Linear Pottery : the Long House

Starčevo and Linear Pottery: Recalibration · Linear Pottery : the Long House

The unit of residence was the long house, a rectangular structure, 5.5 to 7.0 m (18.0 to 23.0 ft) wide, of variable length; for example, a house at Bylany was 45 m (148 ft).

45 (m) / 7 (m) = 6.43
300 (cubits) / 50 (cubits) = 6.

It would seem that the proportions of the Linear Pottery Long House could be influenced by the remembered proportions of the Ark. Remember that 7 meters seems to have been maximal width and 45 meters was exceptional in length. So, perhaps the proportions varied between 5 and 6.43, which would include the proportion 6, that of the Ark.

Reu was alive all of this time, he was born 2427 BC. If his early life doesn't coincide with the late life of Shem, he was 36 when Arphaxad died and 66 when Shelah died. This is about when the Starčevo culture begins, and Linear Pottery begins sometime between 2258 and 2235 BC. Say, 2247 BC, when Reu was 180 years old.

Obviously, this culture is in the wrong region for Reu, but someone in the lineage of Japheth would easily have had a similar lifespan. And the outbreak of generalised violence in carbon dated 5000 BC, well, that could be because this other person died and left smaller chieftains squabbling over the succession.

Since this is the culture that involved Herxheim, I'm pretty sure this could have been an evil man, and I'm happy this ended.

It also gave a chance to hunter gatherers.

If you want to know more about the Linear Pottery Long Houses, how about going to a video by Dan Davis? He'll give the conventional dates, presume modern lifespans and hence miss all of this being within one lifespan, but otherwise he's very well informed.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Sts. Cyrill and Methodius
7.VII.2025

Sanctorum Episcoporum et Confessorum Cyrilli et Methodii fratrum, quorum natalis respective agitur sextodecimo Kalendas Martii et octavo Idus Aprilis.

Video by Dan Davis:

The Immense Long Houses of the Linear Pottery Culture
Dan Davis History | 7 July 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fbm80SzraRw

Starčevo and Linear Pottery: Recalibration

Starčevo and Linear Pottery: Recalibration · Linear Pottery : the Long House

2361 BC, Shelah died, 2088 BC, Reu died./HGL

2350 BC

62.358 pmC, dated as 6254 BC

Starčevo

6200 BC

2327 BC

63.519 pmC, dated as 6079 BC

2258 BC

66.981 pmC, dated as 5571 BC

Early Linear Pottery

5500 BC

2235 BC

68.129 pmC, dated as 5407 BC

Early Linear Pottery

5300 BC

2212 BC

69.274 pmC, dated as 5247 BC

2189 BC

70.415 pmC, dated as 5089 BC

End of Linear Pottery

5000 BC

2166 BC

71.553 pmC, dated as 4933 BC

2120 BC

73.82 pmC, dated as 4629 BC

Starčevo

4500 BC

2097 BC

74.949 pmC, dated as 4481 BC

Since I Often Promote CMI, I Sometimes Also Warn

In Who controls the kingdoms of this world? the late Russell Grigg argued, that the answer was, right now, Satan.

I have argued elsewhere, this is very incorrect, since Crucifixion and Resurrection, Satan has lost this power too, and Our Lord has gained the domination by victory.

Luke 4 and Matthew 4 both occurred before the Crucifixion.

Here is a key passage in Russell's argument:

In fact, Jesus referred to Satan as “the god of this world” (John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11); and the Apostle Paul similarly wrote concerning Satan that “the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God” (2 Corinthians 4:4).

So, "prince" or "ruler of this world" is supposed to be not just tantamount to but also textually identic to "god of this world"?

Let's check the Gospel verses:

Now is the judgment of the world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out
[John 12:31]

I will not now speak many things with you. For the prince of this world cometh, and in me he hath not any thing
[John 14:30]

And of judgment: because the prince of this world is already judged
[John 16:11]

In all three verses, I find "prince" and not "god" ...

Now, to St. Paul, and I'll give the previous verse too:

And if our gospel be also hid, it is hid to them that are lost In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine unto them
[2 Corinthians 4:3-4]

There is actually a dispute on whether the words in question refer to God or to Satan. Here is the Haydock comment on these two verses:

Ver. 3. The apostle here brings another proof of the sincerity of his preaching, viz. the success with which it is attended: And he says, if there be any who have not yet received it, that is their own fault. For had they been as eager to receive it, as we have been to announce it to them, the whole world had[would have?] long since been converted. (Theodoret)

Ver. 4. In whom the God of this world hath blinded the minds of unbelievers.[1] Thus the words are placed, both in the Latin and Greek text, so that the true God seems to be called the God of this world, as he is elsewhere called the God of heaven, the God of Abraham. God, says St. Chrysostom, blinded, that is, permitted them to be blinded. Others translate, in whom God hat blinded the minds of the infidels of this world; so that this world may be joined with unbelievers, and not with God: and by the God of this world, some understand the devil, called sometimes the prince of this world, that is, of the wicked. (Witham)

Now, supposing that "the God of this world" actually refers to an enemy of souls, one active in blinding and not just permitting or confirming some to blind themselves, St. Thomas (yes, he wrote a commentary on II Corinthians) doesn't take "god" as "prince" or "ruler" but actually simply as "object of worship". One can refer to Poseidon as a "god of the Greeks" or to Thor as a "god of the Norse" ... and insofar as they are worshipped, it is Satan who gets the worship. It's a very different story if God would still permit Poseidon, i e Satan, to run a stampedo of horses over a man, because that man's father (who takes Poseidon for his own father) is asking him. At least up to when Antichrist will be doing his signs and wonders, that power has been taken away from Satan. Precisely by Jesus.

In other words, Satan is not in control of a kingdom just because it is a kingdom in this world. Not as in Matthew 4 / Luke 4, not any longer. He may be in control of a kingdom because its inhabitants have rejected Christ and as a result are brought under the enemy of Christ.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Commemoration of St. Paul the Apostle
30.VI.2025

PS. During the Old Testament, God claimed one people for Himself. In AD 33 (or assessments of exactly how long ago vary, some say 29 or 31) most of that people rejected God. The ones who didn't are the beginning of the Christian Palestinians./HGL

I'm Not Into EVERY Proposal of Shortening the Timeline

I'm sorry, in a moment of stress and fatugue, I misread Damien Mackey's work. My bad. He was not talking of Shamshi-Adad I, but of Shamshi-Adad IV.

If certain dynasties were only accessible by written record, no archaeology involved, no sequential annals involved, just narratives about each ruler as such, it might make sense to look for doubles, meaning rulers that under different names appear in more than one list.

In some cases for Egypt, I'd recommend this approach, for instance the II dynasty (last time I checked) seems to have had no archaeological record.

I check on wikipedia, not quite true.* Hotepsekhemwy, Nebra and Nynetjer seem to have identified tombs, albeit tentatively. It's timespan being 2890 to 2686 BC (which if true would put it in the span between Flood and Babel) would, if based on carbon dating, reduce to, for the beginning:

1739 BC

86.754 pmC, dated as 2914 BC

1720 BC

87.148 pmC, dated as 2857 BC

And this would put them close to Joseph's pharao, since the dates given are for close to death of Isaac and to Jacobs immigration into Egypt. I must admit, for the date of Joseph's pharao, I take Djoser and I take the uncalibrated carbon date, c. 2800 BC. The calibrated one is 2600 BC.

For the end, I would land at between 1700 and 1678 BC.

1700 BC

87.541 pmC, dated as 2800 BC

1678 BC

89.449 pmC, dated as 2600 BC

In order to fix this, I'd need to verify the calibrations on Stuiver and Bekker.

Let's first add 1950 to the BC years, and divide by 1.03 and then add the calibrated BP and calibrated BC after that.

1739 BC

86.754 pmC, dated as 4722 BP : 5470 cal BP cal 3520 BC / cal 5370 BP cal 3420 BC

1720 BC

87.148 pmC, dated as 4667 BP : cal 5410 BP 3460 BC / 5310 cal BP cal 3360 BC

1700 BC

87.541 pmC, dated as 4612 BP : cal 5300 BP, cal 3360 BC

1678 BC

89.449 pmC, dated as 4417 BP : cal 5030 BP, cal 3080 BC

I must admit I did not try to systematically work in the calibrations made by uniformitarians into the question. This makes applying my tables a bit more difficult than it should be on some areas. These results are not quite acceptable.

Now, one who really loves this approach (namely of parallelising or even identifying rulers who in the narrative are serialised) would be Damien Mackey. He is willing to identify Sargon II and his son Sennacherib, despite the fact that Assyrian chronicles for the first millennium BC are a year by year affair. He would also identify this composite with Shamshi-Adad I.** [sorry, Shamshi-Adad IV]

His capital was originally at Ekallatum and later moved to Šubat-Enlil.

Now, what do I find out about Šubat-Enlil?***

The site has been occupied since the 5th millennium BC. During the late third millennium, the site was known as Shekhna. During that time it was under control of the Akkadian Empire and was used as an administrative center.[1][2] Around 1800 BC, the site was renamed "Šubat-Enlil" by the king Shamshi-Adad I, and it became his residential capital.

Here we also deal with reduceable carbon dates.

2189 BC

70.415 pmC, dated as 5089 BC

2166 BC

71.553 pmC, dated as 4933 BC

1574 BC

97.392 pmC, dated as 1793 BC (1800 BC)

1543 BC

98.108 pmC, dated as 1700 BC

So, if one can see "Shekhna" renamed as "Šubat-Enlil" at carbon dated 1800 BC, that's 1574 BC. Meanwhile Sargon II would with adequate accuracy be dated to having ruled between 722 and 705 BC, and Sennacherib 705 to 681 BC. Contemporaries with Romulus and Numa Pompilius (the former accessed before Sargon II, the latter died after Sennacherib). So Sargon II and Sennacherib can't be the guy renaming Shekhna to Šubat-Enlil, can't be Shamshi-Adad I. Sorry Damien.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Sacred Heart of Jesus
26—27.VI.2025

PS, Shekhna was in place as a city, 635 rather than 3300 years./HGL

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Dynasty_of_Egypt

** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamshi-Adad_I

*** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tell_Leilan

Did Tianyuan Man Live Pre- or Post-Flood?

Did the Jomon People Arrive to Japan in Pre-Flood Times? · Did Tianyuan Man Live Pre- or Post-Flood?

Tianyuan man seems ancestral to Ancient Beringians. East Asians seem to have more partial ancestry in him, because of later migrations to the area.

This according to a video by Mysterious Origins from 18th of April this year.*

Now, the problem is, normally this would imply he was post-Flood, but on my view the carbon date of the Flood is 39 000 BP. This coincides with the latest possible date he is given, and yes, it is a carbon date:

In 2007, researchers found 34 bone fragments belonging to a single individual at the Tianyuan Cave** near Beijing, China.[1][2] Radiocarbon dating shows the bones to be between 42,000 and 39,000 years old, which may be slightly younger than the only other finds of bones of a similar age at the Niah Caves in Sarawak on the South-east Asian island of Borneo.

So, the question is, could this be pre-Flood, as the dates suggest?

One could imagine a genetic contributor line to the Ark being mixed in the four marriages and then reconstituted more in some branches than in others. For instance, a blue eyed person will have two alleles for blue eyes. suppose he married a brown eyed person with two alleles for brown eyes. All of his children will in fact have brown eyes, but all will have an allele each for brown and blue eyes. And when two people of such configuration marry and have children, one in four of their children will have blue eyes, because he will have two alleles for blue eyes. So a part, but only a smaller part of the descendants will reconstitute the unmixed original setup of two alleles for blue eyes.

The problem with this scenario is, given the number of alleles it would take to have someone identify as clearly related to Tianyuan man, the reconstitution is very much less likely. Unless, perhaps, it was Noah's genotype, like Tianyuan man was Lamech or Methuselah or someone like that.

That too would involve a problem, unless one could trace all of the haplogroups for Y chromosomes back to Haplogroup K2b (Y-DNA) and one in three haplogroups for mitochondrial DNA to Haplogroup B (mtDNA).

To me, as no more than an amateur and in human genetics not even amateur expert, this seems improbable. While the presumed origins of these haplogroups are given as 50 000 BP (a pre-Flood date in carbon dating), the ancestral and parallel haplogroups are also post-Flood ones, i e still existing after the Flood.

To me, it's pretty clear from genetics that Tianyuan man is post-Flood. If a real geneticist has a way around this, so much the better, but I'll go with Tianyuan man being post-Flood.

This makes the carbon date a problem to be solved.

1) False age values were given. Not my priority, even with Red China.
2) My whole theory breaks down. Also not my priority.
3) In the early post-Flood centuries, the first roughly half of the 350 years before Noah died and Babel began, there was a dip in carbon 14 that descended to pre-Flood values.
4) Reservoir effect.
5) Uneven mixing of the carbon 14 in the atmosphere.

Hypothesis 3. Can a total block of added carbon 14 with the decay produce such a dip?

2958 BC,

1.6277 pmC, dated as 37 000 BC***

2848 BC (extra item)

1.1174 pmC, dated as 40 000 BC

2738 BC

11.069 pmC, dated as 20,933 BC***

110 years

* 98.678 %

1.6277 * 98.678 / 100 = 1.6062 pmC — no. One would need at the same time an emission of old carbon.

But the problem is, old carbon would be from the Flood and also have after decaying a value as high as 1.6062 pmC.

Hypothesis 4. Can the reservoir effect explain such a misdate?

We know that the reservoir effect can make human remains date up to 300 years earlier in normal stable pmC conditions. But the fact is, in conditions or steadily rising carbon 14, this would be misdating by far more than 300 years, though the modern experts who presume a stable pmC scenario do not reckon on this.

So, does the 300 extra years mean 100 % of the carbon intake is from an on average 300 year old sample? Or 50 % fresh and 50 % from an on average 600 year old sample? I think there is some room for someone dying a century or two after the Flood (Tianyuan man) to date to 200 before the Flood, one interpretation of which would be, namely if the last 220 years before the Flood were same rate of production as now, ending in 1.6277 pmC during the Flood, would be 40 600 BP.°

Now, is there anything about the Tianyuan Cave that would make the reservoir effect actually probable? Yes. See the German version of the wiki on the cave.°°

Die Höhle bildete sich in präkambrischem Kalkstein ... Die Fossilienfundstätte wurde in Fachkreisen international bekannt, nachdem es gelungen war, die Hauptkomponenten der Nahrung des in der Höhle entdeckten, rund 40.000 Jahre alten Fossils eines Homo sapiens, genannt Tianyuan 1, zu identifizieren: Süßwasserfisch.

So, whoever lived in the cave was drinking water from a stream in calcium context (one good factor for reservoir effect) and also feeding mainly on fish from the same water supply (other good factor for reservoir effect). I think this may nail it.

Hypothesis 5. Could uneven mixing of the atmosphere explain it?

Yes, but considering the potential of the reservoir effect and its probability due to the cave, exploring this option seems superfluous for now.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. John's Nativity
24.VI.2025

Nativitas sancti Joannis Baptistae, Praecursoris Domini, ac sanctorum Zachariae et Elisabeth filii, qui Spiritu Sancto repletus est adhuc in utero matris suae.

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sw60nkaogyE

** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tianyuan_man

*** First and third items are, unlike the extra item, from:

Creation vs. Evolution: Newer Tables, Flood to Joseph in Egypt
Christmas Eve 2024, by Hans Georg Lundahl
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2024/12/newer-tables-flood-to-joseph-in-egypt.html

° Creation vs. Evolution: What Would 220 Before the Flood Date To? Carbon Wise?
8.II.2025, by Hans Georg Lundahl
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2025/02/what-would-220-before-flood-date-to.html

°° https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tianyuan-Höhle

As a Roquefort Fan, I Need to Share This

Is your cheese on the verge of extinction?
by Robert Carter | This article is from
Creation 46(3):56, July 2024
https://creation.com/cheese-verge-of-extinction

As the article was from 2024, has the Penicillum Roqueforti in the meantime been saved?

Wadi Hammeh, Not Babel

Wadi Hammeh is just East of the Jordan River, so not in Sinear if that means Mesopotamia.

Wadi Hammeh is in Pella, Jordan, where the Church of Jerusalem fled. They also came back from there, after the Roman smash fest was over and so made them ancestral to Jerusalem's Christian Palestinians.

So, if Wadi Hammeh is not Babel and Göbekli Tepe or possibly Karahan Tepe is, how much older is Wadi Hammeh?

I'm using the

Newer Tables, Flood to Joseph in Egypt
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2024/12/newer-tables-flood-to-joseph-in-egypt.html

which presume that Babel is Göbekli Tepe, and that the Exodus was in 1510 BC. As well as 480 years from Exodus to Temple being a minimum time span off by decades, rather than telescoping timespans in the Judges.

Now, if Babel began 350 after the Flood, when Noah died, or soon after, and is Göbekli Tepe, Wadi Hammeh is obviously earlier, but how much earlier?

Wadi Hammeh 27 is a Late Epipalaeolithic archaeological site in Pella, Jordan. It consists of the remains of a large settlement dating to the Early Natufian period, about 14,500 to 14,000 years ago.

So, 12,500 BC. In Carbon dates.

2660 BC

30.555 pmC, dated as 12,461 BC

...

2608 BC

43.443 pmC, 9500 BC

Wadi Hammeh was 52 years older (or just a little more) than Babel. Could it be where Noah went the last years? Could this be the place where he drank too much wine? And how compatible are the fifty years with "severalgenerations" mentioned in the article?

The people of the Natufian culture were nomadic foragers, but at Wadi Hammeh 27 they built large, durable dwellings that were maintained and revisited over many generations.

Let's see the arguments in the source article, shall we?

Ice Age villagers of the Levant: renewed excavations at the Natufian site of Wadi Hammeh 27, Jordan
Phillip C. Edwards, 2015
https://www.antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/edwards347

The Natufian has been claimed as an example of pre-agricultural sedentism, but the length and frequency of its habitations remain unclear. One issue is that, for the majority of sites, long-term occupation of a single locale by hunter-gatherers would deplete food resources (cf. Munro 2004).

Would fifty years be too much?

These concerns are the focus of a new La Trobe University project (Edwards 2014) entitled ‘Ice Age villagers of the Levant: sedentism and social connections in the Natufian period’, directed by the author and co-directed by Louise Shewan (Monash University/University of Warwick) and John Webb (La Trobe University). In order to achieve the project’s aims, the new excavations are intent on stripping away more of the overlying deposits of phases 2 and 3 at Wadi Hammeh 27 to expose the basal travertine layer (phase 4), where human burials are situated in rock-cut pits (Webb & Edwards 2013).

Would the overlying deposits be a way of covering those there buried?

The first series of excavations, conducted in the 1980s, focused on the site’s uppermost deposits in phase 1 (Edwards 2013). A small sounding (XX F sondage) made at that time also demonstrated occupational continuity between the superimposed phases and the community memory of a sub-site burial by the building of successive cairns and other markers.

That's obviously, for 50 years, less impressive than for 3000 years.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Ember Saturday of Pentecost
14.VI.2025

Did the Jomon People Arrive to Japan in Pre-Flood Times?

Did the Jomon People Arrive to Japan in Pre-Flood Times? · Did Tianyuan Man Live Pre- or Post-Flood?

I pose the question in a provocative way.

Some are now taking the peopling of Japan as starting in 40 000 BP, which, if true, would be somewhat annoying for me, since I pose the Flood in 37 000 BC. Carbon date wise, of course, in fact only as far back as 2957 BC.

If this were true, it would be some kind of stretching of the matches, it would force me to ask if sometimes, even apart from the reservoir effect, something post 2957 BC could date to carbon years previous to 39 000 BP.

However, the idea of Jomon people arriving in Japan c. 40 000 years ago comes from the Tategahana Paleolithic site in Nojiri-ko.

Here is the article I first found about it:

Geology and Quaternary environments of the Tategahana Paleolithic site in Nojiri-ko (Lake Nojiri), Nagano, central Japan
Y. Kondo et al. | Dec. 2017
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1040618217300307

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2017.12.012

What do I find?

Fossils of animals. An assemblage which is suggestive of human interference. Carbon dates from 37.9–60.4 ka. And, manmade tools.

What do I not find?

People of similar anatomy or genes or both to the actual human skeleta from the Jomon period proper. Or any people at all, for that matter. Dogus, a cultural artefact typical of Jomon culture. And this after nine excavations, by 1984.

What height is it?

The water level of Nojiri-ko is at an altitude of 657 m above sea level, with the deepest point at 38.5 m, and it covers an area of 4.5 km2

So, not too high to be a pre-Flood item or water added to a pre-Flood item.

How do I analyse this?

Men of unknown ethnicity (Homo sapiens, Neanderthals, Denisovans, Homo erectus) meddled with this ground and its fauna in pre-Flood times. The Flood did not destroy it, but surrounded it by volcanos. Arguably no one came just after the Flood, only at the actual start of the accepted Jomon period.

Carbon dated 14,000 BC is when?

2686 BC

24.08 pmC, dated as 14,456 BC

2673 BC

27.32 pmC, dated as 13,399 BC

So, some time between 2686 and 2673 BC. After Heber was born. Before Noah died and Babel began.

(2686 + 2673) / 2 = 2679.5 BC
(24.08 + 27.32) / 2 = 25.7 pmC

5730 * log(0.257) / log(0.5) + 2679.5 = 13 911 BC

If 2679 "and a half" brings us near 100 years after the date we seek, the real date would be sth like 2680 BC. Clearly post-Flood.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Monday of Pentecost Novena
2.VI.2025

PS, there were actually by now 20 excavations:

In the 20th excavation, conducted in 2014, which involved about 200 people, more than 750 pieces of fossils and archaeological remains were discovered and sediment samples for microfossil study were collected.

Still no human remains. Still no Dogus./HGL

How Long Was the Younger Dryas?

Britannica:

between 12,900 and 11,600 years ago

Swedish wiki:

för cirka 12 800 till 11 700 år sedan

German wiki:

ca. 10.700–9.700 v. Chr.

French wiki:

de 12 850 à 11 650 ans avant le présent / soit une période de 10 900 à 9 700 av. J.-C.

English wiki:

12,900 to 11,700 years Before Present

So, begins 10 900 to 10 700 BC. Ends 9700 to 9600 BC. These years are around the beginning, around a certain middle and just after the end:

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

So, c. 26 years or less.

It was perhaps less cold than supposed according to this youtube:

How We Know PEOPLE Travelled FAR NORTH In The YOUNGER DRYAS
MegalithHunter | 27.V.2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzuBu93ROvI

* The pmC back when the samples start imply 8200 extra years, since 8200 years of instant age, with some rounding. 8200 + 2634 = 10 834 BC

5730 * log(0.37009) / log(0.5) = 8217 years, without rounding. 8217 + 2634 = 10 851 BC.

Follow Up Question

Did This Last 2000 Years or Only 410 Years? · Follow Up Question

Table of Nations in Genesis 10 was before the reduction of male Y chromosome lines.

So, there were more lines in the time of Table of Nations than there are now.

There are these possibilities:

• we no longer have all the male lines from Table of Nations, they were mostly lost through this reduction;
• most losses were within single ones of the 72 nations, so, each first branched out and then, in male lines, reduced;
• or Table of Nations was originally more numerous, but got updated through remaining lines, probably reducing some groups to "group mentions" (Dodanim could be one such, but so would Mitsraim, Capthorim and Philistim be).

I'm not sure which, while I can't exclude the first one, I tend to imagine the last./HGL

Did This Last 2000 Years or Only 410 Years?

Did This Last 2000 Years or Only 410 Years? · Follow Up Question

See this video:

A Genetic Purge Happened 5000–7000 Years Ago
ReYOUniverse | 18 May 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Cl-xSNt1TU

Whatever the real reason for the disappearances of so many Y-chromosome lines, or whatever combination, it was arguably not the best time to live.

In Carbon dates, it's 5000 to 3000 BC.

2189 BC

70.415 pmC, dated as 5089 BC

1779 BC

85.963 pmC, dated as 3029 BC

In the Biblical dates of my Newer Tables, it's 2189 to 1779 BC, from near death of Eber to near birth of Joseph.*

Did all of this last for 2060 years or for 410?

There is another point.

Did this begin in Adam's lifespan (for those who believe that Adam and Eve existed but were one couple among many)? Or did this begin after Babel and end somewhat after Abraham's death, Ancient Near East being a place which in his life had already somewhat calmed down?

I think this concerns the goodness of God.

In the conditions described, would not the promise of the Redeemer, the seed of the woman, be lost or over such a long time of trauma modified?

How long after Babel is this supposed to have started? In my tables, 2557 BC, birth of Phalec, is dated to 8000 BC:

2557 BC

51.766 pmC, dated as 8000 BC

This means, it takes 368 years from the scattering of mankind to when this is happening. Some have said the Gentiles, the lines excepting Eber and Phalec, were turned directly over to the demons. This was Michael Heiser's view. I say this is false, there was a time when Gentile didn't yet mean fullblown apostasy from the faith of Noah and his sons.

But the reason why God would chose a people is, there was a time, even on my view 410 years long, when most peoples went very wrong. If God hadn't chosen one nation, all would have gone wrong. He called Abraham, who was certainly taught the truth by the greatgrandfather Sarug, in the nick of time, since the father Thare, and possibly brother but probably grandfather Nachor were going wrong.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Pope St. Celestine V
19.V.2025

Natalis sancti Petri de Morono Confessoris, qui, ex Anachoreta Summus Pontifex creatus, dictus est Caelestinus Quintus. Sed Pontificatu se postmodum abdicavit, et in solitudine religiosam vitam agens, virtutibus et miraculis clarus, migravit ad Dominum.

* Joseph was actually 18 when this was over. So, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph "saw" the end of it. Serug saw it begin. Nachor, Terah, Abraham lived through this time.

TV Programmes for Children

They come in several tastes. But a scientific popularisation programme when directed to children is supposed to have:

• exploration trips
• someone doing mistakes on purpose as a foil, so someone can explain
• enthusiasm
• lots of observation on the objects of exploration
• green and sunny scenery (unless rain is the exploration) ...

There were TV programmes like that in Sweden. I can't remember a specific title, I think two or three different ones float together in my memory, or some of them were just part items in larger programmes.* But I recognise a good science programme for children when I see one.

This one is not from Sweden. And especially not from the Swedish state owned TV channels TV1 and TV2. This means, they are not tied to a Naturalistic world view.

Schus Off! Season One, Pilot Episode: “Jumpers”
https://kidsanswers.org/schus-off-season-one-pilot-episode-jumpers/

* Actually, the late Arne Weise was one of the best hosts. But he's even better remembered for science programme's for adults, namely as translating Sir David Attenborough. Some of their agendas were less optimal than the Schus!

"Only Experts Wanted"

Someone posted a gorgeous photo of Avery Foley on a FB group and attacked her.

I found the description so appealing (apart from an error on his part) that I at first suspected she had been using self irony to check her fan base.* Nevertheless, one of his words is a reminder of a basically Prussian attitude:

"Indeed Foley, whose scientific credentials are an Associates degree in Office Administration, has written extensively (and confusingly) about a myriad of scientific subjects, none of which she's actually qualified to comment on as an expert."

Thanks for "as an expert" ... it would be even better if he had said "as an accredited expert" since I think there is such a thing as amateur expertise, and as an amateur astronomer at age 8, the winter before I became a Christian, I had been told that one of the phantastic things about science is scientists have to answer questions and potential objections from anyone, not just from fellow experts. That was in late 1976 or early 1977. Since then, I have seen this more Prussian attitude:

"you are not an expert, you don't have the right to an opinion"

Or in the German original:

"du bist ein Laie, du hast kein Recht auf einer Meinung"

I would distinguish. There are certain types of debate that are really inside the discipline. If you want to argue measurements, whether the parallax of Vega** is 129.87 or 130.59 micro-arc-seconds, I think I'll very definitely leave that to the experts. Dito, I completely trust them that in Heliocentric absolute geometry for the Solar System, this would mean Vega is 25 light years away. But when it comes to another question, namely whether 25 light years can equally be ascertained from that observation or deutero-observation in an absolute geometry that's Geocentric for the universe, this is a matter of logic and trigonometry. If an angel can move Vega, the parallax as well as annual aberration can be a proper movement, which would leave the triangle as offering us one known angle and no known distance, the double Astronomic Unit falling strictly outside this type of triangle. This is a fact about trigonometry (minimum for calculating the triangle being three known quantities whereof at least one known distance, and one angle, no distance, being less than that), and as such approachable independently of very expert assessments about their observations.

The same thing is true about Heliocentrism with only Newtonian movers (mass -> inertia, mass -> graviation) versus Geocentrism with a divine mover for each day and an angelic one for each individual celestial body. This is not a question of highly qualified informations that experts can access and can assess the epistemic validity of, it's more like a question of what's ultimately reasonable. If you believe there is no God, you are doomed to believe Heliocentrim, because the spirograph patterns that planets make otherwise would be too intricate for purely Newtonian factors and we have no biological brains that size. If you believe God exists, you have no reason to accept that. And if you are not sure, as as the case with some of my readers, you can ask what you feel more strongly about:

• trusting your own eyes, and the eyes of experts (which includes, even with the best instruments, observing Geocentrism)
• trusting materialism, the lack of God, of angels.

I think from a neutral standpoint insofar as at some moment someone has that, only the former is reasonable. And it doesn't favour Vega being 25 light years away, since it doesn't favour the Astronomic Unit taken twice as being part of the triangle between Earth and Vega, if it's Vega that physically has two positions.

And from any reasonable standpoint, that is not a question for a corps of experts who approach all astronomic questions from a bias of Newtonian factors only and no to Geocentrism. Bias is not a qualification for treating a question affected by that bias.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
II Sunday after Easter
4.V.2025

* From reading her profile, not likely:

Avery is married to Trevor Schu and a homeschool mom to their five children.

Best wishes to them all!

** French wiki says: "Parallaxe 130,23 ± 0,36 mas"

Obviously, Other People Make Discoveries Too

Dr. Kurt Wise didn't plagiarise me to get this done:

Does the Order of Fossils Match Evolutionary Theory? - Dr. Kurt Wise
Is Genesis History? | 17 Aug. 2021
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfzU_Mz6bMk

When It Comes to Young Earth Creationist Calibrations in Carbon 14, I Feel a Bit Like Being in Dnepropetrovsk ....

I have a 1:37 friend in Minsk who has a friend in 1:41 Pinsk whose friend in Omsk has friend in 1:43 Tomsk with friend in Akmolinsk his friend in 1:47 Alexandrovsk has friend in Petropavlovsk 1:50 whose friend somehow is solving now the 1:52 problem in Dnepro- [1:54] Petrovsk

I tend to avoid this song because of the Russian "My God" but in this video, it's followed by "I am nothing" so it is kind of a prayer:

Tom Lehrer's Lobachevsky — First Ever Dramatization
Peter Nichols | 15 Sept. 2011
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kVntqCe6HY

Either way, I'm not the guy who is telling us of having a friend in Minsk ... these tables are mine:

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

This proposal of reworking them in various ways with Amenophis II as Pharao of the Exodus, to which I have received no reply, is also mine:

What If Exodus was 18th Dynasty and not 13th? · Testing for Pharao of Exodus = Amenophis II, with Three Alternative's for Joseph's Pharao · Advice, perhaps? · There Was a Time When Young Earth Creationists Wanted This Kind of Stuff

I have not stolen them from someone who knows the man in Dnepropetrovsk. I am the man in Dnepropetrovsk./HGL

Did Joseph's Famine Extend Into Western Europe?

Now when the seven years of the plenty that had been in Egypt were past The seven years of scarcity, which Joseph had foretold, began to come: and the famine prevailed in the whole world, but there was bread in all the land of Egypt
[Genesis 41:53-54]

What exact year did Jacob go to Egypt?

Joseph was between 37 and 44.* Jacob was himself 130. We must presume he was fairly virile up to 90 sth, 86 to 93, not unlike his grandfather Abraham who had children with Ketura after being widowed of Sarah, with whom he had a boy-child at age 100. Jacob was born when his father Isaac was 60. So, Isaac would have been 190 years, except he had died ten years earlier at 180. As Isaac was born 100 years after his father, this is 290 years after Abraham's birth. 2015 BC (according to the Roman Martyrology) - 290 = 1725 BC.

While I may remake tables to fit an Exodus in 1446 and Amenophis II as the Pharao, I don't feel the tables I made earlier are totally useless. What would according to them** 1725 BC carbon date as?

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

So, between 2914 BC and 2857 BC. Let's quote a video, shall we?***

this also stresses how small the initial population that repopulated Western Europe must have been 14:52 essentially a small family clan that once they settled in Central Europe started to be successful and then went 14:59 on to occupy the whole of Western Europe this again was facilitated by the fact 15:05 that most of Western Europe had become almost completely depopulated for example the Bell Beaker culture people who 15:12 colonized the British Islands were genetically identical to how they were already in Central Europe

When was this?

The genome wide ad-12:42 mixture they were getting via these females by the time they reached Central Europe around 2800 BC the Chorded Ware 12:50 Horizon people had around 30% admixture from the Neolithic Farmers quite a 12:56 significant amount but not surprising given how fast a small population can 13:01 change genetically when they start incorporating foreign genes into their pool. Then during their stay in Central 13:08 Europe this ad mixture increased to around 50%. By circa 2500 BC however ...

... the admixture from Neolithic farmers ceases in Central Europe. So, 2800 BC and 2500 BC where when?°

Starting out 1700 BC

87.541 pmC, dated as 2800 BC

1687 BC

Joseph dies.°°

1678 BC

89.449 pmC, dated as 2600 BC

1656 BC

91.353 pmC, dated as 2404 BC

So, 1700 BC and around 1667 BC. Note, according to the video*** I have quoted, we do not observe archaeologically lots of Neolithic populations 2800 to 2500 BC. We just observe Steppe populations gaining and then ceasing to gain admixture from Neolithic Farmer pretty certainly women. They then meet some more after arriving into the Iberic Peninsula.

Meanwhile the Neolithic Population survives near the Mediterranean, Greece, Anatolia, Iberic Peninsula, where Sea Trade with Egypt would have been possible. And probably some Neolithic Farmer women would have survived by abandoning agriculture for the Steppe Nomadism, if they came rapidly enough.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Richard of Chichester
3.IV.2025

In Anglia sancti Richardi, Episcopi Cicestrensis, sanctitate et miraculorum gloria conspicui.

* The seven plentiful years start when he was 30 and end when he was 37, the seven poor years start when he was 37 and end when he was 44.

** Newer Tables, Flood to Joseph in Egypt

*** Did the Corded Ware speak Basque? An alternative view on the spread of Indo European pt.1
Yamokante | 9 March 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3J18e8jEMQU

° Newer Tables, Joseph in Egypt to Fall of Troy

°° 110 when he died, Genesis 50:25. 1678 + 110 = 1788, 1788 - 37 = 1751 ... oops, I miscounted ...

Forrest Valkai Debunked Will Spencer, or So He Thought

Creation vs. Evolution: Forrest Valkai Debunked Will Spencer, or So He Thought · Φιλολoγικά/Philologica: How Do We Know History?

Here is the Video by Will Spencer:

What Your Teachers Won't Tell You About EVOLUTION
The Will Spencer Podcast | 8 Febr. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARBTZEE1Qxs

Here is the supposed debunk:

When Creationism becomes Conspiracy Theory | Reacteria
Forrest Valkai | 1 April 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qgp1GUdydXs

Before going to the title quote, here is a quote about Darwinism leading to Racism in the past, which Will Spencer considered as a logical conclusion:

those are absolutely not 40:35 logical conclusions the only reason that early biologists believed things like 40:41 that is because they didn't have the data that we do today so they just went 40:46 along with their worldview which was already warped with that kind of racism

Now, there are a few things to unpack here.

1) The "early biologists" (actually early evolutionists, biology had been around for quite a while) went beyond logical conclusions, because they believed things (like racism) anyway.

a) Not true. 1900 was way more racist than 1800, for a reason, the Theory of Evolution.
b) But even if it were true, what about the things that people now believe "anyway"?

2) The early Evolutionists went beyond logical conclusions, because they didn't have the data we do today.

a) And we are supposed to have all the data we'll have 50 years from now?
b) or, at least, the data we lack, unlike the ones those guys lacked, are not supposed to be the needed antidote to sth which otherwise only Christian dogma could save us from?

3) While Will Spencer actually evoked Racism, he stated "more evolved than others" and by contrast "less evolved" ... the actual wording "intermediate forms" is tying it to racism, but if we exchange that to "less evolved" it seems the same conclusion is being drawn today.

Only, the modern version is:
a) those mental traits were really useful when trying to survive
b) but now they have lost their purpose and tend to make society more violent or the individual less happy in it ...

Psychiatry has taken the place of Eugenics, without always leaving Eugenics totally behind.

Now, to the kind of statement that Forrest Valkai termed "conspiracy theory" here is the wording of Will Spencer:

second anyone questioning 1:51 Evolution faces public outrage people 1:54 risk their reputations by speaking up 1:56 and not just scientists either even 1:58 everyday people like and me feel afraid 2:01 to ask informed questions there's no 2:03 logical reason for this fear except for 2:06 the third reason because Darwin created 2:08 his origin Theory to replace another 2:11 explanation of our Origins the one from 2:13 the Bible as you can probably now see 2:16 Evolution has won this battle at the 2:19 institutional level

This is basically what Forrest Valkai considers a conspiracy theory, and instead of proving that Institutions are genuinely open to Creationists, he states "the real reason is, Evolution is such a good theory" ... he can get away with it with lots of the public because of precisely the institutuions still dominated by the theory, and who prone trust in such statements and in arguments backing them up.

Now, Forrest comes with another contradiction to Will Spencer, namely, "there is no shaming of Creationists" and he cites the fact that Will tries to promote Creationism as a proof there is no such shaming.

He also brags about project Steve, in response to 1000 signatures for Creationism, he cites 1600 signatures for Evolution and condemning Creationism by scientists named Steve ... so, in response to the charge of deliberate marginalisation shaping what people see, he cites the extent of the marginalisation. I consider that an own goal.*

But apart from that, under Will's video, there is a comment pretty close to the top, which illustrates the shaming:

Jure Ambrož

@jureambroz9557

It really is insane that you can just lie with no consequences and be smug while doing so

So, he is basically asking for Will Spencer to be censored and punished for "spreading misinformation" or in cruder Communist terms, "just lie" ... he is also outraged at Will Spencer showing no signs of qualms of conscience. Could this Jure Ambrož be the same as I find in ...

O fakulteti / Zaposleni: Jure Ambrož
https://www.bf.uni-lj.si/sl/o-fakulteti/zaposleni/2022012513144089/ambroz-jure

... a faculty in Ljubljana? (Biotechnic faculty of the University of Ljuljana)

I have stated more than once, economically, Jugoslavia was not Marxist Leninist, since it was highly Distributist (Kulak friendly). I can add, unfortunately, in learning and culture and education, Jugoslavia unfortunately was Marxist Leninist, and one sign thereof is the habit of calling Creationists (or other proponents of Christianity as being factually true, not just socially useful) liars. I have unfortunately been around a step father from Romania, an Anti-Communist in economic terms, and in attitude to Bureaucracy, who had this Communist attitude towards Christianity.

Yes, even if Will Spencer says the things are fortunately starting to change, they have far from changed everywhere.

And so, no, the statement is NOT a Conspiracy theory.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Nicetius of Lyons
2.IV.2025

* An own goal occurs in sports when a player performs actions that result in scoring points for the opposition, such as when a footballer puts a ball into their own net.

There Was a Time When Young Earth Creationists Wanted This Kind of Stuff

What If Exodus was 18th Dynasty and not 13th? · Testing for Pharao of Exodus = Amenophis II, with Three Alternative's for Joseph's Pharao · Advice, perhaps? · There Was a Time When Young Earth Creationists Wanted This Kind of Stuff

CARBON-14 Dating Models and Experimental Implications
By Paul Giem | Published 2006
https://www.academia.edu/127215895/CARBON_14_Dating_Models_and_Experimental_Implications

Any model of carbon-14 dating must satisfy certain constraints. First, since carbon-14 dating is objective and reproducible, it cannot be ignored. One cannot simply dismiss it out of hand; there should be an explanatory model for the data. Second, it has been validated at least back to 300 B.C. by comparison with many other reliable dating methods. 1 Therefore, any model must account for this data, and it is not reasonable to consider carbon-14 dating completely unreliable before that point, particularly when used as a relative dating method.

I started providing my take in 2015, Correction de la table, taux de C14, et implications. I made major updates pretty quickly. I did an overhaul with a few updates this Christmas. Newer Tables: Preliminaries · Flood to Joseph in Egypt · Joseph in Egypt to Fall of Troy.

My explanation model is simple:

1) In the Flood year, Carbon 14 was very low. Before the Flood it wasn't higher, and as a percentage, whatever the case with absolute quantities, but arguably in absolute quantities too, it had been produced at a lower rate than now.

2) From the Flood to a certain point, Carbon 14 started rising with a more than 10 times quicker production of Carbon 14 than now in some early post-Flood times. This would have been acted out by angelic movers of Sun and other celestial bodies emitting cosmic radiation, as part of God's intention of reducing human lifespans, and its side effects were a quicker rise of Carbon 14 as well as at least part of the explanation for the Ice Age. I do not dispute the validity of Michael Oard's model about heated water after the Flood, as far as the explanation is valid, I just think the Cosmic Radiation speeded up the process. Yes, ionising particles in the atmosphere will cool the weather.*

3) This has not continued, we can be fairly certain that Carbon 14 has already reached an equilibrium. That's why Carbon 14 works for "at least back to 300 BC" (I started out putting that point at c. 500 BC, taking of Jerusalem by Babylonians, I pushed it back to Fall of Troy).**

4) There may have been or not been a point where Carbon 14 was higher than 100 pmC, before 750 BC (notably founding of Rome) was dated as 550 BC in the Hallstatt plateau.

5) By nodes between Bible and archaeology, the rise can be figured out.

This explanation model remains the same when I mistook the carbon date for Genesis 14 as "3200 BC" (as per end of chalcolithic overall) and when I corrected it to "3500 BC" (carbon dates of reed mats evacuated from Asason-Tamar / En-Geddi, yes, this has been excavated and dated). If I now were to change a 13th Dynasty Pharao for Amenophis II as Pharao of the Exodus, this would change my calibration, but not my explanation model.

Changing the point of reached equilibrium from 1179 BC (fall of Troy) to Exodus, with real date 1446 BC, dated between 1457 and 1424 BC, would change my calibration and my Biblical chronology (I could also say that it's really 1510 BC that dates as 1457 / 1424, that's what I was asking advice about ... that would be a "higher than 100 pmC point" if that were the case, see point 4). It would still not change my explanation model.

For some reason, once I started providing, interest is not the way it was when Paul Giem made the statement in 2006. Perhaps because I'm Catholic. Perhaps because I use a Biblical Chronology codified in the Roman Martyrology reading for Christmas Day, sometimes referred to as the Christmas Proclamation***. Or perhaps because I use Göbekli Tepe as calibration points for Babel (beginning after Noah died, ending when Peleg was later born, the LXX chronology nearly fits a tradition of it being 40 years if there is no Second Cainan, if on the other hand there is, the beginning must be calibrated as way after Noah died). Or perhaps both.

Paul Giem seems to be a Seventh Day Adventist.° Not the most Catholic friendly denomination there is on the Protestant spectrum. To the point that my maternal grandmother, an agnostic verging on atheist, when I converted to Catholicism in 1988 asked me specifically to not tell my paternal grandmother, who was still a Seventh Day Adventist. I obeyed because I lived with my maternal grandmother. Also a good point in case anyone pretends I'm incel because of my faith hampering my sexual daring, my living with granny was very hampering irrespective of my religion. Yes, my Atheist (or on and off Theist but mostly Atheist) granny made the social life impossible which I would have needed to get a fiancée.

So, part of the problem could be, CMI and others might lose a huge chunk of their support if they offended SDA. This could be both about LXX (Jack Rand / RnJ answering my comments, see Agreeing with Robert Carter on Skeleta, Disagreeing on LXX) and about Göbekli Tepe (SDA could be so ignorant of geography as to say "Babel was in Mesopotamia, which is Iraq, not Turkey" ...). So, it's not too improbable that SDA and some others are waiting for me to get around to SDA positions. Not likely. No, YEC isn't specifically an SDA position, while they were unique among Protestants, Catholics were still very commonly YEC.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Deposition of Abbot
St. Eustace of Luxeuil
29.III.2025

In monasterio Luxoviensi, in Gallia, depositio sancti Eustasii Abbatis, qui sancti Columbani discipulus et ferme sexcentorum Monachorum Pater fuit; ac, vitae sanctitate conspicuus, etiam miraculis claruit.

* The Little Ice Age was missing from the Southern Hemisphere, which I put down to there being less land and more water there, but in the Northern Hemisphere it coincided with a rise in pmC values. 1750 carbon dates (uncalibrated raw dates) as 1950, 1850 as 1850 and 1950 as 1750. Back in the Little Ice Age, Charles X Gustav could cross the Belt on the ice sheet with the whole army, today it's unlikely to be even covered with ice in winter.

** If the pmC has risen from 80 to 100 since Fall of Troy, that corresponds to the halflife being twice as long as 5730 years, namely 11460 years. If the halflife is 5730 but the pmC is rising, the apparent halflife will be shorter than 5730 years. So, if the pmC is rising and the apparent halflife is 5730 years, the real halflife must be longer. It's more economic to assume the actual and apparent halflife are both 5730 years and so stability has been reached since quite a long time ago.

*** It was originally left out from Novus Ordo it would seem, and then in the 1990's they created a new version, the first translation by the USCBC starting "unknowing ages" ...

° Paul A. Giem, MD
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Emergency Medicine
https://llu.edu/academics/faculty/giem-paul/education

Loma Linda University is "A Seventh-day Adventist Organization"

Advice, perhaps?

What If Exodus was 18th Dynasty and not 13th? · Testing for Pharao of Exodus = Amenophis II, with Three Alternative's for Joseph's Pharao · Advice, perhaps? · There Was a Time When Young Earth Creationists Wanted This Kind of Stuff

Before I could replace Newer Tables partly (from IV—V on) with taking Amenophis II instead of a 13th Dynasty Pharao, I'd need to consider whether I'd take the carbon date 1457 as basically 1446 (as per Assyrian chronology and 480 years in III Kings 6 being exact) or whether I take it as an alias for the real year 1510 BC, as the Exodus is dated in the Roman Martyrology.

III 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.

Ver. 1. Eightieth year. This chronology meets with the approbation of most people. See Usher. (Chap. 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. (Calmet) --- Septuagint have 440; Josephus 592, though Ruffin neglects the 90 in his version; Petau 520; Severus 582; Clement of Alexandria 566; Vossius 580; Cano 590; Serarius 680. --- Houbigant would read 350 in the Acts. But Capellus would add 100 here, &c. (Haydock) --- Second of the sacred year, corresponding with our April. Syriac, Chaldean styles it "of the splendour of flowers." (Menochius) --- 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. (Haydock) --- 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, (Scaliger) Chaldean names were adopted; (Haydock) 1. Nisan; 2. Jar; 3. Sivan; 4. Tammus; 5. Ab; 6. Elul; 7. Tisri; 8. Marshevan; 9. Casleu; 10. Thebet; 11. Schebet; 12. Adar; (Calmet) 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. Septuagint here take no notice of Zio, though they do, ver. 37. (Haydock) --- The temple was begun on Monday, May 21, in the year of the world 2992. (Usher) --- It was finished in the year of the world 3000, or in the following year, when it was solemnly dedicated. (Button.)

In the former case, I'd have to make a remake of the chronology. I'd immediately get the pre-Flood time corrected to 2262 years instead of 2242. I could chose between two different LXX readings of Genesis 11, without or with the II Cainan. Most parts of the table would be the same.

		without II Cainan		with II Cainan
Temple		966		966
King David		915		915
Jericho		1406		1406
Exodus		1446		1446
Genesis 14		1870		1870
Promise		1876		1876
Birth of Abraham		1950		1950
Babel		2491		2491
Flood		2892		3020
Creation		5154		5282

Of these years, I'd only make tables for:

		without II Cainan		with II Cainan
Exodus		1446		1446
Genesis 14		1870		1870
(Promise)		1876		1876
(Birth of Abraham)		1950		1950
Babel		2491		2491
Flood		2892		3020
Creation		5154		5282

The items in brackets would not be nodes.

On the other hand, if I stick to the Roman martyrology, and I accept Amenophis II, I'm obliged to argue that the bases of conventional Egyptian chronology after his time have been shortened, but only to the time of the fall of Troy:

1179 BC

dated as 1179 BC

1510 BC

dated as 1424 BC

dated as 1457 BC

331 actual years would be conventionally dated as only 278 or even as 245 years. Here is where the advice comes in. Is this possible? I don't know.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Annunciation of Our Lady
25.III.2025

Annuntiatio beatissimae Virginis Genitricis Dei Mariae.

I Just Saw a Breakdown of Neo-Nazi Groups, Looked Up Nordfront, and Found Wernher von Braun

Wernher von Braun föddes den 23 mars 1912 i den tyska provinsen Posen (som etniskt rensades på tyskar efter kriget och nu är en del av Polen). Han anses som raketforskningens fader och mannen som förde människan till månen.

Nordfront: Wernher von Braun – mannen som förde människan till månen
Publicerad: 2018-03-23 00:00
https://nordfront.se/wernher-von-braun-mannen-som-forde-manniskan-till-manen

The Neo-Nazi group that is fairly close to Nordfront (but separate entities) is the Nordic Resistance Movement. I'm not totally happy with members bombing a refugee shelter and seriously injuring one, I'd have preferred no serious violence at all (they think the violence is a necessity, I hope they are wrong). But I am happy that they didn't actually kill anyone. Meanwhile, Nordfront is a journalistic enterprise. This article is probably refeatured every 23 of March since 2018 when it was published, since it's Wernher von Braun's birthday, back in 1912 (one week before the death of Karl May, and no, he wasn't racist, he was pretty pro-German chauvinist, but not a racist), and the first point they make is, Wernher von Braun was born in Posen, not present Poznań, but retrospectively called Prowincja Poznańska. The particular division of country around the city of Posen or Poznań has been reorganised, as Germans were subject to ethnic cleansing after WW-II. However, Wernher von Braun was in fact not just a German patriot, but also an official in the Nazi Era German Reich, and a member of the party and of the SS.

After the war, he came to the US.

He actually constructed useable rockets, including space rockets.

Now, in so far as spacecraft are a parallel to airplanes in getting off the ground, Wernher von Braun would be parallel to Orville and Wilbur Wright. Meanwhile, the air plane paper constructions of Leonardo da Vinci are pretty useless. However, he was a precursor to Orville and Wilbur.

Readers of my blog will be aware that I consider Wernher von Braun had a similar precursor, who absolutely couldn't have pulled it off. And that he was sth far worse than a National Socialist, bad as that on occasion may be, namely Nimrod Ben Kush. Based on what?

a) Graham Hancock, who believed in Ancient Alien Astronauts and maybe still does, considered Göbekli Tepe looks as if it were constructed as a landing place for alien spacecraft.
b) I do not believe in Aliens, but I cannot preclude Ancient Aspiring Austronauts, and GMr. Hancock's remark set me looking things up. Tower described in ways compatible with rocket, check. Göbekli Tepe fits the Geography, check. Göbekli Tepe is preceded by linguistic or at least cultural unity from Indonesia to Spain, check. Göbekli Tepe is followed by blatant cultural and obviously even linguistic diversity, check. Göbekli Tepe, like Babel, comes somewhere midway between Flood and Genesis 14, check.

And Nimrod wanted to get into heaven. I e into outer space. And God's remark doesn't include the word "lest" in English:

And he said: Behold, it is one people, and all have one tongue: and they have begun to do this, neither will they leave off from their designs, till they accomplish them in deed Come ye, therefore, let us go down, and there confound their tongue, that they may not understand one another's speech
[Genesis 11:6-7]

Compare:

And he said: Behold Adam is become as one of us, knowing good and evil: now, therefore, lest perhaps he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever
[Genesis 3:22]

There are two "lest" in Genesis 3, verses 3 and 22. It's the Hebrew conjunction "pen-" ... but there is only one "lest" or "pen-" in Genesis 11, verse 4.

God is not stating He tries to avoid men accomplishing what they had undertaken.

We must see the confusion of their language, the halting of their project, as a temporary halt, meant to allow knowledge to accumulate, since Wernher von Braun was just a little bit better equipped in know-how and applicable knowledge than Nimrod back in the Neolithic. This also answers an Atheist talking point: "if God was angry at a tower, why has He allowed skyscrapers and even spacecraft now" ... the text in Genesis 11 actually doesn't state that God is angry. If someone's mummy wags her head, takes a nearly just toddler away from the stove and tells him to put on an oven glove before taking out the cookie he baked, doesn't mean she is angry with him, just that she cares for his safety.

On this view, Wernher von Braun is actually prophecied in this chapter of the Bible. Another prophecy of the Bible was accomplished last week.

Though thou be exalted as an eagle, and though thou set thy nest among the stars: thence will I bring thee down, saith the Lord
[Abdias (Obadiah) 1:4]

And some spacemen were safely brought down:

'Stranded' Astronauts Spent 9 Months in Space. Here's How Much They Might Earn – and Why It Doesn't Include Overtime
David Chiu Wed, March 19, 2025 at 6:56 PM GMT+1
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/stranded-astronauts-spent-9-months-175623510.html

I would say at nine months they can be said to have nested among the stars. Nests being to egg hatching what nine months are to pregnancies. Hat tip to Allie Beth Stuckey for mentioning this fact.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Oculi LD
23.III.2025

Testing for Pharao of Exodus = Amenophis II, with Three Alternative's for Joseph's Pharao

What If Exodus was 18th Dynasty and not 13th? · Testing for Pharao of Exodus = Amenophis II, with Three Alternative's for Joseph's Pharao · Advice, perhaps? · There Was a Time When Young Earth Creationists Wanted This Kind of Stuff

The three possible Pharaos are: Djoser (whom I have favoured so far), Senusret III (whom I have so far taken to be the pharao who died when Moses was very young), and what was the alternative by Damien Mackey again ... here we are:

Mentuhotpe [Mentuhotep] II ... came to the Theban throne under the name S'ankhibtawy ... his domain stretched from the First Cataract to the tenth nome of Upper Egypt; in other words, it was still curtailed to the north by the territory of the princes of Asyut. A hostile peace was maintained between the two kingdoms, but this was disrupted when the Thinite nome, suffering grievously from famine, revolted against the Herakleopolitan clan. Mentuhotpe captured Asyut and passed through the fifteenth nome without encountering resistance - this was effectively the fall of the Herakleapolitan dynasty.

Joseph in Egypt’s Eleventh Dynasty, Moses in Egypt’s Twelfth Dynasty
Part One: Joseph ruled like Pharaoh in ancient Egypt
by Damien F. Mackey
https://www.academia.edu/125338500/Joseph_in_Egypt_s_Eleventh_Dynasty_Moses_in_Egypts_Twelfth_Dynasty

Table 3: Amarna and Thebes
Mentuhotep II, Dyn. 11, N° 9, Capital Thebes, Provenance Deir el-Bahri
Historical Median 2032, BR 2010 model 2059+/-2, calibrated 2004+/-20

Radiocarbon Chronology for Dynastic Egypt and the Tell el Dab^Ca debate: a regional hypothesis
By Graham Hagens
https://austriaca.at/0xc1aa5572%200x00321daa.pdf

Let's calculate the time from Genesis 14 to Exodus with the three different pharaos, and I'll put each at the head of the calculation:

Djoser

1935 BC

82.753 pmC, so dated 3500 BC

1700 BC

87.541 pmC, dated as 2800 BC

1510 BC

100.655 pmC so dated as 1457 BC

The path between Genesis 14 and c. death of Joseph's pharao is the same as in IV—V in Newer Tables, Flood to Joseph in Egypt. What remains is the change between Joseph's pharao and Exodus.

190 years, 0.977278, 0.02272

87.541 pmC * 0.977278 + 2.272 pmC = 87.824 pmC
100.655 pmC - 87.824 pmC = 12.831 pmC
12.831 + 2.272 = 15.103 pmC
15.103 pmC / 2.272 pmC = 6.647 times as fast

Mentuhotep II

1935 BC

82.753 pmC, so dated 3500 BC

1700 BC

95.75 pmC, so dated 2059 BC

1510 BC

100.655 pmC so dated as 1457 BC

235 years, 0.97197, 0.02803

82.753 pmC * 0.97197 + 2.803 pmC = 83.236 pmC
95.75 pmC - 83.236 pmC = 12.514 pmC
12.514 pmC + 2.803 pmC = 15.316 pmC
15.316 pmC / 2.803 pmC = 5.465 times as fast

190 years, 0.977278, 0.02272

95.75 pmC * 0.977278 + 2.272 pmC = 95.847 pmC
100.655 - 95.847 pmC = 4.808 pmC
4.808 pmC + 2.272 pmC = 7.081 pmC
7.081 pmC / 2.272 pmC = 3.116 times as fast

Senusret III

1935 BC

82.753 pmC, so dated 3500 BC

1700 BC

98.344 pmC, so dated 1838 BC

1510 BC

100.655 pmC so dated as 1457 BC

235 years, 0.97197, 0.02803

82.753 pmC * 0.97197 + 2.803 pmC = 83.236 pmC
98.344 pmC - 83.236 pmC = 15.108 pmC
15.108 pmC + 2.803 pmC = 17.91 pmC
17.91 pmC / 2.803 pmC = 6.39 times as fast

190 years, 0.977278, 0.02272

98.344 pmC * 0.977278 + 2.272 pmC = 98.382 pmC
100.655 - 98.382 pmC = 2.273 pmC
2.273 pmC + 2.272 pmC = 4.546 pmC
4.546 pmC / 2.272 pmC = 2 times as fast

Djoser in the Middle

1841 BC

Abraham died

1838 BC

84.77 pmC, dated as 3204 BC

From my table IV—V, but for the following:

94 years, 0.98869, 1.131 pmC

Mentuhotep II in the Middle

1841 BC

Abraham died

87.996 pmC, so dated 2898 BC

1.131 pmC * 5.465 = 6.179 pmC
82.753 pmC * 0.98869 + 6.179 pmC = 87.996 pmC
5730 * log(0.87996)/log(0.5) + 1841 = 2898 BC

Senusret III in the Middle

1841 BC

Abraham died

89.043 pmC, so dated 2800 BC

1.131 pmC * 6.39 = 7.225 pmC
82.753 pmC * 0.98869 + 7.225 pmC = 89.043 pmC
5730 * log(0.89043)/log(0.5) + 1841 = 2800 BC

Both with Mentuhotep and Senusret in the middle, it is credible that the pharao he met could have died between Genesis 14 and his own death and be Hor Aha or even Narmer. With Senusret in the middle, Abraham would have had occasion to see Djoser, them dying about the same time.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Oculi LD
23.III.2025

What If Exodus was 18th Dynasty and not 13th?

What If Exodus was 18th Dynasty and not 13th? · Testing for Pharao of Exodus = Amenophis II, with Three Alternative's for Joseph's Pharao · Advice, perhaps? · There Was a Time When Young Earth Creationists Wanted This Kind of Stuff

RADIOCARBON, WINE JARS AND NEW KINGDOM CHRONOLOGY*
By David Aston
https://www.academia.edu/39997434/Radiocarbon_Wine_Jars_And_New_Kingdom_Chronology

I'll not give his full list of radiocarbon dates, but here are those of Amenophis II, also known as Amenhotep II.

Radiocarbon dates 2010
King		68%		95%
Amenophis II		btw 1441 & 1431 BC		btw 1445 & 1423 BC
Radiocarbon dates 2013
King		68%		95%
Amenophis II		btw 1451 & 1434 BC		btw 1456 & 1419 BC

I'll make two radio carbon views on this one.

A) I use my calibration, where, as in David Down, Moses was Amenemhet IV, up to his fortieth year, his sister (formerly adoptive mother) the next pharao, and the pharao of the Exodus by consequence a little known pharao of the 13th dynasty. When in Biblical chronology does this land?
B) I'll use Amenophis II as pharao of Exodus, i) with Exodus in 1510 BC, as per Roman Martyrology, ij) with Exodus in 1446 BC, as per the idea of exactly (not at least but exactly) 480 years before 966 BC. I'll also check where this lands the carbon levels sinking from Exodus to Take of Jericho.

A) Amenophis II would have died in early 14th C. BC:

1398 BC

99.29 pmC, dated as 1457 BC

1374 BC

99.37 pmC, dated as 1426 BC

1510 - 1398 = 112 years after the Exodus, in the Judges period.

1510 - 1374 = 136 years after the Exodus, in the Judges period.

B i) Replacing eruption of Santorini with Death of Amenophis II:

1510 BC

100.655 pmC so dated as 1457 BC

1470 BC

99.037 pmC so dated 1550 BC

First of all, the lowering of carbon 14 levels would not square with the radiocarbon dates for later 18th dynasty kings. But apart from that, what would the change imply?

100.655 * 99.517 % = 100.169 pmC

B ij) and also replacing the Biblical years of the Roman martyrology.

1446 BC

99.879 pmC so dated as 1457 BC

1406 BC

98.273 pmC so dated as 1550 BC

99.879 * 99.517 % = 99.397 pmC

B, in both cases, even with no added carbon 14 into the atmosphere, the simple decay of atmospheric carbon during 40 years will bring the carbon 14 level one pmC unit above the one needed for dating Jericho to 1550 BC ...

However, 1550 BC was Kenyon's dating by other methods, it would seem. Recently there have been carbon dates, sometimes reported as totally confirming Kenyon. Here is another view of them:

Carbon-14 Dates at Jericho and the Destruction Date
/ Uncategorized / By Archae27
https://apxaioc.com/?p=10

However, it was discovered years later that the result of this sample testing was incorrect, and was later reissued on a list of erroneous dates due to a problem with equipment calibration at the laboratory for the years 1980-1984. The dates were corrected to 3300 +/- 110 BP, (Bowman, G.E., Ambers, J., Leese, M.N. “Re-Evaluation of British Museum Radiocarbon Dates Issued Between 1980 and 1984.” Radiocarbon 32, 1990, 74, BM-1790) which calibrates to approximately 1883-1324 BC, rendering the resulting C-14 date useless for settling the debate between a destruction in ca. 1550 BC or ca. 1400 BC (Using http://calib.qub.ac.uk/calib/calib.html).

Previous to that, a sample from Jericho had dated to 1400 BC +/- 40 ... suspicious how big the gap between earliest and latest date suddenly became ...

So, maybe the 1550 BC date for Jericho is not just not a carbon date, but totally a red herring.

Let's ignore Jericho, and do both versions again, but taking them to Troy instead.

B i)

1510 BC

100.655 pmC so dated as 1457 BC

1179 BC

100 pmC so dated 1179 BC

331 years, 96.075 %, 3.925 pmC normal buildup
100.655 * 96.075 / 100 + 3.925 = 100.629 pmC, so, the buildup would have been slower.
3.925-0.629 = 3.296, 3.296 / 3.925 = 83.975 % of normal buildup speed.

B ij)

1446 BC

99.879 pmC so dated as 1457 BC

1179 BC

100 pmC so dated 1179 BC

267 years, 96.822 %, 3.178 pmC normal buildup
99.879 * 96.822 / 100 + 3.178 = 99.883 pmC
100-99.883 = 0.117, 3.178 + 0.117 = 3.295, 3.295 / 3.178 = 103.682 % of normal buildup speed.

Unlike for "Jericho carbon dated 1550 BC" this gives no problem.

Perhaps a tip for revision?

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Oculi LD
23.III.2025

PS, this was inspired by:

Tombeau du pharaon de l'Exode : ce qui a été découvert et pourquoi vous ne le savez pas !
(Tomb of Exodus' Pharao : what has been discoverd and why you don't know it!*)
Expedition Bible | 22 mars 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJP4pVjnWpk

* In France, the title is shown in French, not sure how to turn that off. I tried to change the keyboard, and recharge the page, the title was still in French.

What Would 440 Before the Flood Date To? Carbon Wise? Or 600 Before the Flood?

What Would 220 Before the Flood Date To? Carbon Wise? · What Would 440 Before the Flood Date To? Carbon Wise? Or 600 Before the Flood?

0.5^(440/5730) = 0.9481657393132604

0.9481657393132604 * = decay
0.0518342606867396 = normal replacement

A) with 3.611 times as fast production, like on this view the half as long period after the Flood?
B) with same production as now?
C) with ten times slower production than now (as generally pre-Flood)?

3398 BC

x -> pmC

A) x * 0.9481657393132604 + 3.611 * 0.0518342606867396 = 0.016277
x * 0.9481657393132604 = 0.016277 - 3.611 * 0.0518342606867396
x = (0.016277 - 3.611 * 0.0518342606867396) / 0.9481657393132604
x = -0.180239 ... (minus value, impossible)

B) x * 0.9481657393132604 + 0.0518342606867396 = 0.016277
x * 0.9481657393132604 = 0.016277 - 0.0518342606867396
x = (0.016277 - 0.0518342606867396) / 0.9481657393132604
x = -0.0375 ... (minus value, impossible)

C) x * 0.9481657393132604 + 0.00518342606867396 = 0.016277
x * 0.9481657393132604 = 0.016277 - 0.00518342606867396
x = (0.016277 - 0.00518342606867396) / 0.9481657393132604
x = 0.0117

How about taking the final 440 years as rising twice as fast as the medium?

D) x = (0.016277 - 2 * 0.00518342606867396) / 0.9481657393132604
x = 0.006233

C) 5730 * log(0.0117) / log(0.5) + 3398 = 40 169 BC
D) 5730 * log(0.006233) / log(0.5) + 3398 = 45 375 BC

What about 600 Before the Flood, when Noah was born?

3557 BC

x -> pmC

0.5^(600/5730) = 0.9299905477435162

0.9299905477435162 * = decay
0.0700094522564838 = normal replacement

0.0700094522564838 / 5 = 0.01400189045129676
0.0700094522564838 / 10 = 0.00700094522564838

A) x * 0.9299905477435162 + 0.01400189045129676 = 0.016277
x * 0.9299905477435162 = 0.016277 - 0.01400189045129676
x = (0.016277 - 0.01400189045129676) / 0.9299905477435162
x = 0.002446379

B) x * 0.9299905477435162 + 0.00700094522564838 = 0.016277
x * 0.9299905477435162 = 0.016277 - 0.00700094522564838
x = (0.016277 - 0.00700094522564838) / 0.9299905477435162
x = 0.0099743538

A) 5730 * log(0.002446379) / log(0.5) + 3557 = 53 266 BC
B) 5730 * log(0.0099743538) / log(0.5) + 3557 = 41 648 BC

Three possible tables. Both are on average 1/5 of the normal replacement. The latter part is, but the former part is 1/10 normal replacement. Both are on average 1/10 normal replacement. Hmm ... may have to think the compromise through, tomorrow ...

3557 BC

0.245 pmC, 53 266 BC

3398 BC

0.623 pmC, 45 375 BC

3557 BC

0.997 pmC, 41 648 BC

3398 BC

0.623 pmC, 45 375 BC

3557 BC

0.997 pmC, 41 648 BC

3398 BC

1.17 pmC, 40 169 BC

.... Thinking — could this happen?*

I mean, if the pmC is 0.997 in 3557 BC, could it drop to 0.623 in 3398 BC? Not by decay. In 159 years, the decay is a multiplication by 0.98095. By carbon escaping from somthing which never had carbon 14? Perhaps. So, no, as that is not overlikely in the calm pre-Flood times, probably not. Actually the opposite combination would be more likely:

3557 BC

0.245 pmC, 53 266 BC

3398 BC

1.17 pmC, 40 169 BC

How fast would that have gone?

0.00245 * 0.98095 = 0.0024
0.0024 + 0.01905 = 0.02145 (2.145 pmC)

0.0024 + 0.01905/2 = 0.011925 (1.1925 pmC)

Less than half as fast as modern speed to reach 1.17 pmC. Now, that could happen.

Why am I just speculating, between incompatible scenarii? Because I have no anchor point prior to the Flood, that's why.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Cyril
18.III.2025

Hierosolymis sancti Cyrilli Episcopi, Confessoris et Ecclesiae Doctoris; qui, ab Arianis multas pro fidei causa perpessus injurias et ex Ecclesia sua saepe depulsus, tandem, sanctitatis gloria clarus, in pace quievit. Ipsius porro intemeratam fidem prima Constantinopolitana Synodus oecumenica, sancto Damaso Papae scribens, praeclaro testimonio commendavit.

* The middle one, obviously. The other two can.

Stone Age European Seafarers

LiveScience: 7,000-year-old canoes from Italy are the oldest ever found in the Mediterranean
News By Jennifer Nalewicki published March 20, 2024
https://www.livescience.com/archaeology/oldest-canoes-ever-found-in-the-mediterranean-sea-unearthed-off-the-coast-of-italy

LiveScience: European hunter-gatherers boated to North Africa during Stone Age, ancient DNA suggests
News By Jess Thomson published St. Patrick's Day 2025
https://www.livescience.com/archaeology/european-hunter-gatherers-boated-to-north-africa-during-stone-age-ancient-dna-suggests

This would be 5000 BC for the canoes, 6500 BC for the arrival in Tunisia. Or rather* ...

2396 BC

60.027 pmC, dated 6615 BC

2391 BC

Arphaxad died

2373 BC

61.194 pmC, dated as 6433 BC

2189 BC

70.415 pmC, dated as 5089 BC

2187 BC

Eber died

2166 BC

71.553 pmC, dated as 4933 BC

... the arrival in Tunisia is from around when Arphaxad died, or some ten years later, and the actual canoes is from when Eber died, or some ten years later ...

Can we refine it a bit?

(2396 + 2373) / 2 = 2384~2385 BC
(60.027 + 61.194) / 2 = 60.6105 pmC

Dates as
5730 * log(0.606105) / log(0.5) + 2384.5 = 6524 BC

(2189 + 2166) / 2 = 2177~2178 BC
(70.415 + 71.553) / 2 = 70.984 pmC

Dates as
5730 * log(0.70984) / log(0.5) + 2177.5 = 5011 BC

So, the arrival in Tunisia would be by 2385 BC, the canoe in Italy from 2177 BC.

Enjoy, happy St. Patrick's Day!
/HGL

* Newer Tables, Flood to Joseph in Egypt

So, You Think Another Biblical Chronology is Right than Mine? Here is What You Can Do ... for Carbon Dates

In the Catholic Church, there are three different views on how old the Earth was when Jesus was born.

One council, I think II Counc. of Nicaea, 787, says 5500 years were past when Jesus was born.*

The Historia Scholastica and the Roman Martyrology give the dates I use in reverse. Starting with Jesus born 5199th year after Creation.

And, again, some prefer to go by the Vulgate, since Trent makes it the standard text of the Catholic Bible:

10 These are the generations of Sem: Sem was a hundred years old when he begot Arphaxad, two years after the flood.

11 And Sem lived after he begot Arphaxad, five hundred years, and begot sons and daughters. 12 And Arphaxad lived thirty-five years, and begot Sale. 13 And Arphaxad lived after he begot Sale, three hundred and three years; and begot sons and daughters. 14 Sale also lived thirty years, and begot Heber. 15 And Sale lived after he begot Heber, four hundred and three years; and begot sons and daughters.

16 And Heber lived thirty-four years, and begot Phaleg. 17 And Heber lived after he begot Phaleg, four hundred and thirty years: and begot sons and daughters. 18 Phaleg also lived thirty years, and begot Reu. 19 And Phaleg lived after he begot Reu, two hundred and nine years, and begot sons and daughters.

As we know from Genesis 9, Noah dies 350 after the Flood. Traditionally, one sees Babel as ending when Phaleg (or Peleg) is born. With a LXX without the Second Cainan (the Martyrology), or with a LXX with the Second Cainan (Nicaea II), no problem. With the Vulgate, or King James, both have Hebrew originals with Masoretic chronology in the relevant chapters of Genesis, this would mean Babel ending in 101 after the Flood. That could be problematic.

So, let's count a bit.

Flood 2 Years after Arphaxad born 37 Years after Sale born 67 Years after Heber born

101 Years after Phaleg born 131 Years after Reu born 340 Years after Phaleg dies 350 Years after Noah dies

You can place end of Babel anywhere you want between 101 and 340 after the Flood. Or maybe even 341, if you think Babel ended the anniversary of Phaleg's death, with the Gedenktag. I'm placing it between 350 (Noah's death) and 401 (Phaleg's birth), because I have a LXX chronology. And saying Babel ended when or before Phaleg was born is more traditional (let's say the breaking up took a period of seven year, well, Phaleg could have been born in the seventh of those years).

Now, you match your view of when the Flood was (2348 BC according to Ussher), and your view of when Babel was (Ussher says 2204 BC, so, when Phaleg was 43 or 42 years old) with the data in remains, whether fossil or archaeological or anthropological (I take Neanderthals as a pre-Flood population, so my go to for the Flood is last provenly living Neanderthal, i e last Neanderthal body or body part). And you take your archaeological match for Babel (I take Göbekli Tepe, Petrovich took Ziggurat of Eridu, CMI seems to have basically said the Ice Age Palaeolithic was after Babel).

Then you match the real year, according to the Bible, or what you think that real year was, and carbon year, according to your matching material evidence, and you subtract the BC dates of the real year from the BC dates in carbon years, you get the carbon year excess, and from there you calculate the carbon 14 level. Same formula for how old sth is now with remaining carbon 14 in a sample works equally well for how old sth would have seemed in carbon dates, so, for instance, if an item is 500 years old, you calculate how much carbon it should have left (prior to more minute calibrations, like from tree rings or historic data), and the formula is ...

0.5^(500/5730) = 0.9413087854383377 = 94.131 pmC

As 1950 is 75 years ago, the carbon date BP wouldn't be 500, but 425. However, the raw carbon age for 420 BP seems to correspond to 1460 rather than to 1525, according to the fine calibration.**

Meanwhile, I am using Biblical data to calibrate carbon. So would you be. And the gap for carbon age of the Flood and actual Biblical age of it would exceed 10 000 years (34 000 years in my calibration).

0.5^{(10 000/5730)} = 0.2982924364237143 = 29.829 pmC

I don't place that value at the Flood, in fact I place it at between 2673 BC and 2660 BC, when Heber was up to 29 years old. You'd place it elsewhere, and you wouldn't start with it.

And when you then have what I call anchor points, any two of them can connect by interpolation (an anchor point involves Biblical / real date, Carbon date as per well identified item, pmC level derived from the discrepancy) and the way you do it is you decide intermediate carbon levels for the intermediate time divisions.

And from any intermediate point, you calculate the carbon date for the Biblical date from the pmC value. Like I did. The formula is, and I'll reverse the one for 500 years, like this.

5730 * log (0.9413087854383377) / log(0.5) = 500.0000000000001136432
5730 * log (0.2982924364237143) / log(0.5) = 9999.9999999999996080125

Now, to get the calibrated BC date, obviously as said all this time a Biblical calibration rather than a tree ring one, you add the BC year to the correct value of extra years derived from the pmC value.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Reminiscere LD
16.III.2025

* It should be Nicaea II, since it says the Incarnation makes a difference for the licitness of religious imagery.

** page 41 in the pdf from High-Precision Decadal Calibration of the Radiocarbon Time Scale, AD 1950–6000 BC