mercredi 20 août 2025

Complex Writing Didn't Exist Among Hebrews? Theory Before Ebla Was Discovered (Check the Video)


There is No Reading Public? · Complex Writing Didn't Exist Among Hebrews? Theory Before Ebla Was Discovered (Check the Video)

Exploring the Ebla Tablets and Their Shocking Genesis Connections
Flying Eagle Publications | 8 Aug. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9m_jk5FVqp0


It could be added on the issue, however, that the date of the Ebla tablets are in carbon dates 2400 to 2200 BC. This would be Third Millennium if corresponding to real dates. However, in my tables, this translates to, roughly:

1656 BC*
91.353 pmC, dated as 2404 BC
1634 BC
93.251 pmC, dated as 2212 BC


A bit more than a century before the Exodus in 1510 BC. However, this is sufficient for Moses to have had writing before 600 BC, when it is pretended Hebrews were first exposed to writing. However, so is Proto-Sinaitic, which corresponds to the Hebrew alphabet and comes from a region he knew.

The date of the inscriptions** is mostly placed in the 17th or 16th century BC.[30] An alternative view dates most of the inscriptions to the reign of Amenemhat III or his successor circa 1800 BC.[31] It has been suggested that the dating period includes the reign of pharaoh Senwosret III.[32]


This corresponds very well to the theory that Moses was born around the death of Sesostris III, was co-regent with his "mother/sister" as Amememhet IV before he had to leave Egypt, which explains why Amememhet IV had a cenotaph, and that's my basis for table V—VI and VI—VI/VII or rather the limit VI between them. Between VI and VII in previous tables, I have inserted a VI/VII corresponding to the Exodus itself, so that's 40 years after the disappearance of Moses as Amemehet IV. And no, for the Middle Kingdom, we don't have a documentation all that brilliant that the squeezing of time lines can be excluded./HGL

PPS, some have quibbled about Genesis 14. The same channel has a video about Elamite, Chedorlaomer and Genesis 14:

Has archaeology proved Genesis 14 is a lie?
Flying Eagle Publications | 1 Oct. 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vdbRIMVpkk


Now, one key, I think, is that Genesis 14 happened in 1935 BC or close enough, based on Abraham born in 2015 BC, but Genesis 14 is tied by the verse about Amorrhites in Asason-Tamar to the archeology of En-Geddi where the only or latest possible relevant habitation ended in carbon dated 3500 BC, meaning, the carbon 14 level was 82.763 pmC*** — before any known writing. The Awan dynasty is the earliest Elamite dynasty for which we have names, and it starts (if carbon dated!) in the soujourn. Meanwhile, Genesis 14 falls during the Susa II period. Before there are written records in Proto-Elamite./HGL

PPPS, the Susa II period is from carbon dated 3800–3100 BC.° /HGL

* Citation from Newer Tables, Joseph in Egypt to Fall of Troy and it's on the table of V—VI, between the death of Joseph's pharao and the birth of Moses around the time when Sesostris III, the child killing pharao died. Note, 91.353 pmC isn't what you find now in the samples, it's what the atmosphere held back then. If we translate the percentage fraction to a decimal fraction and insert it in the right place, here is the equation:

5730 years * log(0.91353) / log(0.5) = 748 years


And if we add that to the actual BC year, we get the carbon year:

748 (extra) years + 1656 (actual) BC = 2404 (carbon dated) BC


** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Sinaitic_script

*** 5730 years * log(0.82763) / log(0.5) + 1935 BC = 3499 BC, citation of carbon level from Newer Tables, Flood to Joseph in Egypt, anchor point IV.

° https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susa#Susa_II_and_Uruk_influence_(3800—3100_BC)

jeudi 14 août 2025

Mammoth Bone Houses


Starčevo and Linear Pottery: Recalibration · Linear Pottery : the Long House · Mammoth Bone Houses

Here is a video explaining these excellent shelters.

How did humans sleep in the ice age without freezing dead?
Historical Architect | 26 July 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUAqTSZM3yw


Now, here is a quote giving the dates:

3:37 The most famous 3:37 examples of Paleolithic winter 3:39 architecture come from the mammoth bone 3:41 houses of Ukraine and 3:43 Russia. At sites like Majyarik 3:46 and Kostenky, dating between 25,000 and 3:49 15,000 years ago, 3:52 researchers discovered the remains of 3:53 structures that represent some of the 3:55 most sophisticated 3:56 prehistoric architecture ever 3:58 found.


This means, 23 000 to 13 000 BC. Between Flood and Babel, but in carbon dates, not Biblical dates. Let's check with these, shall we?

2821 BC
Shelah born
2804 BC
8.263 pmC, dated as 23,416 BC
2782 BC
9.201 pmC, dated as 22,505 BC

(2804 + 2782) / 2 = 2793 BC
(8.263 + 9.201) / 2 = 8.732 pmC

5730 * log(0.08732) / log(0.5) + 2793 = 22 949 BC

2691 BC
Eber born
...
2673 BC
27.32 pmC, dated as 13,399 BC
2660 BC
30.555 pmC, dated as 12,461 BC

(2673 + 2673 + 2660) / 3 = 2669 BC
(27.32 + 27.32 + 30.555) / 3 = 28.398 pmC

5730 * log(0.28398333333333333) / log(0.5) + 2668.6666666666666667 = 13075 BC


So, the architecture in question started and ended while Noah and Shem were still alive, starting after the birth of Shelah, ending after the birth of Eber, lasting for 124 years, from 2793 to 2669 BC.

What did the Bible say?

And he called his name Noe, saying: This same shall comfort us from the works and labours of our hands on the earth, which the Lord hath cursed
[Genesis 5:29]

The Palaeolithic dated to 25 000 to 15 000 BP pretty well corresponds to this. But doesn't the Bible also say Noah was a farmer?

And Noe, a husbandman, began to till the ground, and planted a vineyard
[Genesis 9:20]

Noah was probably as impopular in this post-Flood era for doing so, as he had been in the pre-Flood era for building the Ark. Grains coming from what could be agriculture have been found from a very restricted area in this time. Ohalo II. Suggesting it was done only by quite few people of the time. Noah, once again going "against the grain" of society, and this time discredited by that drunkenness ...

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Our Lady's Assumption
14—15.VIII.2025

Assumptio sanctissimae Dei Genitricis Virginis Mariae.

jeudi 7 août 2025

Mark H Armitage Still Has a Point About Soft Tissue


He may have somewhat less of a point about carbon 14.

DSTRI_25SummerUpdate-sm
MarkHArmitage | 8 Aug. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iF_uLaKmokI


Now, don't get me wrong. Insofar as fungi and microorganisms feed on the soft tissue in a dino bone, they certainly live off the carbon from inside the bones.

But at some point, they entered and the first specimens had their carbon from elsewhere, which is a probable cause of carbon 14 contamination.

If the colonies of living things hadn't been recent, the to them consumable material in dino bones would by now already have been consumed. It's not as if the colony could have been thriving in there since the Flood.

It has bothered me when carbon 14 in dinosaur bones carbon dates to as young as 22 000 years ago. Was it a post-Flood dino dying in a post-Flood landslide? Was the place contaminated by extra neutrons (a k a radioactivity!) from Uranium? Other theory: that extra amount of carbon 14 could have come with some organisms that are or recently were alive.

In my calibration, a sample from the Flood should date to 39 000 BP or 37 000 BC.* Which is the carbon date for Campi Flegrei.

20 000 BC is some decade of years before Eber or Heber was born, not from the Flood./HGL

2958 BC,
1.6277 pmC, dated as 37 000 BC

2738 BC
11.069 pmC, dated as 20,933 BC
2725 BC
14.329 pmC, dated as 18,786 BC

2691 BC
Eber born


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


* Or older. Reservoir effect.

mardi 5 août 2025

Some People Think I'm Nuts for Not Believing in PIE


No, I don't mean "a pie in the sky" ... that's just a jocular, ironic, atheist perspective jab at Heaven, which I do believe in.

I mean PIE as in Proto-Indo-European.

Here is a quote from a book on German language and litterature history* (most of which I believe in, like p. 53 where I am to the end, basically), about PIE. It may be noted, the book was edited and printed in 1969 on a Volkseigener Verlag (people's owned publishing house), meaning it comes from the now defunct East Germany. The abbreviation "v. u. Z." reads "vor unserer Zeitrechnung" or "before our timereckoning" / "before our era" ... normally in German it was "v. Chr." back in 1969, meaning "vor Christus" or "before Christ" ... in my translation, I'll say BCE, as true to the spirit, this modern way of avoiding Christianity is really inspired by this Communist kind of thing. But now to the quote, from page 33:

Es wird heute weitgehend übereinstimmend angenommen, daß sich die ide. Spracheinheit um 3000 v. u. Z. bereits in Auflösung befand; im 2. Jahrtausend v. u. Z. besitzen wir im Indischen, Hethitischen und Griechischen bereits voll ausgeformte Sprachen von selbstständiger Individualität. Das setzt aber eine sehr lange Entwicklung der betreffenden Einzelsprachen voraus.


This translates as:

It is today with a broad consensus assumed, that the IE language unity already around 3000 BCE was in a state of dissolution; in the 2nd Millennium BCE we already have, in the shape of Indian, Hittite and Greek, fully formed languages of their independent individuality. But this presupposes a very long Development of the single languages in question.


These guys who already in 1969 were using the "before common Era" instead of "before Christ", well, they were not total dunces and they were also not cut off from linguists outside the East block. Mind you, some inside the East block were very talented men. Very prejudiced, some would very well say "but of course they spoke Nostratic in 13 000 before present, when else? you believe in the Bible, are you dumb or sth?" but they would still be able to coherently argue their theories in a high level of professionality.

Nevertheless, they made a blooper right here, when speaking of "already fully formed languages" ... a language actually in use is never just half formed. That reconstructed PIE is not a fully formed language doesn't mean those who (possibly) spoke the ancestral PIE didn't have a fully formed language, it means that someone who tried to reconstruct a "fully formed" PIE would have to go beyond the available evidence and make choices more artistic than scientific. So, either they were forgetting this, which is ridivulous, or they were, even more ridiculously, from the rudimentary and incomplete shape of PIE as reconstructed concluding that the ancestral language was also an incoplete one, and that one could cite this as "evidence" for a gradual emergence of human language. Obviously no such thing.

But given this, I have two problems with the theory as stated in the paragraph even apart from the blooper.

  • If PIE ever existed, it would probably have to be immediately after Babel ... so, which one of the ancestors on the table of nations? As I speak an Indo-European language and actually only leared Indo-European ones as foreign languages, I'd descend from that man. I wouldn't like to be ethnically Magogian if that were the one. And as Indo-Europeans actualy are present on all four corners of the continents, Magog is a better match than Madai.

    • On a lower key problem in this context, more than one of the ancestors on the table of nations would figure: Javan for Greeks, Madai for Medes, who brought their language to the Elamites with whom they mixed, Gomer for Celts, possibly Romans and Germanics as well, as well as for Hittites. This is a priori an argument for Sprachbund, or perhaps for "instant language family" ... God giving different ones of these instantaneously the appearance of descending from a common language that never actually existed. Like Primitive Elvish to Quenya and Sindarin ... except in the Tolkien timeline, there actually is a place and time for Primitive Elvish to develop into Quenya, Telerin, Sindarin, Doriathrin .... however that language development only existed in Tolkien's head. If Tolkien could pull it off, so could God. But I still prefer Sprachbund over this, if a real, spoken, protolanguage is excluded.


  • In 3000 BC, Noah and sons were still building the Ark. The Flood came 2957 BC. Babel broke up at the birth of Peleg, 401 years later, in 2556 BC. Using an Ussher chronology rather than the LXX based one of the Roman Martyrology for Christmas Day only worsens the problem. Babel breaks up in 2204 BC in that perspective.

    This text has been found in three versions, the earliest of which is considered the oldest known of all Hittite language texts, dated from between the end of the 17th century BCE and the middle of the 16th century BCE.

    Hittite language # The proclamation of Anitta
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hittite_language#The_proclamation_of_Anitta


    Yeah, these days the Commie thing about "BCE" is very comm-on, even used on wikipedia. But 2204 BC - 1550 BC = 654 years. And this even gives no time for PIE to exist before it breaks up. I obviously don't agree with Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich that PIE was the pre-Babel language either. I would say her visions were natural, even if pious, and the idea of "a beautiful language, reminding of Sanskrit" would have been a piece of conversation she had heard from doctors or priests before she experienced a vision with this feature. She's still holy because of her stigmata and because of illness being occasion for penance. St. Augustine says the pre-Babel language was Hebrew, I'd agree if you add "of some sort" (closer to Proto-Sinaitic than to Biblical Hebrew, 1000 years + more archaic than the Exodus, at which time even Proto-Sinaitic is still a probability).

    • This problem is obviously even more acute if we note that commonalities like the ones within the IE language "family" would also make Nostratic one, because they exist for instance between IE and Uralic.


So, between English and Russian, etymologically identic words are 25 % of the vocabulary of either side. I'm not going into which language has a higher vocabulary of a complete dictionary, I mean common vocabulary like "the 1500 most common words" (or word families). I don't count English using the word "Samovar" or Russians speaking of "Паддингтон". It takes more time to diverge 75 % than to converge 25 %.

This means, posing a Sprachbund (or a series of Sprachbünder) is more economic in time than the 3000 BC - 1550 BC = 1450 years posed by the quote as passing between dissolving PIE and Proclamation of Anitta. Or, for Mycenaean Greek rather than Hittite, 1600 years from dissolving PIE to the clay tablet of Iklaina. This is consistent with Javan and Gomer each already having their own distinct language in 2556 BC.

2556 - 1471** = 1085 years
2556 - 1349** = 1207 years

In fact, apart from an unusually rapid convergence of not just syntax, but even morphological elements, on my view, the time available for convergence nearly equals the time the PIE believers claim for divergence.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Our Lady in the Snows
5.VIII.2025

Romae, in Exquiliis, Dedicatio Basilicae sanctae Mariae ad Nives.

* Geschichte der deutschen Sprache, 1969, Volk und Wissen, Volkseigener Verlag, Berlin. Authored by "ein Autorenkollektiv unter Leitung von Wilhelm Schmidt" (with 8 other authors listed).

** 1550 and 1400 translate to 1471 and 1349 in my tables. Newer Tables, Joseph in Egypt to Fall of Troy

samedi 2 août 2025

How Could People and Dinosaurs Live Together?


Short answer: they didn't, not any more than people and lions live together today (Elsa is an exception*).

Longer answer. I'll start with the objection.

"This doesn't work. For millions of years, dinosaurs roamed all of the earth. There were millions and billions of dinosaurs all over the continents, even on modern Antarctica, back then there would have been no place in the world where you could live without bumping into a dinosaur!"


OK, do you have evidence for that claim?

First, I'd like to note, not all of the dinos were dangerous, and technically, some dangerous creatures featured in dinosaur books weren't dinosaurs (Dimetrodon, Pterodactylus, Mososaurus ...). Have a look at these guys whom I salvaged from a google site now down, onto a blog of mine:

  • Bradysaurus 2.5 to 3 m, a pretty big thing, but given the angle of the legs, probably moved somewhat slowly. Think of it like meeting a giant turtle in a fantasy novel.
  • Hipposaurus boonstrai Skull length: 21 cm, Length: 1.2 m ... bigger than a dog (except a Great Dane), would reach you to the knees. Not the best guy to make angry, if you can avoid it, but probably not the worst threat to your life either.
  • Pareiasaurus serridens 2.5 m. A plant eater.


Now, the other thing is, Young Earth Creationism means, most dinosaurs we find, perhaps all of them (outside cryptozoology), were buried in the Flood. A pretty recent Flood. We have a fair sample of things that lived on land back then, the three fellers I linked to being from South Africa and probably all from some part of Karroo. Border Cave is post-Flood, but pre-Flood caves like Sibudu Cave, Klasies River Caves, some layers of Wonderwerk Cave are all a fair distance from Karroo. And seem to have no dinos associated with them.

"But come on, there are millions of fossils we've found!"


According to Slate**, no:

There are currently about 3,000 so-called “full” dinosaur specimens—complete or near-complete skeletons or just a complete or near-complete skull—in museums around the United States

...

The United States, China, and Argentina have especially numerous fossil deposits, followed by Canada, England, and Mongolia. (China and Argentina have proved especially fertile as of late. Since 1990, there has been a 132 percent and 165 percent increase in genera discovery in these two countries, respectively.) These six countries account for 75 percent of the world’s dinosaur finds. Australia, Europe, and Africa are less fertile.


So, if the US has only 3000 full skeleta of dinos, and if this is matched by very few other countries, which cover a restricted area of our earth where God put us, and put our pre-Flood ancestors and their neighbours, I think there was actually a good chance of living in the pre-Flood world without bumping into a dangerous dinosaur, or even an uncomfortable one, like possibly the Pareiosaurus was.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Alfonsus Maria Liguori
2.VIII.2025

* The generic of that song has maybe something to say about a bad idea of Mr. Trump's, hope he changes his mind ...
** Here is the link:

Will we ever run out of dinosaur bones?
By Kim Gittleson | Aug 28, 20095:31 PM
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2009/08/will-we-ever-run-out-of-dinosaur-bones.html

vendredi 1 août 2025

How Fast did Denmark Change* Population?


New study unearths our Scandinavian ancestors
Published 10 January 2024 | Faculty of Humanities (Gothenburg)
https://www.gu.se/en/news/new-study-unearths-our-scandinavian-ancestors


The first occurred about 5,900 years ago, at the beginning of the archaeological era known as the Neolithic, or New Stone Age. When a farming people immigrated to Denmark, the hunter-gatherer and fisher population known as the Ertebølle culture disappeared completely.

...

“Around 2800 BCE, people of the Corded Ware culture, also called the Single Grave culture, immigrated to Denmark,” says archaeologist Karl-Göran Sjögren.


5900 - 2025 = 3875 BC. This first date is after Abraham was born (2015 BC) but before Serug died (1965 BC), here:

2005 BC
79.432 pmC, dated as 3909 BC
1997 BC*
79.803 pmC, dated as 3862 BC**
1982 BC
80.546 pmC, dated as 3770 BC


The second date is about the death of Djoser whom I count as Joseph's pharao.***

1700 BC
87.541 pmC, dated as 2800 BC


1997 minus 1700 = 297 years. A third of the 900 years the study says./HGL

Notes:

* Hunter gatherers to Ancient Anatolian Farmers, Ancient Anatolian Farmers to Corded Ware.

** (2005 + 2005 + 1982) / 3 = 1997 BC
(79.432 + 79.432 + 80.546) / 3 = 79.803

5730 * log(0.79803) / log(0.5) + 1997.3333333333333333 = 3862 BC


Calculation of carbon year from pmC as per Newer Tables, Preliminaries while the specific "time stamps" I didn't calculate are from Newer Tables, Flood to Joseph in Egypt

*** Changing the pharaos for Joseph and for when Moses was born or for the Exodus would mean a need to drastically change the tables. Take this into account.