422400389199 * = decay

0.0026577599610801 = normal replacement

Replacement in these sections

2.141 pmC points

1687

Joseph dies.

1678 BC

89.449 pmC, dated as 2600 BC

1656 BC

91.353 pmC, dated as 2404 BC

1634 BC

93.251 pmC, dated as 2212 BC

1612 BC

95.145 pmC, dated as 2023 BC

1590 BC

97.033 pmC, dated as 1839 BC

VI, Sesostris III dies when Moses is born For the identification of Sesostris III with the pharao who died when Moses was born, see Searching for Moses.

VI—VI/VII

Starting out 1590 BC

97.033 pmC, dated as 1839 BC

1590-1511 = 79 years

5 * 15.8 years

2.851 times as fast

0.99809052947232 * = decay

0.00190947052768 = normal replacement

Replacement in these sections

0.544 pmC points

1574 BC

97.392 pmC, dated as 1793 BC

1558 BC

97.75 pmC, dated as 1746 BC

1543 BC

98.108 pmC, dated as 1700 BC

1527 BC

98.465 pmC, dated as 1655 BC

1511 BC

98.822 pmC, dated as 1609 BC

VI/VII, the Exodus The reason I have put this as a point between VI and VII rather than giving it its own number is, I have recently introduced the idea, and this is the first time I use it in a table. VI for death of Sesostris III and VII for fall of Jericho were already taken. The new idea is, God used eruption products from Santorini or Thera for the plagues of Egypt.

VI/VII—VII

Starting out 1511 BC

98.822 pmC, dated as 1609

1511-1471 = 40 years

2 * 20 years

1.459 times as fast

0.9975835624104119 * = decay

0.0024164375895881 = normal replacement

Replacement in these sections

0.353 pmC points

1491 BC

98.935 pmC, dated as 1579 BC

1471 BC

99.049 pmC, dated as 1550 BC

VII, the Fall of Jericho Kenyon dated it to 1550 BC, 40 years after Exodus with Exodus in 1511, implies 1471.

VII—VIII

Starting out 1471 BC

99.049 pmC, dated as 1550 BC

1471-1179 = 292 years

12 * 24 and 1/3 years

1.265 times as fast

0.9970607710539279 * = decay

0.0029392289460721 = normal replacement

Replacement in these sections

0.372 pmC points

1447 BC

99.129 pmC, dated as 1519 BC

1422 BC

99.21 pmC, dated as 1488 BC

1398 BC

99.29 pmC, dated as 1457 BC

1374 BC

99.37 pmC, dated as 1426 BC

1349 BC

99.449 pmC, dated as 1395 BC

1325 BC

99.529 pmC, dated as 1364 BC

1301 BC

99.608 pmC, dated as 1333 BC

1276 BC

99.687 pmC, dated as 1302 BC

1252 BC

99.765 pmC, dated as 1271 BC

1228 BC

99.844 pmC, dated as 1241 BC

1203 BC

99.922 pmC, dated as 1210 BC

1179 BC

100 pmC, dated as 1179 BC

VIII, The Fall of Troy In a way this is the least original. History says (Eratosthenes and precursors of the Christmas Day reading) Troy fell 1179 BC. There is at Troy a destruction layer dated to 1180 BC. I take this as the first detected occurrence of 100 pmC in the atmosphere back then.

Answering an Orthodox, or purported such, on Creation and on Balaam

First, I found an article on the site Orthodox Christianity, by Seraphim Hamilton, while looking for my own blog, this one, finding it can certainly be accessed, but not very googled. Second, while in site, I found an article on St. Joseph the Fair or St. Joseph the All Comely, a k a Joseph in Egypt:

JOSEPH THE FAIR AND CHRISTIAN PARADIGMS
Metropolitan Serafim (Joanta) of Germany and Central Europe
https://orthochristian.com/165670.html

Third, I found under that one this comment:

Mauro Souto | 12/20/2024 10:53 pm

I admire the Orthodox Christianity as much as I despise the lies of Judaism which were, little by little, introduced into our religion and faith through the Synagogue of Satan. Mix together our sacred Scriptures with the Torah (certainly in nothing original as the real Torah brought by Moses) is something I will never understand coming from the Orthodoxy. Specially considering the amount of contradictions between both texts. Compare the creation of the world both in Genesis 1 and John 1. Two completely different revelations: someone is lying. Compare the story of Balaam: the Jewish documents say he did not curse Israel; the Christian documents say he did: someone is lying. How can I, as a Christian, validate the Gospels using the Torah, as many do, knowing that there is not a true Jewish text to rely on anymore? This is confusing, and there must be no place for confusion among the sons of Jesus Christ.

I think it is partly worthier of Marcion than of Photius (whom I believe to have died in the Catholic Church, i e in peace with the Pope).

I also think it is worth answering, because it argues for some ideas that are bad, but it argues, technically, well.

the lies of Judaism which were, little by little, introduced into our religion and faith through the Synagogue of Satan

Like they hijacked the Christian religion when the Church excommunicated Marcion?

Do not think so.

The general setup sounds a bit like Hitler in 1940 arguing the Jews had invented the Schwabach Fraktur, in order to make German print incomprehensible to occupied people. I love the Schwabach Fraktur, but even if some find it reminiscent of Square Letters, I think he credited Jews with more influence and perhaps even more taste than they had.

Mix together our sacred Scriptures with the Torah (certainly in nothing original as the real Torah brought by Moses) is something I will never understand coming from the Orthodoxy.

Mauro Souto will not understand Orthodoxy. Period. Unless he changes his mind.

Specially considering the amount of contradictions between both texts.

Atheists and Jews pretend there are many contradictions between texts in the NT, like about Our Lord's childhood or about St. Paul's vocation.

Compare the creation of the world both in Genesis 1 and John 1. Two completely different revelations: someone is lying.

No. John 1 describes the why and for what purpose. Genesis 1 describes the when (at least in what order) and the how.

Compare the story of Balaam: the Jewish documents say he did not curse Israel; the Christian documents say he did: someone is lying.

I looked up his name in the NT.

Leaving the right way they have gone astray, having followed the way of Balaam of Bosor, who loved the wages of iniquity,
[2 Peter 2:15]

Woe unto them, for they have gone in the way of Cain: and after the error of Balaam they have for reward poured out themselves, and have perished in the contradiction of Core.
[Jude 1:11]

But I have against thee a few things: because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat, and to commit fornication:
[Apocalypse (Revelation) 2:14]

And while Jude 1:11 mentions Balaam as only one in three, II Peter 2 gives a context:

Leaving the right way they have gone astray, having followed the way of Balaam of Bosor, who loved the wages of iniquity But had a check of his madness, the dumb beast used to the yoke, which speaking with man's voice, forbade the folly of the prophet
[2 Peter 2:15-16]

So, the NT actually confirms that Balaam was stopped from pronouncing the curse. Apocalypse 2 says he nevertheless contributed to the ruin of Israel in other ways, but not that this included cursing.

How can I, as a Christian, validate the Gospels using the Torah, as many do, knowing that there is not a true Jewish text to rely on anymore? This is confusing, and there must be no place for confusion among the sons of Jesus Christ.

There is a Christian text of the Torah, in the LXX version.

Also, "this is confusing" here only means "this is confusing to me" and while Christianity should offer no genuine stumblingblocks inviting to confusion about important issues, it can certainly involve a passage or two which could puzzle Mauro Souto.

Of whom the First Pope actually spoke:

And account the longsuffering of our Lord, salvation; as also our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction
[2 Peter 3:15-16]

As Marcion was no more Christian than Luther, twisting the previous chapter of II Peter to pretend Balaam cursed and wasn't stopped isn't better than twisting Romans 3, as Luther and Tyndale did, to pretend justification doesn't involve works.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
IV LD of Advent
22.XII.2024

Why Are Counting Sticks No Older than 60,000 Years Old?

.... the 4:13 Great Leap Forward. I'll just give you 4:15 the cliff notes again 60,000 years ago 4:19 there's no previous example of 4:21 mathematics being anywhere around Homo 4:24 sapiens or around the the progeny of Y 4:27 chromosome Adam and um mitochondrial Eve. 4:30 None. and then all of a sudden 60,000 4:32 years ago we see counting sticks 4:33 everywhere and we see notched counting 4:35 sticks we see three Road not um Notch 4:39 counting sticks where people are 4:40 actually doing not just addition but 4:43 multiplication on various base levels.

Sounds very impressive until you ask the question about dating methods.

The Jesuit Robert Spitzer on this video:

Are Adam And Eve Our Biological Ancestors?
Lila Rose | 18 Dec. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4Tzf18VUqA

So, the thing is, if something is tested as 60,000 years old or younger, chances are it's carbon dated. But a near permineralised skeleton or skeletal part that's buried under lava will be dated by the lava's Potassium Argon proportions, and be dated older.

You know, part of the situations in which you would in the pre-Flood world land under lava would be, being alive and getting buried when the Flood struck, especially in an area close to a volcano or reasonably close to a hypervolcanic eruption. Yes, one of them has carbon dates, and it the Campi Flegrei eruption I get my carbon date for the Flood from, but Mount Toba is obviously dated much older by different means. I wouldn't put it above the ironies of research and peripeties if some lava helping to date Tautavel man to 300,000 years ago came from the Campi Flegrei.

Going from Campi Flegrei (or close by Naples) to Tautavel is, by A1 1381 km. Going from Naples to Prague is 1 497,8 km via A1. And Campi Flegrei ... shucks, what it blew to Czech Republic was volcanic ash, not lava obviously. Never mind.

But the eruption that put lava on the region of Tautavel would have gone off during the Flood, like Campi Flegrei.

Now, whatever your status as mathematician, trying to run away from lava is perhaps not the best way to keep your counting sticks with you. NOT running away because the volcano fries your brain first will not help to keep counting sticks in a recognisable shape. Being found with counting sticks argues you died before or after the Flood and were buried, perhaps close to a home where someone else was using your counting sticks.

So, I'd put men "300,000 years old" (the age of Tautavel man, from memory) as having died in 2958 BC, during the Flood. I'd put a man dated to "50,000" years old sa having actually died quite some while before the Flood, obviously not before creation or before Cain killed Abel, but he would still be older than the man who from another method is dated older.

Hope Chomsky and Berwick liked writing Why Only Us? (the work referenced), but I think Young Earth Creationism offers a better solution than taking men who looked like us for brute beasts before a certain date.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Blessed Pope Urban V
19.XII.2024

Avenione beati Urbani Papae Quinti, qui, Sede Apostolica Romae restituta, Graecorum cum Latinis conjunctione perfecta, infidelibus coercitis, de Ecclesia optime meritus est. Ejus cultum pervetustum Pius Nonus, Pontifex Maximus, ratum habuit et confirmavit.

YEC, Tradition or Antiquarianism?

If you are not familiar with the distinction (not all readers of the blog here are Catholics), I'll refer to the question of Communion on the Tongue or in the Hand as explained by Brian Holdsworth:

Why Are We Still Talking About Communion in the Hand?
Brian Holdsworth | 14 Dec. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5QXp76DfDI

There is no doubt that:

• Julius Africanus calculated parts of the Genesis 5 and 11 chronologies (with 2262 years for Genesis 5, probably a better reading than the standard LXX one, and 942 years for Genesis 11, meaning LXX without the second Cainan),
• St. Irenaeus of Lyons has been read as implying each Creation Day was 1000 years long, but it is at least possible (I'd definitely call it the better reading of what he's saying), he meant instead that world history was going to have had six millennia before Doomsday as corresponding to the six actual days of Creation.

But of course, you could argue, most Catholics are not totally familiar with Julius Africanus (I'm not even sure if he's a saint or not) or with St. Irenaeus.

I'll give you some very much less obscure.

• City of God is a classic, it's only about 100 years ago, when Latin knowledge declined and knowledge of literature in Latin declined as well, that reading it fell out of fashion. Between City of God and Consolation of Philosophy, both are highly Christian classics, but City of God lasted longer, and I'm not even sure that it wasn't part time rated higher even when both were at the peak, however, City of God makes it very clear, a Christian should take the chronology of Genesis 5 and 11 literally, we may not be sure which text is the good one, which literal reading is literally correct, but one of them is;
• we are approaching Christmas, hardly an obscure reference either, and Christmas Matins is included in Midnight Mass, with a reading stating Jesus was born 5199 after Creation, 2957 after the Flood, 2015 after the birth of Abraham, and a few more relative dates.

You cannot treat City of God or Christmas Liturgy as Antiquarianism. You can also not say "well, that's Westerners, misunderstanding tradition, all the Church Fathers were for a purely allegoric acceptation of the Genesis" ... because it's not true, it's a fake news that KGB planted into the Moscow Patriarchate in the 1970's or sth, and which has gained undue traction by the reputation of Russian Orthodox as a "martyr Church" ... just because a patriarch in the Gulag or Magnitogorsk (who back then was by the way probably a Young Earth Creationist!) didn't have access to Migne and Patrologia Graeca doesn't mean the successors are free to reinvent the Church Fathers with untrue statements.

But what about the "definitions" of 1909 and 1950? Isn't it "defined by the magisterium" that "long periods" is a perfectly possible reading for the Creation Days? Isn't it "defined by the magisterium" that it's OK to entertain the idea that Adam got his body from an evolutionary ... pedigree, as long as we maintain that he got his soul, the first of its kind, from God and that he's the unique ancestor of all men alive today, or all real men throughout all ages?

No, those statements are NOT such definitions. They are restricted licences for very few specialists ideally to entertain such ideas in debate, but neither occasion of the magisterium said it couldn't be their duty to admit to losing the debates, if that was the way the arguments went.

The problem is, both occasions have been very widely misused as allowing people to have Old Earth and Evolutionary Origins of Adam as their settled actual belief. Behind this there is a kind of canonical and moral theological reasoning, which basically says, the magisterium cannot even allow the Church to do evil, so, the things allowed in 1909 and 1950 cannot be evil. Now, the magisterium cannot allow all the Church to do evil, but it can make dispensations that turn out to, either have been evil even for the group they were meant for, or to become evil once they are applied to a larger group. Communion in the hand for a very restricted group? Perhaps it was OK those few times. Pope Michael I and so far Michael II do not acknowledge that Paul VI was pope when giving this permission, but many misplaced souls (real Catholics under false Popes) do not recognise them as Popes, or reject Paul VI, they would say he had the authority. On their view, it would have had to be OK on some occasions, which the dispensation was originally meant for. But it has by now come to involve the hideous idolatry of the Black Mass, through stolen hosts.

If the judges on behalf of Pope St. Pius X encouraged a certain debate, and if Pius XII himself personally encouraged another one, very early some Catholics not actually debating took sides in the debate, not singled out as being qualified for them, not being assigned to them, and they took sides for the less traditional view. They can have become idolaters too. This is the time when certain scandals broke out according to recent reports from victim testimony, and the abuses against Henk Heithus began in 1950, the exact year of Humani Generis. Before someone accuses me of "magic thinking" when connecting idolatry and perversion, St. Paul makes this exact connection in Romans 1.

It's not the least disrespectful to the Magisterium of 1909 to state that the traditional view, that being YEC, remained obligatory for the normal believers, whatever dispensation a professional discrete debater may have had, or dito about the direct creation of Adam from no pre-existing ancestry or non-human pedigree, since neither Pope St. Pius X nor Pius XII used words calculated to directly express "believers are free to take such and such an option" ...

It's also not disrespectful to join the debate without having a prior authorisation, just as it was not disrespectful of laymen to point out the evils of hand communion. The dispensation in each case was stretched to cover what it was not intended to cover, and evil ensued, so grave that restricting comment to just specialists by now would be draconic, and it's clear that laymen on the other side are not keeping the restrictions either.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Nicasius of Rheims and
his sister St. Eutropia, martyrs
14.XII.2024

Rhemis, in Gallia, passio sanctorum Nicasii Episcopi, ac sororis Eutropiae Virginis, et Sociorum Martyrum; qui a barbaris Ecclesiae hostibus caesi sunt.

Was the Ark Too Long for a Wooden Ship? Local Flood—Yes. Global Flood—No.

The takeaway would be, as I've said previously, it's significant that SS Wyoming sank close to land, in Nantuckett Bay, where the medium depth or shallowest depth (forget which) is c. 9 meters. It's equally significant that the Kon Tiki didn't sink over the Pacific Ocean. Now, a Global Flood, if pre-Flood mountains aren't all that high and if "15 cubits above" was not the highest level, but the highest level Noah could know, since he had built the Ark on top of the Highest Mountain and the water line was 15 cubits, in other words, a water level 1—2 km above the ground and the Seas and not much shallower over the highest mountain while it last, that is a lot like a Pacific Ocean. But a Local Flood is necessarily if not as shallow as Nantuckett Bay, at least too shallow for the Ark to be safe.

To make it clear, this is not a strawman, the pretence the Ark was too long is really being made.

Bill Nye (prior to or in 2016)

"In a debate with a creationist, evolutionist Bill Nye (the “Science Guy”) argued that a wooden boat as largeas the Ark would sink—and especially a large, wooden ship built by an amateur like Noah. So, he said, the story of Noah and the Ark cannot be true. As proof for his claim, he talked about a large wooden ship that was built by professionals in the early 1900s—the Wyoming. The Wyoming was not even as large as the Ark, and yet the length of the wooden planks from which it was made twisted and bent so much while on the ocean that it finally sank. Does the sinking of the Wyoming disprove Noah’s Ark? Was Noah too much of an amateur to even make such a vessel?"

I do not have Bill Nye's debate directly. I have this quote tracing the argument to him from an answer in 2016:

Could the Ark Stay Afloat?
JEFF MILLER, Ph.D. | From Issue: Discovery 6/1/2016
https://apologeticspress.org/could-the-ark-stay-afloat-5311/

Jeff Miller will correctly state that Noah was not necessarily incompetent, technology lost to us would have been accessible to him, however, the builders of the Wyoming weren't incompetent either. He will also correctly state that an Ark just floating is a very different story from a ship with three masts and the sails not taken in. But he will not state that Wyoming actually did refute a Flood story, a very modern one, back then, that of a Local or Regional Flood. It was taught by the Day-Ager Fulcran Vigouroux, though fortunately not from the Pontifical Biblical Commission, only from his handbook of OT theology.

Reddit

The HMS Mersey in the years 1856 - 1858 was 336 feet long and suffered constantly from the ship's seams splitting up due to its length.

The Wyoming in the year 1909 had a Length 450 feet and even with steel reinforcement suffered from severe leaking due to the hull bending from the ship's extreme length.

r/DebateReligion | 1 year ago [deleted]
You Can't Build A Seaworthy Wooden Ship Of The Dimensions Given For Noah's Ark
https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/15bjdmg/you_cant_build_a_seaworthy_wooden_ship_of_the/?rdt=40102

The Reddit debate was archived and made impossible to comment or vote on after a suppressed user was actually arguing cautiously, but still, in defense of Noah's Ark. In the parallel with the Wyoming, he mentioned the elephants on the ark as a parallel for pumps. I wonder why the debate was discontinued. If I hadn't seen so much cancel culture setting in after a successful argument for YEC or some other now unpopular with MSM and public school systems thesis, I just might consider the answer I'm considering as a conspiracy theory. But, I think I'll say it. Some guys love debates, as long as they aren't losing them.

Now, before we leave the pumps and get to the sinking, the issue with the Ark having no sails is actually connected. In order to make sailing ships work, you need thin planks so they slightly bend while going through the water, if not they would break. The idea of a box floating with the water is different, and allows for a thicker layer of wood around the space and therefore for better water tightness.

But, here we go.

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

I'll go with the ones that sunk. And didn't burn first. I'm not quoting the word sunk, and I'm giving circumstances in the line below.

140 m (450 ft), 15.3 m (50 ft 1 in) Wyoming 1909–1924
This ship had a tendency to flex in heavy seas, causing the planks to twist and buckle due to their extreme length despite being fitted with metal bracing. Water was evacuated nearly constantly by steam pumps. It foundered in heavy seas with loss of all hands.

108 m (356 ft), 15.4 m (50 ft) Columbus 1824–1825
First timber ship or disposable ship[2] with a four-masted barque rigging. Built in Quebec to avoid taxes on timber, her cargo and components were intended to be sold after the ship's arrival in London; however, the owner had only the cargo sold and ordered the ship back for a second voyage with a timber cargo; the ship broke apart and sunk in the English Channel.

105.8 m (347 ft), 15.2 m (50 ft) Eleanor A. Percy 1900–1919
Six-masted schooner with hull measuring 323.5 feet and 347 feet including the bowsprit,[5] that foundered off Ireland on December 26, 1919.[6]

Final Voyages of the “Queen” of All Wooden Sailing Ships
Allan Wood | December 1, 2024
https://www.nelights.com/blog/tag/eleanor-a-percy/

With the Great War nearing its end, the Eleanor A. Percy was showing her age with needing necessary repairs on her aging wooden hull. Sailing to Argentina in South America or across the Atlantic takes a couple of months for those ships that would make this challenging journey. The collier left New York with her cargo bound for Buenos Aires on October 11, 1918, and arrived there around January 3, 1919. She waited for another charter before returning to New York and had some necessary repairs made before making the journey. Some months later, on July 4, 1919, the Eleanor A. Percy left Buenos Aires for New York and developed a severe leak in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean in early August. The schooner had to turn back and safely reached the dry dock in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

So, this may be sth different, here we have wood rotting after 19 years at sea.

103 m (338 ft), 13.4 m (44 ft) Pretoria 1900–1905
A barge built for use on the Great Lakes. To strengthen the wooden frame and hull, steel keelson plates, chords, and arches were included, and was also diagonally strapped with steel. A donkey engine powered a pump to keep the interior dry.[7]

How many donkeys, oxes, elephants and so on could Noah dispose of?

102.1 m (335 ft)[8], 16.2 m (53 ft) Great Republic (later Denmark) 1853–1872
The largest wooden clipper ship ever built. It used iron bolts and was reinforced with steel, including ninety 36-foot (11 m) 4x1-inch cross braces, and metal keelsons.[9] The MIT Museum noted that "With this behemoth, McKay had pushed wooden ship construction to its practical limits."[10] The ship was abandoned leaking after encountering a hurricane near Bermuda.

102 m (335 ft), 15 m William D. Lawrence (later Kommandør Svend Foyn) 1874–1891
Largest wooden cargo ship ever built in Canada. It passed to Norwegian ownership in 1883 and was converted into a barge in 1891. Sank while under tow at Dakar.[11]

Wyoming, Nantucket Bay. Columbus, English Channel. Pretoria, Great Lakes. William D. Lawrence, under tow at Dakar. What do these have in common? Shallow water.

Eleanor A. Percy and Great Republic, however, the problem was leaking. In both of these cases it took 19 years for the timber to rot that much.

For 90—100 meters, the sunk ones not involving burning are:

Santiago, A schooner-barge on the Great Lakes ...
Appomattox, A Great Lakes steamship ...
L.R. Doty, A lake freighter that sank on Lake Michigan ...
Iosco, A lake freighter that sank on September 2, 1905, on Lake Superior ...

I think there is a common theme. Shallow water.

However there is another detail. 12 m to a little above 15 m. Like thin planks, like sails, very good if you want to get somewhere. But not the best choice for stability while drifting with the waves.

Fifty cubits = 50 * 17 inches = 850 inches = 21.59 m. Broader than any of the ships that sunk. What did I say again on Noah's Ark, yesterday?*

10:00 The faith of Noah was the one thing that allowed mankind and land animals to survive the Flood.

We can know, even if Noah possibly couldn't, that the Ark was amply seaworthy.

Those who dispute that are citing a ship that was wrecked in too shallow waters. That same ship had sailed safely in deeper waters. Why are shallow waters more dangerous? They are more turbulent.

Indeed, we have no reason to believe Noah's Ark was not seaworthy. At least on High Ocean, which is, in a Global Flood, everywhere.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Immaculate Conception of the BVM
9.XII.2024

PS, for landlubbers who unlike myself have only landlubbers in the family, here are two facts I should perhaps have borne out.

1. Having a ship as narrow as possible makes sense since the water is displaced sideways less, which makes for less resistance, the sailing going in the direction from aft to fore, from the back to the front, as quickly as possible, and resistance obviously slows this down.
2. The Ark was however a floating box. It was not navigating independently of the waves. It was probably typically set in a wave trough between two wave crests, one on the port side and one on the starboard side, one on the left, one on the right. Having it broader than a ship makes sense. If the cubit was what we call 17 inches, it was 21.59 m broad. The cubit could perhaps have been as big as 25 inches. This would make 31.75 m the maximal breadth of the Ark. Why is breadth important? The weight inside the ship is distributed along the sideways dimension, and the further out, the more leverage momentum a unit of weight has. So, the more it resists the vessel rolling over around the length axis.

For people not familiar with Fulcran Vigouroux and his role, both as a Seminary Teacher in the time around 1880 and as one of those judging in the Pontifical Biblical Commission, where in 1909 in a certain sense he greenlighted "day age" but not all of the other compromises he had taught, I have already written on him. What About the Fulcran Vigouroux Solution?, What Extension to Old Age do Old Agers Permit Themselves?, 1909 vs § 390 and a few more./HGL

PPS, I did very well to send this to Dr. Jeff Miller, he answered that the quoted article was for a younger audience and sent me a fuller debate overview, which also gave the date as 2014, February 4th in Petersburg, Kentucky:

Bill Nye/Ken Ham Debate Review: Tying Up Really Loose Ends
JEFF MILLER, Ph.D. | From Issue: R&R – April 2014
https://apologeticspress.org/bill-nyeken-ham-debate-review-tying-up-really-loose-ends-4819/

If you do and F-search for Wyoming or scroll roughly speaking to the middle, the overview of the Wyoming argument is basically double that of the article I referred to. However, it still didn't involve the shallow water argument, which blows a local or regional Flood out of the water.

Just above it, he's adressing the room of the Ark problem, and while he mentions an 18 inch cubit, he also mentions a 25 inch one.

It could also explain the large size of ancient, fossilized humans, such as homo heidelbergensis. A 25-inch cubit versus an 18-inch cubit would more than double the volume of space within the Ark (1,518,750 cubic feet vs. 4,062,500 cubic feet).]

I think it more probable that Homo Heidelbergensis was in fact a form of giant. And that the Egyptian royal cubit, which according to a childhood memory of a lecture was 25 inches, instead of 24, was the cubit of this giant./HGL

* Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Saying No to the Antichrist
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2024/12/saying-no-to-antichrist.html

Do Scientists "Inevitably" Discard Erroneous Theories?

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Saying No to the Antichrist · Creation vs. Evolution: Do Scientists "Inevitably" Discard Erroneous Theories?

... Scientific knowledge in turn tells us something about what kinds of 9:25 processes may have taken place during and within creation. History teaches us that it is not a sustainable solution to 9:32 cling to one's own era'sscientific theories. When new knowledge arises the incorrect theories are inevitably 9:38 discarded ...

For a weekend or an evening, I was guest among Laestadians up in Norrland. So, my interest was piqued when Ready to Harvest made a video about Laestadians. Above quote is from it.*

Have you heard of the theory called "Historicism"? C. S. Lewis commented on it.

It is the idea that "history" has a certain direction. No, he is not going after the Apocalypse, as far as I can recall what he said in that essay. He was going after secular ideas about what the direction of history is.

I was distinctly underwhelmed when another convert from Lutheranism at the time celebrating in Novus Ordo, now in EO Form, referred to right wing ideologies as "the rubbish heap of history" ... not just because I happen to be right wing, as opposed to Communism, as opposed to abortion, to public school monopolies, top heavy administrations. But also because I considered a Catholic, having access to St. Thomas Aquinas (he even taught me how to read St. Thomas, explaining several basic terms that recur in the Summa), should know better than being a historicist. If even an Anglican like CSL could reject it, how come a Catholic like he wasn't rejecting it?

Perhaps it was just an unreflecting utterance of his personal disgust, him being a fan of Olof Palme to some degree. I'm an ex-fan.

Anyway, the above digression about historicism and why I know about the term should lead to a discussion of why it is wrong.

God gave St. John supernatural knowledge that the world was going for Armageddon. Fine and dandy, God is omniscient, and He has authorised the Bible books, all 73 of them, through the Catholic Church. The world is going for Armageddon. The Apocalypse is the 73:rd book of the Bible. That kind of historicism is not what we talk about. We talk about secular historicism, in Christians about "things that happen before the endtimes" and in non-Christians sometimes a reason for them mocking Christian end time beliefs.

The basic claim of a historicist is, we know history, and can therefore tell what direction history is going in. Simply by a process of extrapolation. A bit like forecasting world populations at a future date. I'm noting in this context that the forecast for 2000 has not been fulfilled, but the angst of one Ehrlich is still used to from it distill the policies that recommend getting fewer children, or in some cases preventing others even from having more children. An accursed lot. But anyway, the forecast of future world populations has been shown wrong more than once, and yet it is kind of the most basic, simply mathematical, forecast.

A historicist claims we can determine far more than just future statistics about facts that have been measured in statistics for a long time. Why? We know history. We know the important events in history. We know what direction these important events have so far taken. We can therefore determine what direction they will continue to take.

STOP. I'll be restating the case of C. S. Lewis in my own train of thought.

First of all, we don't know history. We only know recorded history, which is a subjective selection from it, and we only know the parts that have come to us, which is a smaller selection still, depending on the reading or lacks of reading of the single historicist.

Second, if we knew all of history, we could determine what's central. A bit like a limited universe has to have a geometric centre. Now, we have some reasons, denied by C. S. Lewis as to being determinating, that this centre is Earth. To him, we could only know Earth to be the centre if we could observe all the universe as God does, from its edges as well as everything in between. To me, we could only deny Earth to be the centre if we had such a view showing something else to be central. Either way, the point is, unlike the view we have of heavenly bodies even very far out (like fix stars) circling earth, whatever "eye of the cyclone" one may be in, one only observes part of what is around, and cannot determine from there that it is central. So, one could still determine it if one had the edges. And here is the rub, for history, we haven't.

Precisely because we have only a tiny fraction of the past. If we have Genesis and the Apocalypse as factual, we have lots more edges. If we don't, we have lots less. But overall, we haven't the edges. We have tiny fractions of them, except the most absolute ones, which are least like normal events in history, and these are only available to the Christian. As to alternative "edges" (like Neanderthals living 42 000 years ago as opposed to before the Flood), I do this blog to expose that humbug, those false conclusions.

But we would need internal edges of the tendencies, and those we usually do not have. In 1345, very few people knew that Giovanni Boccaccio and Francesco Petrarca had met in the company of the Bardi bankers who were just going bankrupt. Probably most people in Florence even didn't know. Even fewer knew what they talked about. And those who knew that, like the two themselves and some of their Bardi friends, now impoverished, at least as bankers, had no idea what those conversations would lead to above the future writings of the two. They did not know there would be a Plague three years later. They did not know Boccaccio would write the Decameron in the plague. They did not know what Decameron would inspire. Including Canterbury tales.

Including a trend for adventure stories, like Orlando inamorato by Matteo Maria Boiardo. Which trend, not perhaps that work, certainly contributed to the spirit of adventure that a certain Columbus from Genua was going to push to a story of discovery ... except, I'm writing his biography without knowing it. Perhaps he didn't read such books. He just happened to be somewhat like those heros. Or perhaps it was his his wife Filipa Moniz Perestrelo who read them, she was from Portugal. Again, I'm speculating about a biography I do not have access to.

But the point is, all of the Renaissance was just around the corner, and it was also totally unforeseeable in 1345, when Boccaccio met Petrarca. A more secure line of connection between that meeting and Columbus would be, Petrarca started a fad for Cicero, which among similar bookish people (they would be called Meldahones by Sepharads), and that started a fad for research. One line of it would lead to Columbus poring over calculations of the size of the Earth. Another would lead to Lorenzo Valla disputing the Donation of Constantine, based probably in part of making the line of the Empire a bit too much unicolour and Constantine a bit too like Julius. This and some other tidbits of learning of his were going to influence the Deformers in ways he could not have foreseen. Nor could Boccaccio and Petrarca have foreseen it.

If a government imagines having total control over all people, and marginalising those they cannot control, in order to control the future course of events, those people are as foolish as Kronos trying to avoid to get the son who would overthrow him, his very behaviour led to the hiding of Zeus. Or as foolish as Kamsa who killed the sons of Vasudeva one after another and couldn't foresee that Balarama would change womb and Krishna would be born with miraculous powers to withstand Kamsa's tyranny. Probably the figure of Kamsa may owe sth to Herod, and the escape of Krishna with his parents to the escape of St. Paul. Mahabharata and Bhagavatapurana are for the one not necessarily and for the other pretty certainly not written in BC times. Because, it's not like keeping watch over a room from a camera. It's more like keeping lookout for every grain of sand on a beach. Or every star on the sky.

Now, what about the application to Scientists and their Theories?

When new knowledge arises the incorrect theories are inevitably 9:38 discarded

Can you spot the historicism?

It's in the word "inevitably" ... I would say it happens sometimes. But "inevitably" doesn't sound correct. It would mean "everytime" ... that's not the case. If you think it is, you have a very shallow grasp on the history of sciences. And a very shallow grasp on how well we know what is now supposed to be science. You have basically taken an inspirational children's book (in my own language, Swedish, there is one in the Series "Min Skattkammare" which is "Del VIII. Uppfinningar och upptäcktsfärder (1949)" where the series title means "my treasure trove" and the volume's title means "inventions and discovery journeys"), and based your view on the subject on that children's book. You have been allergic to going into detail, or you have been heavily biassed from that book to interpret the details as much as possible in the sense of this children's book.

I'm actually a bit surprised that Volume VIII of Min Skattkammare could be printed as late as 1949, since it wasn't a reprint. Shouldn't it have been 1849? Or even better 1831, when Washington Irving wrote Voyages and Discoveries of the Companions of Columbus? Isn't history of science going forward every year to more objectivity and less and less bias in the sense of this historicism? My bad, such a statement is also historicist! But seriously, this idea of science marching towards a perfection of more and more knowledge and less and less false knowledge, this relict of historicism is perhaps more prevalent than others. Decolonialism and Celtic language revivals put (mostly) certain historicisms of a very Darwinian and Marxist type to rest. No, the world is not going to more and more control of its totality under the leadership of the white man from Europe, Canada, and US. Small languages are not necessarily dying off to give more room to the big ones. That's obvious to most people. Some of the more benighted ones who don't get that can be decent on other accounts, but not getting it is benighted.

However, the sacrality of Western Modern Science has survived the débris of so much other Historicism, which now seems simply "left behind by history" (what a historicist phrase!). Somehow, so many people, and more religious people than actual hard scientists, still carry around the view of Science that was vehiculated by Min Skattkammare. A work which is probably out of print now, only sold in old books shops, given that the original edition involved phrases like "Niggerland" (I don't think it was in one of the parts I was re-reading).

Another piece of Historicism is the idea that if a theory was more popular 70~80 years ago than today, and is even regarded with some disgust today, the polite way of dealing with it is calling the older and (for the moment) discredited theory "antiquated" or "dated" ... Swedish "föråldrad" ... a term which implies:

• people who believed it were excused, they lived back then
• we shouldn't believe it now
• someone believing it now is "behind the times"

Whether a discredited idea is really bad or not, there is no guarantee it will remain socially discredited. The term "antiquated" mixes things that have come out of fashion for very different reasons. The term "Niggerland" has come out of fashion because it is racist. But racism may make a comeback, alas. The idea of Adam and Eve are also considered "antiquated" ... but in this case, it's only so because of a belief in the "ineluctable" progress of science. And, apart from historicism, it is only seemingly "ineluctable" in the views of one holding the Conflict thesis, because they celebrate every change of ideas away from Medieval Catholicism as automatically a triumph for for Science. A view which led to the Scientific Optimism of a certain movement, of which the Leader ought to have remained in painting. Really.

And anyone seeing Adolf paint in 1900, who could have foreseen that in 1919 he would first be part of Communist régimes, in Munich, and then become part of a party founded by Anton Drexler. How many Jews in 1933 preferred Nazis over Austro-Fascists, because they believed this Scientific Optimism and despised religion? Which corresponds very well to how NSDAP differred from Vaterländische Front. Obviously the latter involved Christian Socials, a party founded by among others Johannes Emmanuel Veith. A convert from Judaism. A medical doctor (that and friend of St. Clemens Maria Hofbauer). And an author who in Die Anfänge der Menschenwelt (Vienna, 1865), promoted Young Earth Creationism. Compared to that, Hitler was an ardent Evolutionist, not necessarily of the materialistic kind, but an Evolutionist still.**

But before the Evolutionist view of ineluctable progress in (civilised) man, there was a general Historicist view of ineluctable progress. That's where National Socialism came from. Meanwhile, Austria was aware of being an anomaly and a quirk and content with that. Hence Dollfuss, hence Schuschnigg, hence Georg von Trapp, none of them tried to help the ineluctable progress along. And none of them committed acts of inhumanity. You see, once you give divine status to anything, including God, you also give a kind of "luck charm status" to doing the work of that thing. Yes, I do believe God will help me along because in some sense, fighting for God's truth against Protestantism and Judaism, Islam and Evolution, I'm kind of doing "God's work" ... not as the God's work known as liturgy, the principal one, but one which is subsidiary and known as apologetics. Now, if you believe that the Progress of Science is ineluctable, you give that divine status. And some people believed they had a luck charm in helping the progress of science along. George Patton didn't find them all that lucky. But what's worse is, they will probably one day get back in luck big time. I think this worship of Progress of Science is the essence of the Scarlet Beast, and we know it will make a comeback for 3 and 1/2 years. Not from Historicist reasononing, but from the Apocalypse. So, unless I misidentified it, Patton's victory won't last. And of course there were, only barely more human, Scientific Progressives in Patton's nation as well. I heard a horrible story about Walter Plecker the other day.*** But fortunately, Patton didn't bring Walter Plecker to the Amerika-Häuser.

Unfortunately, Scientific Progressives didn't lose ground all that much even in West Germany. In the 1970's, the idea of "religious delusion" was used to decide a Custody fight. In 1992, a certain Ratzinger, brought up under Hitler, put § 283 into the Catechism of the Catholic Church, proving that his supposed pope at the time, a Karol Wojtyla who had taken the "papal" name of John Paul II, was not a Catholic and was therefore not Pope. But the "Laestadian Lutheran Church" is even more into Scientific Progressivism than he, it would seem.

Will knowledge of the absurdity and malfeasance of Historicism automatically, inevitable, lead to its being rejected? Unfortunately not. That would be both very basic Historicism, and also ignorance of the Apocalypse. But can you contribute to its being rejected by some more people, by spreading this? Then, please do so!

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Feast of the Immaculate Conception
9.XII.2024

Conceptio Immaculata gloriosae semper Virginis Genitricis Dei Mariae, quam fuisse praeservatam, singulari Dei privilegio, ab omni originalis culpae labe immunem, Pius Nonus, Pontifex Maximus, hac ipsa recurrente die, solemniter definivit.

(Usually 8.XII, but this year, that was II Lord's Day of Advent).

* What is the Laestadian Lutheran Church?
Ready to Harvest | 8 Dec. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GnoidyUAWk

** Darwinian Racism: How Evolutionary Theory Shaped Nazi Thinking
Richard Weikart | February 2, 2022, 6:57 AM
https://evolutionnews.org/2022/02/darwinian-racism-how-evolutionary-theory-shaped-nazi-thinking/

*** Virginia’s Sick Obsession with Proving Race
NYTN | 6 Dec. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPkvUtP--mI