Some People Think Administrators Don't Lie, Religious People Do

Vindicated! · Some People Think Administrators Don't Lie, Religious People Do

Here is a video on Gilgamesh's palace.

Note, I agree Gilgamesh existed. He's one of my candidates for Nimrod, as arguably for Mr. Rohl or the now deceased Mr. Skiba. Well, for Skiba, I don't have to guess, I read him.

The Buried Palace of Gilgamesh Was Finally Opened — What Was Hidden Inside...
Creature Decoder | Origin Decoder | 15 April 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMewC2zKtQs

I don't know if the info on Gilgamesh's palace in the video is good or bad. I haven't seen all of it. I stopped it because of a faulty principle being expressed.

The list is not a religious text. It is an administrative record and administrative records do not include fictional entries alongside verified ones without that distinction being noted somewhere. It is not noted.

Oops ... so presumably Adolf Hitler and Martin Ludwig Bormann were more reliable people than Clemens August Count von Galen, the bishop of Munster?

That's the kind of error that led National Socialism rather than Zentrum to power in Germany.

It's also the kind of error that helped to make National Socialism bad./HGL

PS, there is some bad in the video, further on, where the Gilgamesh Epic is credited with helping to shape Genesis. It doesn't contain a vessel that would have been seaworthy in a global Flood, and Genesis 6 through 8 does./HGL

PPS, obviously, the Gilgamesh Epic would be more accurate on a tomb in the outskirts of Uruk. It seems the oldest layer of Uruk is carbon dated to 4500 BC, like that of Laish, later Tell Dan. For the real date and how to find it being somewhat before 2097 BC, see the previous post./HGL

Vindicated!

Vindicated! · Some People Think Administrators Don't Lie, Religious People Do

When I clicked on this video, I was telling myself a second: "I'm fried. I'm proven wrong. My argument is in ashes."

I thought Abraham's tomb had been found in a setting that carbon dates to 2000 BC, from misunderstanding the title:

This 4,000-Year-Old Gate Has a Biblical Secret
Artefactum | 9 April 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJMUlWQIQlE

I have maintained that Genesis 14, actually happening in (according to the Roman Martyrology for Christmas Day, it's chronology) around 1935 BC*, must fit an archaeological setting of carbon dated 3500 BC. Because of verse 7, which we know with an alternative name as En-Geddi, there is a carbon date of 3500 BC pretty firmly attached to the Amorrhites evacuating En-Geddi, presumably because of the Genesis 14 events. And this evacuation was permanent up to the Iron Age.

Now, here is the verse the video deals with:

Which when Abram had heard, to wit, that his brother Lot was taken, he numbered of the servants born in his house, three hundred and eighteen well appointed: and pursued them to Dan
[Genesis 14:14]

Presumably the name was back then still Laish, but Cohanim later updated the text after the city was renamed Tel Dan. Now, if a specific item clearly tied to Abraham in person had been found carbon dated to 2000 BC, I'd have been wrong. But it isn't. The gate can have been attached to the memory of Abraham after replacing an earlier one, which he actually saw. How far back does Laish or Dan reach into Archaeology? This is my real test.

Founded

c. 4500 BC

Abandoned

c. 733 BC

Periods

Neolithic period, Bronze Age, Iron Age

Cultures

Neolithic, Canaanite, Israelite

Source:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_(ancient_city)

OK. Laish is founded in carbon dated 4500 BC, a thousand carbon years before carbon dated 3500 BC, when Genesis 14 happened. That's all I need.

Here we check how old Laish actually was when Abraham came:

2097 BC

74.949 pmC, dated as 4481 BC

2088 BC

Reu died

2086 BC

Terah born

2074 BC

76.074 pmC, dated as 4335 BC

2051 BC

77.1968 pmC, dated as 4191 BC

2028 BC

78.316 pmC, dated as 4048 BC

2016 BC

Abraham born

...

1936 BC

82.763 pmC, dated as 3500 BC

Source:

Newer Tables, Flood to Joseph in Egypt

So, founded around 2100 BC, in 1935 BC it isn't 1000 years old, but about 165 + years old. It had seen the transition from Neolithic to maybe Chalcolithic, already. In Genesis, the last thing we hear of "iron" is in chapter 4, a pre-Flood chapter, so, while Abraham arguably knew from pre-Flood tradition, he also knew no one knew where to get it right then in his time.

Probably, in Moses' day, the text said "Laish" and later, perhaps just in or after Joshua's, it was renamed "Dan" or "Tel Dan".

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Easter Friday
10.IV.2026

* Abraham is born 2015 BC, or more correctly 2016 (Jesus is born in 2015 after Abraham's birth and 752 after Rome's founding, but Rome is founded in 753 BC), and this occurs after he was 75 in chapter 12 and before he was 86 in chapter 16. 2015 - 80 = 1935 BC.

---

A Dispensation is Usually Not an Obligation

Creation vs. Evolution: A Dispensation is Usually Not an Obligation · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Holy Hill and Keaton Halley Discuss Jesus' Words About Adam and Eve at the Beginning of the Created World

In the sections of the Catholic world which consider "John XXIII" through "Leo XIV" as legitimate Popes (the first has said Muslims and we worship the same God, the last has before his "election" participated in a rite of Pachamama worship with other clergy doing "inculturation"), there was a dispensation given (if so) by Pope (if so) "Paul VI" allowing to take Communion in the naked own hand, when you receive it.

Some have treated this dispensation (if such) as an obligation. Lots of people who are traditionally minded in the ones who accept "Paul VI" will say this was a clear overreach and pastoral abuse. We want to receive communion in the mouth, not in the hand, as we approach the altar rail (on which we want to kneel while receiving).

Where am I going with this?

Well, Paris when Vigouroux was teaching the Seminarians here or Rome 1909. Romans 8:22 is by some seen as concerning only human creation. Here is the passage verses 19 to 23, with the Haydock comment:

For the expectation of the creature waiteth for the revelation of the sons of God. For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him, that made it subject in hope: Because the creature also itself shall be delivered from the servitude of corruption, into the liberty of the glory of the children of God. For we know that every creature groaneth, and is in labour even till now. And not only it, but ourselves also, who have the first-fruits of the spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption of the sons of God, the redemption of our body.
Romans 8:19—23

Before citing the Haydock comment, I note that verse 23 seems to imply the rest has to be about non-human creatures. Because the restoration of the human nature is given as a parallel to this expected restoration of creation. But here is the Haydock comment, I'm replacing dashes between commenters with spaced lines:

Ver. 19. The expectation[2] of the creature. He speaks of the corporal creation, made for the use and service of man; and, by occasion of his sin made subject to vanity, that is, to a perpetual instability, tending to corruption and other defects; so that by a figure of speech, it is here said to groan and be in labour, and to long for its deliverance, which is then to come, when sin shall reign no more; and God shall raise the bodies, and united them to their souls, never more to separate, and to be in everlasting happiness in heaven. (Challoner)

Waiteth for the revelation of the sons of God. That is, for the time after this life, when it shall be made manifest that they are the sons of God, and heirs of the kingdom of his glory. Several interpreters understand all creatures whatsoever, even irrational and inanimate creatures of this world, which are represented as if they had a knowledge and sense of a more happy condition, of a new unchangeable state of perfection, which they are to receive at the end of the world. See 2 Peter i. 13; Apocalypse xxi. 1. Now every insensible creature is figuratively brought in groaning like a woman in labour, waiting, and wishing for that new and happy state; but in the mean time unwillingly made subject to vanity, i.e. to these changeable imperfections of generations and corruptions, which then they shall be delivered from. (Witham)

The creature, &c. The creatures expect with impatience, and hope with confidence, to see a happy change in their condition; they flatter themselves that they will be delivered from the captivity of sin, to which man has reduced them, and enter into the liberty of the glory of the sons of God. Not that the inanimate creation will really participate the happiness and glory of the elect; although in some sense they may be said to have part in it, since they will enter into a pure, incorruptible and perfect state to the end of ages. They will no longer be subject to those changes and vicissitudes which sin has brought upon them; nor will sinful man any longer abuse their beauty and goodness in offending the Creator of all. St. Ambrose and St. Jerome teach that the sun, moon, and stars will be then much more brilliant and beautiful than at present, no longer subject to those changes they at present suffer. Philo and Tertullian teach that the beasts of prey will then lay aside their ferocity, and venomous serpents their poisonous qualities. (Calmet)

Other, by the creature or creatures, understand men only, and Christians, who groan under miseries and temptations in this mortal life, amidst the vanities of this world, under the slavery of corruption; who having already (ver. 23.) received the first-fruits of the Spirit,[3] the grace of God in baptism, have been made the children of God, and now, with expectation and great earnestness, wait and long for a more perfect adoption of the sons of God: for the redemption of their bodies, when the bodies, as well as the souls of the elect, shall rise to an immortal life, and complete happiness in heaven. (Witham)

So, both Challoner and Calmet directly teach that insensible creatures (I could add their angels) and Witham is at least open to insensible creatures being the ones that receive this mutation of what is now vanity. How so "at least open"? Well, his first citation takes it directly into account and his second or last which reduces to man does so on the "others say" mode, not on "I say" or "this is true".

The visible Sun and Moon are presumably insensible creatures, at least this is the view of the Medieval diocese (later archdiocese) of Paris, as expressed in an Anti-Averroist condemnation by Bishop Tempier, 749 years and some ago, this is number 92 of his condemned theses:

Quod corpora celestia mouentur a principio intrinseco, quod est anima ; et quod mouentur per animam et per uirtutem appetitiuam, sicut animal. Sicut enim animal appetens mouetur, ita et celum.*

That the celestial bodies are moved by an intrinsic principle, that is a soul, and that they are moved by the soul and by the power of desire, like an animal. Because like the animal moves by desiring, so also heaven. [my translation]

So, Sun and Moon as we can see them presumably aren't very glorified corporeal living creatures. But they are bodies moved by angels. That wasn't condemned by Tempier. And their angels can and do long to see them celebrate (by greater splendour) the Resurrection of the Just with Glorified Bodies. Cattle don't have individual guardian angels, but they do have angels. See Numbers 22:

And the Lord opened the mouth of the ass, and she said: What have I done to thee? why strikest thou me, lo, now this third time?
Numbers 22:28

Here I cite only the beginning:

Ver. 28. Opened the mouth, &c. The angel moved the tongue of the ass, to utter these speeches, to rebuke, by the mouth of a brute beast, the brutal fury and folly of Balaam. (Challoner)

St. Thomas Aquinas (ii. 2. q. 105**) says, an angel spoke by the mouth of the ass, in like manner as the devil did by that of the serpent, Genesis iii. ...

So, we are in a sense allowed to believe the passage concerns only man. But we are absolutely not obliged to. Just as even those who consider "Paul VI" was Pope are not obliged to take Communion in the hand. And just as the dispensation doesn't make it illicit to argue against Communion in the hand, so also the quasi-dispensation mentioned by Witham (a number of scholars holding a position without being condemned is the equivalent of the position being at least allowed, at least by dispensation), absolutely doesn't mean we cannot argue for the passage concerning more than just man, especially as there is Patristic support for it.

I presume Vigouroux was saying that Romans 8:22 only concerns man. I tried to look it up. What I'm certain of is, he believed in beasts before people, ice ages before man, dinosaurs well before Adam, and so logically imagined suffering had been along since before Adam sinned. He was in Paris allowed to teach this.

In Rome, in 1909, he was given a very brief question, as judge, and judged in his own favour. But the question was very limited. It didn't cover a Flood other than fully global. It didn't cover suffering before sin. Not even in animals. It didn't involve saying "the Flood never covered the Pyrenees, not to mention Alps or Andes or Himalaya". It was only the bare question of Day-Age, and he judged, under Pius X, yes, you can discuss it. But that same holy Pope that same year canonised Clemens Maria Hofbauer.

I'm not sure if you've heard how Catholic Heliocentrics, when commenting on the Galileo affair, mention "Cardinal Baronius in this context stated that 'the Bible doesn't teach us how the Heavens go, but how to go to Heaven'" but Cardinal Baronius, while not a canonised saint, was a close disciple of one, namely of St. Philip Neri ("Third Apostle of Rome" after Peter and Paul, according to people who obviously agree that Rome was a Pagan city when Luther came to visit).

This is, even more than the simple fact he was a cardinal, a reason to consider with reverence the position of Baronius. However, we have no credible source whatsoever for Baronius stating this sentiment. Some say Galileo cited him in his letter to Grand Duchess Cristina, but Galileo never stated whom he was citing. It could have been someone very different from Baronius, and if it was Baronius, it was not in the context of the Galileo affair, since he died before it broke out.

Now, these Catholics do very rightly understand that the friend of a saint is probably of a similar mind to the saint himself, and therefore should be put pretty high as a theological authority. As said, this doesn't make Baronius*** a good support for the Heliocentric position, but ...

... in 1909, as I just mentioned, Clemens Maria Hofbauer was canonised. Not by Vigouroux, but by the Pope himself. And Hofbauer had a friend called Veith. And Veith wrote in defense of a recent creation and a global Flood.° We will presume Johannes Veith was faithful to the mind of the saint when he wrote the book.

But the problems don't stop here. Even supposing you accepted suffering before sin for non-human creatures, even supposing you somehow pretended Neanderthals and Denisovans aren't human despite us having genes from them in different populations, even then. Homo sapiens sapiens, the variety of us that has dominated since the Flood, can be traced back to, if you accept Deep Time at all and its dating methods, 100 000 + years ago (300 000 according to one find).

If you suppose Adam lived 300 000 years ago, that doesn't make Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies "genealogies with gaps", but "more gaps than genealogy" ... not a Swiss cheese genealogy, but a genealogy with more holes than cheese. Some have pretended the Genesis 5 genealogy was based on the Sumerian King List. What I find on wikipedia doesn't agree with that, I'm adding a division by a factor of 60 to the original info:

Alulim, 28 800 / 60 = 480
Alalngar, 36 000 / 60 = 600
En-men-lu-ana, 43 200 / 60 = 720
En-men-gal-ana, 28 800 / 60 = 480
Dumuzid, 36 000 / 60 = 600
En-sipad-zid-ana, 28 800 / 60 = 480
En-men-dur-ana, 21 000 / 60 = 350
Ubara-Tutu, 18 600 / 60 = 310

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumerian_King_List#Rulers_in_the_Sumerian_King_List

So, suppose the genealogies of 300 000 years were so badly preserved as to have only 22 generations, even if they were unusually long ones?

We would not be able to trust Genesis 3 as historic transmission, both because the timespan for oral transmission is too long, too many intermediaries, and because if this were the case, one would need to suppose adaptation of stories to cultural changes (many of them) for Genesis 4 (if Adam lived 300 000 years ago, his two first sons would not have been a pastoralist and a farmer), and also because the transmission would have failed for the genealogies themselves.

If on the other hand Adam was much more recent than the first man, this totally upsets the Catholic world view and is illicit in and of itself.

Some have, in favour of the theory of pre-Adamite Homo sapiens, argued that a human population created in the image of God cannot spend more than 100 000 years without inventing agriculture.

There are three problems with this position.

• It does not follow, unless the dating methods stand firm.°°
• It involves people with not only human anatomy but also certainly speech being soulless, a major blow to normal anthropological metaphysics as seen by St. Thomas Aquinas.
• It leaves the transition from simili-human to real human populations entirely in the dark, especially as many genetic lines now existing separately from each other go back to before settled agriculture.

So, the argument doesn't allow for circumventing the ban on pre-Adamites.

Suppose instead Adam was created 6—7000+ years ago. All men, not just Homo sapiens sapiens come from him and Biblical genealogies hold.

• The overlapping of generations makes the tradition about Genesis 2 and 3 reliable.°°°
• The genealogies themselves are reliable.
• No dating of a man older than this, whether of a pre-Flood man (as I suppose the cannibals of Atapuerca were, like their victim) older than creation, or a post-Flood man older than Flood, can be firmly established, either on documentary or on physical dating methods.
• Cannibalism would have been part of the pre-Flood moral decay, as described in Genesis 6. We start to see a reason for the Flood.

Everything argues that the dispensation even before the Council to believe older times than Biblical chronology should not be used any more, as it has in the meantime shown itself to lead to conclusions harmful to the Faith.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Easter Tuesday
7.IV.2026

* Capitulum XII, Errores de celo et stellis
https://enfrancaissurantimodernism.blogspot.com/2012/01/capitulum-xii.html

Index in stephani tempier condempnationes
https://enfrancaissurantimodernism.blogspot.com/2012/01/index-in-stephani-tempier.html

** If the reference is to the Summa Theologiae, it seems muddled, or he had another edition. I looked up both the Prima Secundae and Secunda Secundae for Q 105. After the full stop, the paragraph continues and is credited with Maimonides, but that would concern only the sentence after the Thomasic comparison to Genesis 3.

*** Φιλολoγικά/Philologica: Was it Baronius and Did Galileo Recall His Words Accurately?
Thursday, November 7, 2024 | Posted by Hans Georg Lundahl at 2:56 PM
https://filolohika.blogspot.com/2024/11/was-it-baronius-and-did-galileo-recall.html

° J. E. Veith, Die Anfänge der Menschenwelt, Vienna, 1865; enumerated among Catholic predecessors of Henry Morris:

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica: Les Prédécesseurs catholiques de Henry Morris (jusqu'à 1920)
Friday, November 15, 2019 | Posted by Hans Georg Lundahl at 7:26 AM
https://filolohika.blogspot.com/2019/11/les-predecesseurs-catholiques-de-henry.html

Why 1920? My source is an encyclopedian article from that year, "Hexaméron", Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, VI-II, Ghezzi - Hizler, 1920, Paris.

°° See these two posts: Neolithic Agrarian to Industrial Revolutions : Uniformitarian vs Creationist · Palaeolithic to Neolithic Era : Uniformitarian vs Creationist

°°° See Haydock on Genesis 3:

Concerning the transactions of these early times, parents would no doubt be careful to instruct their children, by word of mouth, before any of the Scriptures were written; and Moses might derive much information from the same source, as a very few persons formed the chain of tradition, when they lived so many hundred years. Adam would converse with Mathusalem, who knew Sem, as the latter lived in the days of Abram. Isaac, Joseph, and Amram, the father of Moses, were contemporaries: so that seven persons might keep up the memory of things which had happened 2500 years before. But to entitle these accounts to absolute authority, the inspiration of God intervenes; and thus we are convinced, that no word of sacred writers can be questioned. (Haydock)

On my LXX based view of the chronology, this is not quite correct, but there are six "minimal overlaps" up to Abraham, and from Genesis 12 we already get more prolix reporting, suggesting that from Abraham's call, things were written down. That would have started with most of Genesis 1—11, and

Parallax and Heliocentrism

Creation vs. Evolution: I Hope, For Galileo's Sake, He Did Retract · Parallax and Heliocentrism · Φιλολoγικά/Philologica: What's the Nature of Theism and the Pagan Alternative to Theism in Romans 1? · The Introibo Blogger Repeats A Blunder by Henry Drummond

Here is part of an essay written or promoted by Damien Mackey:

The idea that the Ancients cited an apparent absence of parallax shift in the nearest stars due to Earth’s hypothesised orbit about the Sun, that they favoured geocentrism in part because of this, and that Copernicus hedged against this criticism, is a complete falsehood that is almost universally accepted at present.

it leads to anachronistic misreadings of both Ptolemy and Copernicus, when we fail to realise the notion of a parallax shift in nearby stars relative to those further away never could have crossed their minds

Here it is on Academia:

Claim that Copernicus knew of Aristarchus
https://www.academia.edu/165256445/Claim_that_Copernicus_knew_of_Aristarchus

It seems to be identic to or rather an excerpt from:

Setting the Record Straight: How Copernicus Concealed His Debt to Aristarchus—and Claimed an Intellectual Priority He Knew Wasn’t His
CosmiCave | Daryl Janzen | Jul 30.2025
https://cosmicave.org/2025/07/30/setting-the-record-straight-how-copernicus-concealed-his-debt-to-aristarchus-and-claimed-an-intellectual-priority-he-knew-wasnt-his/

Now, this is actually more like an equivocation than a complete falsehood.

The "parallax shift in the nearest stars" is an idea that didn't cross their minds, because they (Ptolemy and Copernicus alike, with Galileo) didn't believe there were near or far stars, but all stars were equally far.

However, "parallax shift in the stars" did cross their minds. If Virgo and Pisces* are equally far from the centre of the universe, and that centre is not Earth, but the Sun, then they would be shifting in distance from Earth. In early March, Virgo would be the biggest, and in early September, Pisces would be the biggest. Inversely, in early March, Pisces is either way hidden by the Sun and in early September Virgo is either way hidden by the Sun. However, either side of the timeslot when it's invisible, either sign would be the smallest.

This is probably what Tycho meant where the reference is given in Spanish wiki:

por ejemplo, una de las principales objeciones de Tycho al heliocentrismo copernicano era que para ser compatible con la ausencia de paralaje estelar observable, debería existir un gigantesco y sumamente improbable vacío entre la órbita de Saturno y la octava esfera (la de las estrellas fijas).

For example, one of the main objections Tycho had to Copernican Heliocentrism was that, to be compatible with the absence of observable stellar parallax, there should exist a gigantic and highly improbable void between the orbit of Saturnus and the Eighth Sphere (that of the fix stars).

The only observable parallax that's possible if all fix stars, all non-planet-stars are on the same sphere is the one given about smaller or bigger views of star signs. He cannot have been speaking about differential parallax in the Galilean and modern sense.

The footnote 4 is given as:

See p.51 in The reception of Copernicus' heliocentric theory: proceedings of a symposium organized by the Nicolas Copernicus Committee of the International Union of the History and Philosophy of Science, Torun, Poland, 1973, ed. Jerzy Dobrzycki, International Union of the History and Philosophy of Science. Nicolas Copernicus Committee; ISBN 90-277-0311-6, ISBN 978-90-277-0311-8

While this Symposium was held was under Communist Poland, I'll presume they were not putting words into the mouth (or pen) of Tycho Brahe. And actually, Daryl Janzen credits the objection to Tycho and credits him with being the first to make it. And obviously, as Tycho also held to fix stars being in a sphere, the parallax he was talking of was not one star moving "in front of" another more distant one, wasn't differential parallax.

Now, since then, a phenomenon has been observed which is identified with Galileo's differential parallax. Friedrich Wilhelm Bessel in 1838. Before that, another astronomer had looked for it, Bradley, but what he found in 1728—29 was incompatible with parallax.

Calculation showed that if there had been any appreciable motion due to parallax, then the star should have reached its most southerly apparent position in December, and its most northerly apparent position in June. What Bradley found instead was an apparent motion that reached its most southerly point in March, and its most northerly point in September; and that could not be accounted for by parallax: the cause of a motion with the pattern actually seen was at first obscure.

Well, with a mechanistic world view, you are stuck with aberration of starlight and then differential parallax is observed against the background of that.

With a Christian world view, the whole movement of any star, as observed through telescope, both the part analysed as aberration and the part analysed as parallax, can be what the angel does in a kind of dance, to honour God.

As soon as Tychonian parallax is unobserved, there is no actual proof possible that the Earth is moving.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
First Passion Lord's Day
22.III.2026

* My own and granny's and my mother's signs are opposite, so I don't need to verify any other couples that are opposite. I wouldn't like to become an expert in astrology. And please note, astrology signs on the zodiac are still better known than their synonym the "ecliptic plane" ...

Wikis consulted:

https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paralaje_estelar

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

Suppose Someone Wanted to Accuse Me of Sola Scriptura

On Sunday 9 March 2008, I wrote, on the then site Antimodernism, a piece where the title needs to be restated:

Sola Scriptura or Tota Scriptura?*
https://antimodernisminmemoriam.blogspot.com/2012/10/sola-scriptura-or-tota-scriptura.html

Do I believe the Bible ALONE is infallible?

No, I believe Apostolic Tradition and Universal Immemorial Church Tradition and definitions of Councils and Popes and consistency of the ordinary magsiterium are infallible too.

Do I believe that ALL OF the Bible is inerrant?

Yes, I do. Including Genesis 5 and 11. Adam really was 130 or 230 years old (depending on text version) when Seth was born appointed to replace the killer Cain and the killed Abel. Peleg really was born when the Tower project of Nimrod, whatever it was, had failed or was just failing by God confusing the single language into a melting pot of languages foreign to each other. You could understand your wife and children, you could no longer understand your coworker or taskmaster, nor could he understand you.

Including also Joshua 10, and before you point to the possibility of verse 13 being phenomenological language, in verse 12 Sun and Moon are what Joshua miraculously orders to stand still. If it was Earth that stopped and started rotating, as Heliocentrics want, this would be the one and only occasion where a miracle worker ordered sth other to change behaviour than what needed to. When Jesus ordered demons out of people, he didn't expel endogenous malfunctions within the human person, and mislabel this as expelling one or more non-human persons because of misunderstanding. When Joshua ordered Sun and Moon to stand still, it wasn't Earth he made stand still.

These things are directly in the Bible, not just by allusion. These things can be read, not just understood because the Church underlines how the allusion was one of those that Jesus spoke about, for instance on the road to Emmaus. They are the minimum, but we need to believe the totality, what the Church defines, even if it's not openly apparent to every reader (especially to those who ignore what is being alluded to).**

Now, there is one more thing. Some Catholics are confused about what we should object to in "sola scriptura".

Should we object to someone saying this or that can be understood without explicit reference to Church doctrine? No. We would need to object only in the moment when we know something is against Church doctrine, like when someone tries to prove "only Jesus is sinless, Mary isn't" (totally false proposition) from Romans 3:23 or Romans 5:12, when Jesus being an exception is not explicitly stated in either verse, and when Jesus being different as Redeemer, as defeater of the Devil, argues for Mary being sinless, because the Bible by allusion shows Mary defeated the Devil even before Her pregnancy.***

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
I LD of the Passion
21—22.III.2026

* The reposting on MSN Group Antimodernism in memoriam was in 2012, but that was not the origin of the text.
** Classic example: Mary is co-defeater of the Devil and has done Her part as defeating him already before Christ was born of Her or even in Her, because "blessed among women" alludes to Jael and Judith and if you add "and blessed is the fruit of thy womb" the allusion to Genesis 3:15 should be very clear, meaning it was the Devil She had been defeating. Hence Her sinlessness, as this was the only defeat possible for a non-divine human person and was a reversal of the Devil's victory in Genesis 3, over Adam and Eve.
*** The first "blessed among women" is pronounced in Luke 1:28. In verse 31 the angel says "thou shalt conceive" meaning Our Lady was not yet pregnant.

Steppe People in Alternative Calibrations

Chronology of wikipedian articles:

"core Yamnaya culture"

= Mikhaylivka I

c. 3600–3400 BC

Yamnaya culture

3300–2600

Corded Ware culture

c. 3000 BC – 2350 BC

Bell Beaker culture

(Central Western Europe)

2800-2300 BC

(Britain)

2450-1800 BC

Tajo: cultura arqueológica de Vila Nova de São Pedro

2900 al 2500 a. C.

On one carbon dated timeline:

Mikhaylivka I begins

3600 BC

Mikhaylivka I ends

3400 BC

Yamnaya begins

3300 BC

Corded ware begins

3000 BC

VN de SP begins

2900 BC

CW-E BB begins

2800 BC

Yamnaya ends

2600 BC

VN de SP ends

2500 BC

Br BB begins

2450 BC

Corded ware ends

2350 BC

CW-E BB ends

2300 BC

Br BB ends

1800 BC

It's superimposed on my current* tables:

1982 BC

80.546 pmC, dated as 3770 BC

1965 BC

Serug died

1959 BC

81.656 pmC, dated as 3634 BC

Mikhaylivka I begins

3600 BC

1957 BC

Nahor died

1936 BC

82.763 pmC, dated as 3500 BC

1930

Ishmael born

1916 BC

Isaac born.

83.166 pmC, dated as 3440 BC

Mikhaylivka I ends

3400 BC

1897 BC

83.568 pmC, dated as 3381 BC

1881 BC

Terah died

1877 BC

83.97 pmC, dated as 3321 BC

Yamnaya begins

3300 BC

1857 BC

84.371 pmC, dated as 3262 BC

1856 BC

Jacob and Esau born

1841 BC

Abraham died

1838 BC

84.77 pmC, dated as 3204 BC

1818 BC

85.169 pmC, dated as 3145 BC

1816 BC

Esau is 40, Jacob goes to Laban

1798 BC

85.566 pmC, dated as 3087 BC

1797 BC

Joseph born

1796 BC

Jacob leaves Laban

1793 BC

Ishmael died

1779 BC

85.963 pmC, dated as 3029 BC

Corded ware begins

3000 BC

1759 BC

86.359 pmC, dated as 2971 BC

1739 BC

86.754 pmC, dated as 2914 BC

VN de SP begins

2900 BC

1736 BC

Isaac died

1726 BC

Jacob came to Egypt.

1720 BC

87.148 pmC, dated as 2857 BC

1709 BC

Jacob died.

1700 BC

87.541 pmC, dated as 2800 BC

CW-E BB begins

2800 BC

1687

Joseph dies.

1678 BC

89.449 pmC, dated as 2600 BC

Yamnaya ends

2600 BC

VN de SP ends

2500 BC

Br BB begins

2450 BC

1656 BC

91.353 pmC, dated as 2404 BC

Corded ware ends

2350 BC

CW-E BB ends

2300 BC

1634 BC

93.251 pmC, dated as 2212 BC

1612 BC

95.145 pmC, dated as 2023 BC

1590 BC

97.033 pmC, dated as 1839 BC

Br BB ends

1800 BC

1574 BC

97.392 pmC, dated as 1793 BC

Superimposed on my proposal for improvement after initial interaction with Petrovich.**

1982 1882 BC

80.546 pmC, dated as 3770 BC

Mikhaylivka I begins

3600 BC

1830 BC

81.708 pmC, so dated 3500 BC.

Mikhaylivka I ends

3400 BC

Yamnaya begins

3300 BC

Corded ware begins

3000 BC

1724 BC

86.369 pmC, so dated 2935 BC.

VN de SP begins

2900 BC

CW-E BB begins

2800 BC

Yamnaya ends

2600 BC

VN de SP ends

2500 BC

Br BB begins

2450 BC

1618 BC

90.971 pmC, so dated 2400 BC

Corded ware ends

2350 BC

CW-E BB ends

2300 BC

1512 BC

95.515 pmC, so dated 1891 BC

Br BB ends

1800 BC

1459 BC

97.764 pmC, so dated 1646 BC

And on the one after the further*** interaction:

Mikhaylivka I begins

3600 BC

1870 BC

82.104 pmC, so dated as 3500 BC

Mikhaylivka I ends

3400 BC

Yamnaya begins

3300 BC

1831 BC

84.652 pmC, so dated as 3208 BC

Corded ware begins

3000 BC

1792 BC

87.187 pmC, so dated as 2925 BC

VN de SP begins

2900 BC

CW-E BB begins

2800 BC

1753 BC

89.71 pmC, so dated as 2651 BC

Yamnaya ends

2600 BC

VN de SP ends

2500 BC

Br BB begins

2450 BC

Corded ware ends

2350 BC

1714 BC

92.222 pmC, so dated as 2383 BC

CW-E BB ends

2300 BC

1675 BC

94.721 pmC, so dated as 2123 BC

1636 BC

97.562 pmC, so dated as 1840 BC

Br BB ends

1800 BC

1598 BC

97.703 pmC, so dated as 1790 BC

So, what would each of my recalibrations do to the duration of the process? From start of Mikhaylivka I to Bell Beakers ending in Britain.

Uniformitarian calibration: 3600 to 1800 BC, 1800 years.
My current: 1959 to 1574 BC, 385 years.
My first alternative proposal: c. 1860 to 1486 BC, 374 years.
My second alternative proposal: c. 1890 to 1598 BC, 292 years.

Only the spread part, now. From start of Mikhaylivka I to Bell Beakers beginning in Britain.

Uniformitarian calibration: 3600 to 2450 BC, 1150 years
My current: 1959 to 1656 BC, 303 years (less)
My first alternative proposal: c. 1860 to 1618 BC, 242 years
My second alternative proposal: c. 1890 to 1714 BC, 176 years

For the total span of cultures, 4.675, 4.813 or 6.164 times quicker. For the spread from Mikhaylivka to Britain, 3.795, 4.752 or 6.534 times quicker.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Benedict of Nursia
21.III.2026

In monte Cassino natalis sancti Benedicti Abbatis, qui in Occidente fere collapsam Monachorum disciplinam restituit ac mirifice propagavit; cujus vitam, virtutibus et miraculis gloriosam, beatus Gregorius Papa conscripsit.

PS. Notice, I said "Steppe People" and not "Indo-Europeans" ... I'm quite open to Indo-European being a Sprachbund, and I don't think the Steppe People were necessarily or even probably speakers of Indo-European./HGL

---

* Newer Tables, Flood to Joseph in Egypt, marginally table III—IV, all of table IV—V, Newer Tables, Joseph in Egypt to Fall of Troy, all of table V—VI, marginally table VI—VI/VII.

** Suppose I were Wrong on Chronological Matches Related to Egypt?

*** If I Got Douglas Petrovich Right, Sesostris III was Pharao when Joseph Received his Family

I Hope, For Galileo's Sake, He Did Retract

Creation vs. Evolution: I Hope, For Galileo's Sake, He Did Retract · Parallax and Heliocentrism · Φιλολoγικά/Philologica: What's the Nature of Theism and the Pagan Alternative to Theism in Romans 1? · The Introibo Blogger Repeats A Blunder by Henry Drummond

But if he didn't, that doesn't mean I should retract from the view of his judges. Unlike Freemasons, I don't count him as a "martyr for science" or as a kind of saint (outside the Roman Catholic lists of saints, Martyrologium Romanum, local pre-congregation etc obviously).

CMI seems to have spent some buildup to attacking Geocentrism, which is a sidekick from their usual fair.

A few days ago, in Evolution quick or slow?, Jonathan Sarfati cited St. Thomas Aquinas:

That is, there are often multiple theories that can explain the same observations. Thomas applied it to the astronomy of the day, but it works just as well for today’s biology:

… as in astronomy the theory of eccentrics and epicycles is considered as established, because thereby the sensible appearances of the heavenly movements can be explained; not, however, as if this proof were sufficient, forasmuch as some other theory might explain them.

Summa Theologiae/Theologica > First Part > Question 32, Article 1 > Reply to Objection 2
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1032.htm#article1

Let's give some context, first. Objection 2 and Reply to Objection 2, about what question or as the actual questions are here nicknamed "what article" (a "question" is usually a collection of articles, so actually means "question topic").

Question 32. The knowledge of the divine persons. Article 1. Whether the trinity of the divine persons can be known by natural reason?

Objection 2. Further, Richard St. Victor says (De Trin. i, 4): "I believe without doubt that probable and even necessary arguments can be found for any explanation of the truth." So even to prove the Trinity some have brought forward a reason from the infinite goodness of God, who communicates Himself infinitely in the procession of the divine persons; while some are moved by the consideration that "no good thing can be joyfully possessed without partnership." Augustine proceeds (De Trin. x, 4; x, 11,12) to prove the trinity of persons by the procession of the word and of love in our own mind; and we have followed him in this (I:27:1 and I:27:3). Therefore the trinity of persons can be known by natural reason.

...

Reply to Objection 2. Reason may be employed in two ways to establish a point: firstly, for the purpose of furnishing sufficient proof of some principle, as in natural science, where sufficient proof can be brought to show that the movement of the heavens is always of uniform velocity. Reason is employed in another way, not as furnishing a sufficient proof of a principle, but as confirming an already established principle, by showing the congruity of its results, as in astrology the theory of eccentrics and epicycles is considered as established, because thereby the sensible appearances of the heavenly movements can be explained; not, however, as if this proof were sufficient, forasmuch as some other theory might explain them. In the first way, we can prove that God is one; and the like. In the second way, reasons avail to prove the Trinity; as, when assumed to be true, such reasons confirm it. We must not, however, think that the trinity of persons is adequately proved by such reasons. This becomes evident when we consider each point; for the infinite goodness of God is manifested also in creation, because to produce from nothing is an act of infinite power. For if God communicates Himself by His infinite goodness, it is not necessary that an infinite effect should proceed from God: but that according to its own mode and capacity it should receive the divine goodness. Likewise, when it is said that joyous possession of good requires partnership, this holds in the case of one not having perfect goodness: hence it needs to share some other's good, in order to have the goodness of complete happiness. Nor is the image in our mind an adequate proof in the case of God, forasmuch as the intellect is not in God and ourselves univocally. Hence, Augustine says (Tract. xxvii. in Joan.) that by faith we arrive at knowledge, and not conversely.

Now, there is a point where another theory still makes quite a lot of sense. Tychonian theory as perfected by Riccioli who took Kepler into account for instance disagrees on the emptiness of epicentres, making instead the Sun the epicentre, and on top of that, not "epi-single-circular-centre" but "epi-one-of-elliptic-focal-points".

This still leaves the daily motion of heaven proceeding at even speed, as he said just before that, except before day I, after doomsday and on Joshua's long day.

But in order to make Heliocentrism make more sense, you actually must presume God doesn't intervene in the daily motion, which would make earth alone a more adequate subject than the visible universe around earth, contradicting Romans 1:18—20, John 5:17. However, that only is an adequate assumption if you either deny God altogether, or envisage "him" as a kind of watchmaker who needs a pause after making his clockwork, and enjoys to see it move without intervening. St. Thomas envisaged Him as both making an instrument and then playing it ... every day until today, including Sabbaths. Making Him visible through that work, even to Pagans. By contrast, that poor image of a likeness of a corruptible man, Hercules, according to that story (which may involve his bragging, since it takes place well outside Tiryns) lifted up Antaeus with his last forces, because he noticed his own forces were near exhaustion, the exact thing God proves in a daily manner is not His case.

Next we have this, from yesterday:

Did Galileo retract heliocentrism before his death?
By Andrew Sibley | Published 18 Mar, 2026
https://creation.com/en/articles/did-galileo-retract

A certain debate before Urban VIII became Pope, before Galileo was judged in 1633, involved the argument:

God could make the universe anyway He wanted. God could also make the universe look to us anyway He wanted.

Galileo made fun of it, leading to the 1633 trial, but my hope for his souls is, by 1641, it had sunk in.

You see, it doesn't mean God is dishonest or morally free to be a liar. It means that God by omnipotence would have had the physical capacity to perform a deception, had He wanted to. Given that the universe looks Geocentric, the options are:

• God made a Geocentric universe, and because He is truthful, He made it look Geocentric to us.
• God made a Heliocentric universe, but somehow, He made it look Geocentric to us.

So, Geocentrism being true corresponds to God being truthful. Even apart from Joshua 10 with parallell references. Do you know how Galileo dealt with the Bible, by the way? I'll give another citation from his letter to Grand Duchess Cristina first:

Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina of Tuscany
Stanford University
https://web.stanford.edu/~jsabol/certainty/readings/Galileo-LetterDuchessChristina.pdf

Persisting in their original resolve to destroy me and everything mine by any means they can think of, these men are aware of my views in astronomy and philosophy. They know that as to the arrangement of the parts of the universe, I hold the sun to be situated motionless in the center of the revolution of the celestial orbs while the earth revolves about the sun. They know also that I support this position not only by refuting the arguments of Ptolemy and Aristotle, but by producing many counter-arguments; in particular, some which relate to physical effects whose causes can perhaps be assigned in no other way.

Mainly, the physical effects in the sky as visible to us can be assigned by the Tychonian orbits, and the view on tides is erroneous, and was seen as erroneous by one of the people judging either his book in 1616 or his own position in 1633. He was from Portugal and had seen tides with his own eyes. But, this letter also deals with the Bible.

They go about invoking the Bible, which they would have minister to their deceitful purposes. Contrary to the sense of the Bible and the intention of the holy Fathers, if I am not mistaken, they would extend such authorities until even in purely physical matters - where faith is not involved - they would have us altogether abandon reason and the evidence of our senses in favor of some biblical passage, though under the surface meaning of its words this passage may contain a different sense.

Oops, can you spell out "non-overlapping magisteria" ? Leading evolutionist, Stephen Jay Gould, dies, CMI was against it.

So, how does Sibley view the words of Galileo from 1641, if indeed from him, which he also threw doubt on? Back to the article Did Galileo retract heliocentrism before his death? It's no longer Galileo writing to Grand Duchess Cristina, it's the correspondence from 1641.

So, in context, Galileo wrote with ironic humour in merely expressing the judgement of the authorities. This was his opening statement:

“The falsity of the Copernican system must not be doubted at all, especially by us Catholics, who have the irrefutable authority of the sacred scriptures, interpreted by the greatest masters of theology.”

Sibley is somewhat at a loss on what "the authorities" means to a Catholic.

Now, it is unfortunately possible that Galileo saw himself as free from Catholic authority in physics, like he saw himself free from Biblical authority in physics. But in matters where the Bible binds, even on his view, so does the authority of the Church. The one possibility of his not being sincere is the idea that the question fell outside the Bible and the Church, because wasn't in the least revealed or co-revealed. (I more hold it as co-revealed than as revealed: "lions prowl seeking prey" is similarily not a mystery of faith, but confirmed as true by the faith, and in that same sense co-revealed.) For whatever falls in the scope of revelation, Galileo was well aware of this:

He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me.
[Luke 10:16]

But there is a somewhat ludicrous turn of events in Sibley's analysis:

Later in the letter, he expressed the view that, although he considered the Copernican observations to be in incomplete, he thought the alternative views were more in error. He wrote:

“And just as I consider the Copernican observations and conjectures insufficient, I equally consider those of Ptolemy, Aristotle and their followers to be more fallacious and erroneous.”

Rejecting Ptolemy and Aristotle was by now not the least synonymous to rejecting all the alternative views. The words of Galileo don't spell out any rejection of Tycho Brahe or of Riccioli. And the 1633 didn't hold him to staying with Aristotle or Ptolemy, it is quite compatible with accepting Tycho.

At the time of writing, the Copernican system was not fully confirmed by scientific observation, and so the postulations were indeed insufficiently validated at that time. And yet, Galileo considered the geocentric Ptolemaic and Aristotelian views to be in greater error.

The Copernican system is by now fully refuted. You see, it involves the fix stars forming so to speak "one shell" ... if we were to accept that the 1838 Bessel phenomenon were due to the optic effect called parallax (the train ride illusion, when you see hills and trees and houses rush by), this would place stars at vastly different distances from us, and by now even involve the Distant Starlight Problem. If the fix stars do form one shell, then the 1838 phenomenon isn't parallactic, even if it's called parallax from being analysed as such, and then presumably Earth isn't moving.

You may have meant that the Heliocentric system was not fully confirmed. It still isn't. As to the Ptolemaic and Aristotelian views, Galileo may have been basking in his glory from having refuted them on other topics than their Geocentrism, as indeed he had.

And even if he did, it would be fallacious to suggest that it affected the truth or otherwise regarding the question of geocentrism vs heliocentrism.

The retraction as such would not affect the question, but some arguments would. Like the one I saw in Sungenis' material, about God being able to create the universe anyway He liked and make it look anyway He liked. However, the retraction would be of interest to those concerned with Galileo's eternal soul.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St. Joseph
19.III.2026

In Judaea natalis sancti Joseph, Sponsi beatissimae Virginis Mariae, Confessoris; quem Pius Nonus, Pontifex Maximus, votis et precibus annuens totius catholici Orbis, universalis Ecclesiae Patronum declaravit.

Side note:

Beside a video by Sungenis, I saw this question in the chat:

QUESTION: Under geocentrism, is there a naturalistic explanation for the movement of the Sun around the earth that creates the seasons?

For St. Thomas, it worked like this: a) God moves everything from fix stars down to oceanic currents West each day, and the Sun along with it, b) meanwhile, the angel of the Sun is moving it along the Zodiac, around another axis than the one of the daily motion, and that circle is giving sometimes at Equator, sometimes South of it (in December) and sometimes North of it (in June)./HGL

If I Got Douglas Petrovich Right, Sesostris III was Pharao when Joseph Received his Family

Suppose I were Wrong on Chronological Matches Related to Egypt? · If I Got Douglas Petrovich Right, Sesostris III was Pharao when Joseph Received his Family

He stated sth like Sesostris II for the pharao of the plentiful years and Sesostris III for that of the famine years.

Let's put Sesostris III instead of Djoser at (corresponding to) 1700 BC.

1510 + 215 = 1725 - 25 = 1700. 190 years.

Let's further put Exodus in 1446 BC, c. 200 years after the death of Joseph's pharao, alias on this view Sesostris III. Or 190 years. 1636.

1446 + 430 = 1876 BC. Genesis 14 is between 1876 and 1865, let's put it in 1870 BC.

1870 BC

82.104 pmC, so dated as 3500 BC (1)

1636 BC

97.562 pmC, so dated as 1840 BC (2)

1446 BC

100 pmC, dated as 1446 BC.

1870 to 1636 is 234 years. 1636 to 1446 is 190 years. The former can be neatly divided into 6 periods of 39 years. The latter into five periods of 38.

234 years makes for a decay to 97.209 %(3). Normal replacement is 2.791 pmC (4). Actual replacement is 17.396 pmC (5). This is 6.233 times faster than carbon 14 is produced today (6).
190 years makes for a decay to 97.728 % (7). Normal replacement is 2.272 pmC (8). Actual replacement is 4.654 pmC (9). This is 2.048 times faster than carbon 14 is produced today (10).
39 years makes for a decay to 99.529 % (11). Normal replacement is 0.471 pmC (12). 6.233 times that means an actual replacement of 2.934 pmC (13).
38 years makes for a decay to 99.541 % (14). Normal replacement is 0.459 pmC (15). 2.048 times that means an actual replacement of 0.939 pmC (16).
This we now insert into a model of the carbon 14 rise (17). And deduce the carbon years accordingly (18)

1870 BC

82.104 pmC, so dated as 3500 BC

1831 BC

84.652 pmC, so dated as 3208 BC

1792 BC

87.187 pmC, so dated as 2925 BC

1753 BC

89.71 pmC, so dated as 2651 BC

1714 BC

92.222 pmC, so dated as 2383 BC

1675 BC

94.721 pmC, so dated as 2123 BC

1636 BC

97.562 pmC, so dated as 1840 BC

The first table is quite OK.

1636 BC

97.562 pmC, so dated as 1840 BC

1598 BC

97.703 pmC, so dated as 1790 BC

1560 BC

98.194 pmC, so dated as 1711 BC

1522 BC

98.683 pmC, so dated as 1632 BC

1484 BC

99.17 pmC, so dated as 1553 BC

1446 BC

99.655 pmC, so dated as 1475 BC

The second table didn't work out quite well. Let's do it all over again.
100 - 99.655 = 0.345 pmC, divided by 5 is 0.069 pmC. Add that to the "actual replacement" value.

1636 BC

97.562 pmC, so dated as 1840 BC

1598 BC

98.123 pmC, so dated as 1755 BC

1560 BC

98.682 pmC, so dated as 1670 BC

1522 BC

99.238 pmC, so dated as 1585 BC

1484 BC

99.791 pmC, so dated as 1501 BC

1446 BC

100.342 pmC, so dated as 1418 BC

It seems to be hard to get this one right, doesn't it?

But am I even right in presuming exactly 100 pmC for 1446 BC?

High-Precision Decadal Calibration of the Radiocarbon Time Scale, AD 1950–6000 BC (19)
Minze Stuiver (a1) and Bernd Becker (a2)
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/radiocarbon/article/highprecision-decadal-calibration-of-the-radiocarbon-time-scale-ad-19506000-bc/F1AB60097B0184501418D3EAEAD2EA90

Actually, when I look it up, 1440 BC has 3200 BP (or just a little older). The same is correct for 1450 BC. However, this is given in the Libby halflife, so, 3200 * 5730 / 5568 = 3293, 1950 AD - 3293 years = 1343 BC.

1446 BC should have a raw carbon date of 1343 BC (20=. I'm not going to do that table, however. Right now.

I think the point is clear, though. The dates could have more wiggles than shown in my here tables, indeed, for the second very probably should. But the dates cannot be replaced by more standard dates of Egyptology with Narmer in 3200 BC and so on.

Nor can one keep it indefinitely in a haze, like standard carbon dates from 1440 BC on, a set-off, as per Bietak, before that, but not precisely given how much.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Heribert of Cologne
16.III.2026

Coloniae Agrippinae sancti Heriberti Episcopi, sanctitate celebris.

PS, if I came to accept this position, I'd have to replace this: Newer Tables: Preliminaries · Flood to Joseph in Egypt · Joseph in Egypt to Fall of Troy.

(1) 3500 - 1870 = 1630, 0.5^(1630/5730) = 0.8210444795020451
(2) 1840 - 1636 = 204, 0.5^(204/5730) = 0.9756245087411058
(3) 0.5^(234/5730) = 0.9720903423121362
(4) 1 - 0.9720903423121362 = 0.0279096576878638
(5) 0.8210444795020451 * 0.9720903423121362 = 0.79812940913263271482117044974262
0.9720903423121362 - 0.79812940913263271482117044974262 = 0.17396093317950348517882955025738
(6) 0.17396093317950348517882955025738 / 0.0279096576878638 = 6.23300131893586196815659829017975051
(7) 0.5^(190/5730) = 0.9772781807633073
(8) 1 - 0.9772781807633073 = 0.0227218192366927
(9) 0.9756245087411058 * 0.9772781807633073 = 0.95345654501060327699244386721234
1 - 0.95345654501060327699244386721234 = 0.04654345498939672300755613278766
(10) 0.04654345498939672300755613278766 / 0.0227218192366927 = 2.04840354130778693932270612201569411
(11) 0.5^(39/5730) = 0.9952933554500555
(12) 1 - 0.9952933554500555 = 0.0047066445499445
(13) 0.0047066445499445 * 6.23300131893586196815659829017975051 = 0.029336521687566354958775586549781150053146244346695
(14) 0.5^(38/5730) = 0.9954137614730688
(15) 1 - 0.9954137614730688 = 0.0045862385269312
(16) 0.0045862385269312 * 2.04840354130778693932270612201569411 = 0.009394467239848078262587230361261737044734296215232
(17) [prior carbon 14, in decimal fraction] * [decay in decimal fraction] + [actual replacement in decimal fraction] = [carbon 14 in decimal fraction]
(18) 5730 * log([carbon 14 in decimal fraction]) / log(0.5) + [BC real year] = [BC carbon year]
(19) Should be consulted in preference over my tables for as soon as 100 pmC are reached.
(20) Raw date as per Cambridge halflife, which is not the standard for giving uncalibrated dates.

Suppose I were Wrong on Chronological Matches Related to Egypt?

Suppose I were Wrong on Chronological Matches Related to Egypt? · If I Got Douglas Petrovich Right, Sesostris III was Pharao when Joseph Received his Family

What would a revised chronology look like?

Current matches, involving Djoser for Joseph's Pharao and so carbon dated 2800 BC (raw date, calibrated 2600 BC) = 1700 BC, Thirteenth dynasty Pharao of the Exodus, 1550 BC as carbon date for Jericho destroyed in 1470 BC.

One problem with the last is, as Douglas Petrovich mentions on Academia:

In sealed tombs at Jericho, Garstang discovered royal scarabs with cartouches of the following kings: Hatshepsut, Thutmose III, and Amenhotep III.

I check and find this article:

Jericho: The Latest Research – Part Three
Bible Archaeology Report | November 24, 2025 | Bryan Windle
https://biblearchaeologyreport.com/2025/11/24/jericho-the-latest-research-part-three/

Now, Douglas Petrovich has some other dating for Amenhotep III than dying in 1350, namely probably in 1372 and acceeding the throne in 1410 BC, this follows Pharaonic King-Lists, Annals, and Day-Books: A Contribution to the Study of the Egyptian Sense of History (Donald B. Redford)

This is compatible with an Exodus under Amenhotep II in 1446 BC.

1446 + 430 = 1876 BC for the vocation of Abraham, when he was 75. Genesis 14 was in between this date and when he was 86 at the birth of Ishmael. So, c. 1870 BC. It's still carbon dated to 3500 BC.

3500 - 1870 = 1630 extra years. 0.5^(1630/5730) = 0.8210444795..., so 82.104 pmC.

Or what about the LXX reading? Here is one with quite a few text emendations on Ellopos:

1 And it came to pass in the four hundred and fortieth year after the departure of the children of Israel out of Egypt, in the fourth year and second month of the reign of king Solomon over Israel, 1α that the king commanded that they should take great [and] costly stones for the foundation of the house, and hewn stones. 1β And the men of Solomon, and the men of Chiram hewed [the stones], and laid them [for a foundation]. 1γ In the fourth year he laid the foundation of the house of the Lord, in the month Ziu, [Niso (Rahlfs)]* even in the second month. 1δ In the eleventh year, in the month Baal, this [is] the eighth month, the house was completed according to all its plan, and according to all its arrangement.

This might put the temple in the 440th year after the Exodus, so the Exodus in 1406 BC. This fits better with conventional dates for the death of Amenhotep II.

1406 + 430 = 1836, so Genesis 14 in c. 1830 BC.

3500 - 1830 = 1670 extra years. 0.5^(1670/5730) = 0.817081..., so, 81.708 pmC.

1830 - 1406 = 424 years. Let's divide these into quarters of 106 years. But first, the checkup for the speed coefficient.

0.5^(424/5730) = 0.95000268... (decay to 95 %), meaning a replacement normally of 1 - 0.95000268... = 0.0499973... (4.99973 pmC units).
0.817081... * 0.95000268... = 0.776229...
1 - 0.776229... = 0.2237706...
0.2237706... / 0.0499973... = 4.47565... times faster.

And let's apply that speed coefficient to the quarters, first equally, for this post:

0.5^(106/5730) = 0.987259...
1 - 0.987259... = 0.01274...
0.01274... * 4.47565... = 0.0570232...

Gives a table of:

1830 BC

81.708 pmC, so dated 3500 BC.

1724 BC

86.369 pmC, so dated 2935 BC.

1618 BC

90.971 pmC, so dated 2400 BC

1512 BC

95.515 pmC, so dated 1891 BC

1406 BC

100 pmC, so dated 1406 BC.

Let's divide the last in the middle. 53 years before the Exodus, Moses was still at the Pharaonic court.

0.5^(53/5730) = 0.993609...
1 - 0.993609... = 0.0063908...
0.0063908... * 4.47565... = 0.0286...
0.955146... * 0.993609... + 0.0286... = 0.9776...
5730 * log(0.9776...) / log(0.5) + 1459 = 1646 BC

Gives a table closeup of:

1512 BC

95.515 pmC, so dated 1891 BC

1459 BC

97.764 pmC, so dated 1646 BC

1406 BC

100 pmC, so dated 1406 BC.

The immediate problem, which could be fixed by making earlier parts of the carbon build up faster and later parts slower is, Moses was arguably not living in the court of three different pharaos:

Salitis, Fifteenth Dynasty pharaoh of Egypt, r.  c. 1648–1628 BC
Djehuti, Sixteenth Dynasty pharaoh of Egypt, r.  c. 1650–1647 BC
Sobekhotep VIII, Sixteenth Dynasty pharaoh of Egypt, r.  c. 1647–1631 BC

1640s BC
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1640s_BC

Or, another way to fix it is, if none or not all of these pharaos have their dates from carbon dating.

To put this in perspective. You may have a library that's carbon dated (for instance from wood shelves, or in the case of cuneiform tablets, from wool coverings). It contains a text that for some reason you date to the same year as the destruction (let's not get into why). It mentions a ruler 120 years earlier.

Now, the library gets a date "2000 BC" because of carbon dates. But the ruler gets "2120 BC" not because of a carbon date, but because of being 120 years prior to sth dated to "2000 BC". In the latter case, ideally I don't look up my tables for 2120 BC, but only my tables for 2000 BC, and then add 120 years. Let's see how this works out in relation to my so far tables.* This one goes from the death of Joseph's Pharao Djoser to the death of Sesostris III who died when Moses was a toddler, which were so far my matches in Egyptology:

1634 BC

93.251 pmC, dated as 2212 BC

1612 BC

95.145 pmC, dated as 2023 BC

1590 BC

97.033 pmC, dated as 1839 BC

(1612 + 1612 + 1612 + 1612 + 1612 + 1612 + 1590) / 7 = 1608.857...
(95.145 + 95.145 + 95.145 + 95.145 + 95.145 + 95.145 + 97.033) / 7 = 95.415

5730 * log(0.95415) / log(0.5) + 1608.857... = 1996.8717....

Close enough. So, real date for the library from "2000 BC" would be 1609 BC. Now, in that case, the real date for the "2120 BC" ruler would be 1729 BC. It would be a mistake to instead try to take averages between 1634 and 1612 and their atmospheric pmC values. That would put the older ruler too recently.

In this case, I'm not sure if I would want the limit between 15th and 16th dynasty to before Moses was born or after he left Egypt for Madian after slaying the Egyptian overseer.

So, taking the scarabs of Jericho into account is somewhat of a headache, I'd need time, but ideally also collaborators I don't have now to do a good job. Thank you, Dr. Petrovich.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St. Frances of Rome
9.III.2026

Romae sanctae Franciscae Viduae, nobilitate generis, vitae sanctitate et miraculorum dono celebris.

---

* Creation vs. Evolution: Newer Tables, Joseph in Egypt to Fall of Troy (table V—VI)
mardi 24 décembre 2024 | Publié par Hans Georg Lundahl à 11:00
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2024/12/newer-tables-joseph-in-egypt-to-fall-of.html

Has the Carbon 14 Level Reached Stability?

In my own work, I say it has:

New blog on the kid: Examinons une hypothèse qui se trouve contrefactuelle un peu de près
Wednesday, 28 October 2015 | Posted by Hans Georg Lundahl at 13:26
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2015/10/examinons-une-hypothese-qui-se-trouve.html

My what-if was, given the carbon 14 level at the Deluge was 3/64 of what it is now (4.6875 pmC, 25 298 extra years, see below calculation A, based on a medium of a ballpark of 20 000 to 50 000 BP*), an evaluation I have changed since, and supposing carbon 14 had risen by always gaining as much as is produced in the corresponding timespans now (4.261 pmC gained each 360 years, while also losing by multiplication with 0.957 each such period, calculations B and C), we would have arrived by 2013 at 45,7 % of the present rate.

But as those 45,7 % would not be taken as 45,7 % of the present rate, given they are the present rate, the 45,7 % would be reinterpreted as 100 %, so 100 pmC.

If we consistently did that, and dated older items accordingly (actual rising C-14, so lower than expected), still using 5730 years as the halflife, we would get into absurdities, like boots from El Alamein dating to the Civil War. But on the other hand, if we corrected for known historic items, we would get halflives, like 2242 to 2832 years.

Against this, a man like Gavin Cox will refer* to a sentence in an article from originally 1979** that says:

Was the ¹⁴C entering and leaving the system at the same rate? In his day, the measurements and calculations, which he knew about, showed that ¹⁴C was entering the system some 12–20% faster than it was leaving.

From 1940 (when ¹⁴C was discovered) to 1979, there were 39 years, let's say 40. This would have given (see calculations E, F, G and H) a very slight increase, not the wildest fluctuation in known calibrations of radiocarbon.

I think my big picture calculation in the article I referred to trumps the small picture calculations that Carl Wieland back then referred to.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St Thomas Aquinas
6—7.III.2026
(after First Vespers)

In monasterio Fossae Novas, prope Tarracinam, in Campania, sancti Thomae Aquinatis, Confessoris et Ecclesiae Doctoris, ex Ordine Praedicatorum, nobilitate generis, vitae sanctitate et Theologiae scientia illustrissimi; quem Leo Papa Decimus tertius caelestem Scholarum omnium catholicarum Patronum declaravit.

Calculations

A) 5730 * log(0.046875) / log(0.5) = 25 298 extra years.
B) Decay of 360 years = 0.5^(360/5730) = multiply previous amount by 0.9573861063712243
C) Normal production in 360 years = 1 - 0.9573861063712243 = 0.0426138936287757, add 4.621 pmC each such period
D) Decay of 40 years = 0.5^(40/5730) = multiply previous amount by 0.9951729639914483
E) Normal production in 40 years = 1 - 0.9951729639914483 = 0.0048270360085517
F) Observed production lower limit = 1.12 * 0.0048270360085517 = 0.005406280329577904
G) Observed production higher limit = 1.2 * 0.0048270360085517 = 0.00579244321026204
H) Deduced observed rise, higher limit, if there had been no carbon emissions : 1 * 0.9951729639914483 + 0.00579244321026204 = 1.00096540720171034

* Feedback article:

Carbon dating—who is fooling whom?
By Gavin Cox | Published 08 Dec, 2018 | Updated 07 Nov, 2024
https://creation.com/en/articles/carbon-dating-fooling-whom

** Republished, but with caution of it's being outdated:

Carbon-14 dating—explained in everyday terms
By Dr Carl Wieland | [Re-] Published 27 Jan, 2006
https://creation.com/en/articles/carbon-14-dating-explained-in-everyday-terms

Wrong Solution, Guys (Probably)

Humans and Neanderthals interbred — but it was mostly male Neanderthals and female humans who coupled up, study finds
News | By Kristina Killgrove | published February 26, 2026
https://www.livescience.com/archaeology/neanderthals/humans-and-neanderthals-interbred-but-it-was-mostly-male-neanderthals-and-female-humans-who-coupled-up-study-finds

This article says the lack of Neanderthal X chromosomes is relative and depends on mostly Neanderthal man marrying (or raping) Sapiens tribe women.

Rather, the surprisingly high amount of modern human DNA chunks found in Neanderthals can be explained by mate preference, the researchers concluded. Because females carry two X chromosomes and males carry only one, a preference for mating between female H. sapiens and male Neanderthals would mean fewer Neanderthal X chromosomes would enter the human gene pool, producing the pattern the researchers identified in the genomes.

That pattern being, half paragraph a little earlier:

There are regions on the X chromosome — the sex chromosome that every human has at least one copy of — where no living humans have any Neanderthal ancestry.

The problem with this solution is, if this were the reason, one would see Neanderthal Y-chromosomes more. Check this:

Le chromosome Y de Néandertal
https://www.pole-prehistoire.com/fr/actualites-fr/actualites-scientifiques/339-le-chromosome-y-de-l-homme-de-neandertal

Comment expliquer la disparition du chromosome Y néandertalien ?

This suggests, but the other more recently published article denies, the solution of toxicity. Now, the article could be true in the main solution.

Neanderthal men could have raped or seduced sapiens women, but only their daughters survived pregnancy. Possible.

I still think there is another solution. And that it's preferrable.

No purebred Neanderthal man was on the Ark, and if any purebred Neanderthal woman was, the only candidate is Noah's wife, supposing her daughters in law were not her own daughters, whose mitochondriae didn't survive ... but actually, supposing there are so few Neanderthal X chromosomes, this would hardly be the case if every one of her three sons had one from her.

So, Noah's mother could have been Neanderthal, her mitochondriae cannot be passed on beyond him and her X chromosomes only to daughters, not to sons, of him.

Or any one of the daughters in law could have had a Neanderthal father. His Y chromosome was not passed on to and therefore not through a daughter, and the X chromosome he passed on would have been one out of two in her, then out of four more in the other inlaws, then the three sons would between them have inherited both X chromosomes from Noah's wife. So, overall 1/8.

Purebred Neanderthals (except possibly Noah's wife) were not on the Ark. The remainder of Neanderthal genomes are a selection of the selection of them that was on the Ark.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St. Chad of Lichfield
2.III.2026

Lichfeldiae, in Anglia, sancti Ceaddae, Episcopi Merciorum et Lindisfarnorum, cujus praeclaras virtutes sanctus Beda Venerabilis commemorat.

I'm Against Sola Scriptura. AND. I'm a Fundie. Unlike a certain Ian Plimer.

This is written* by my friend (with some tensions) Mackey:

I have previously pointed to the ironical - and I think humorous - situation whereby the likes of an anti-fundamentalist professor Plimer can sometimes be clearer about certain principles of biblical exegesis than are those who embrace sola scriptura; whilst the latter can sometimes, here and there, be more scientifically accurate than are the professional scientists.

Ian Plimer will, in the case of the fundamentalists’ global Flood, absolutely and hilariously ridicule - and rightly so - such a notion, using a heady mix of science, common sense, and sailing nous.

He will describe the preposterous situation of a Queen Mary sized Ark being tossed hither and thither in a turbulent global sea, it being overloaded with dinosaurs and other massive animals, not to mention those swarms of irritating insects and pests.

OK, what are Ian Plimer's credentials in shipbuilding or navigation?

Ian Rutherford Plimer (born 12 February 1946) is an Australian geologist and professor emeritus at the University of Melbourne.

Thank you, wiki!

Wait, he has some connection:

Plimer is a fellow of the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering

Now, what was he saying again?

the preposterous situation

Pretty please, make it "of living among millions or billions one year, being shut off in an ark, and a year later being lone survivors, a crew of 8" ... that situation is preposterous. But that's how God arranged for our survival.

of a Queen Mary sized Ark

The Ark is actually shorter. Koreans evaluated the Ark to 137 m, while RMS Queen Mary was around 300 m.

being tossed hither and thither

I calculated the rolling period of the Ark, it corresponds to a passenger ship.

in a turbulent global sea,

It would certainly have been turbulent in the bottom streams, touching rock or deposing sediment from hypersaturation. But the turbulence on the surface in a high degree depends on angle of waves. A wave that's 10 m high and 10 or even just 20 m from crest to crest is turbulent. A wave that's equally 10 m high but 100 or 200 m from crest to crest isn't.

Now, the waves can be idealised to circle segments, and the centre of each has a lowest possible placing at the bottom. If a wave of 10 m has a width of 20, probably the sea bottom is sth like 20 m below the crest. But this won't happen if the bottom is about 1 km lower. On the open Pacific, you have winds in which it's unsafe to stand openly on Kon Tiki or Uru, but that's for the risk, of getting swept off the raft. The waves didn't sisk sinking them.

La isla del día siguiente. Crónica de una travesía por el Pacífico** es el relato de esta odisea que lideró Kitín Muñoz y en la que, además de él y de Frattini, ahora con el Reto Pelayo, participaron Pepe de Miguel, Kiko Botana y Juan Ginés García, quienes buscaron emular los pasos del legendario explorador y biólogo noruego Thor Heyerdahl y sus espectaculares viajes con sus naves Kon-Tiki, Ra, Ra II y Tigris.

The Island of the Next Day. Chronicle of a crossing of the Pacific is the story of this odyssey that was lead by Kitín Muñoz and in which, apart from him and Frattini, now with Reto Pelayo***, participated Pepe de Miguel, Kiki Botana and Juan Ginés García, who sought to emulate the steps of the legendary explorer and biologist from Norway, Thor Heyerdahl, and his spectacular voyages with the "ships"° Kon-Tiki, Ra, Ra II y Tigris.

So, Uru and Kon-Tiki were on the Pacific. The Atlantic, where we had Ra and Ra II is less deep. Even there Thor managed. Such waters are not turbulent. Not to an Ark floating sideways in a wave trough where the distance to the crest is safely great.

A large regional Flood would be less safe, since the water would be shallower.

it being overloaded

I don't get that impression, given that one couple of hedgehogs on the Ark easily gave rise to 17 species in 5 genera. There are dog breeds that look more different than Erinaceus Europeaeus does from Hemiechinus auritus.

with dinosaurs and other massive animals,

I'm not a huge fan of Kent Hovind, given his dissertation disses Church Fathers and Alexandrine school, given his insistence "this is not my wife, it's just a picture of her," cute, but is a totally unnecessary polemic against the basics behind Nicaea II in 787, or just his take on alcohol, my grandpa was a distiller. But even Kent Hovind can answer this: if juvenile examples entered the Ark they didn't take up all that much space nor require all that much food. Noah only needed to "take a blue one and a pink one" not necessarily ones that were already ready for reproduction.

not to mention those swarms of irritating insects and pests

I'm not sure how much lice eggs, a k a nits, can survive without a host. But apart from lice, who need human hosts with warm blood, once hatched, I'm not aware of any insect that couldn't theoretically have survived on some flotsam. Genesis 6:20 when mentioning creeping things probably meant reptiles rather than insects. Leviticus 11:20 uses another term for them. So it's not as if the text forced us to believe insects were on the Ark. Those that were (not as passengers) probably were the ones best suited for food (to birds or hedgehogs), perhaps also compostation of waste.

Perhaps I should mention where I did my calculations of number of animal pairs, rolling period, and so on: Baraminological Note · For Sea-Farers .... · Rolling Period of Ark? · Ark : empty weight and freighted weight, number of couples on the Ark. · Small Tidbits on Ark, Especially Mathematical.

With the competence Ian Plimer probably has from the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering, he could arguably prove the feasibility of the Ark better than I, if not as well as the Korean team, but he was set on ridiculing Creationists, so, he gave his techno skills a vacation.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Sts Hermes and Hadrian of Marseille
1.III.2026

Massiliae, in Gallia, sanctorum Martyrum Hermetis et Hadriani.

PS. I was tired this night and didn't attend to the fact that Lord's Days take precedence over most Saints' Days, especially the ones in Lent. It's obviously Second Lord's Day of Lent, also known as Reminiscere, and Sts Hermes and Hadrian are just remembered, not actually celebrated, even in Marseille./HGL

* Genesis, Flood, Ark Mountain (you may need to log in to Academia), despite this passage, the typological readings seem very decent. Edifying. Wish he had left out that non-edifying words, but, but ...

**La isla del día siguiente
http://nauta360.expansion.com/2016/11/03/de_costa_a_costa/1478197268.html

*** I suppose the Spanish means "now in couple with cancer survivor Reto Pelayo"

° Rafts or Egyptian style reed ships.

Two Points Against non-Geocentrics in Creation Ministries International

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Keaton Halley Misses a Beat · Creation vs. Evolution: Two Points Against non-Geocentrics in Creation Ministries International

Yet we were generally accused of mistakenly calling the Tychonian system a kinematic model, instead of a dynamic model. But Tycho Brahe’s system is absolutely a kinematic model (it only describes motion, not the reason for the motion). It is a mathematical system that attempted to explain the then-available data, but did so without physics. It is simply not true to assert otherwise.

True.

However, Riccioli, who wrote an astronomic text book about the Tychonian Universe, called Novum Organum, did discuss the reason for the movement. He presented it as four distinct options before settling for one (a common procedure among theologians at the time, like St. Robert Bellarmine on a heretical Pope says "Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church." ... he has discussed the four other options first, one of them being the absurd one that a Pope ceases to be Pope even at purely interior heresy, which is absurd because an interior and not outwardly expressed heresy would leave the Church at a loss as to whether the man were Pope, since nothing outwardly seemed to barr this). Note, this discussion is about individual celestial bodies, not about Heaven as a whole.

1) Direct action of God.
2) A created but purely mechanical cause, like Kepler suggesting magnetism.
3) Celestial bodies are alive and move by themselves.
4) Angels move them.

He rejected direct action by God, because God creates things so they may be causes, and therefore leaves a lot of things to be caused not directly by Himself, but by a created factor. This leaves the other three options, since mechanics, biology (or quasi-biology) and angels are all created factors.

He rejected a purely mechanical cause, because Celestial bodies are between us and God's Heaven, the Empyraean Heaven over the Fix Stars where God has His throne and throne room. Such things should have a nobler cause.

I think he rejected celestial beings being biological or quasibiological for that reason, that's not as noble as spiritual, but one could add that St. Thomas thought this option totally refuted by the absence of observed changes in the objects (not sure if NASA would today agree with that view when viewing protuberances).

This leaves the fourth view, it is consistent with Scripture — angels are called "morning stars" in Job 38:7, Sun, Moon and Stars are enumerated in Daniel 3:62—63 in a larger list starting with angels in verse 58 down to the just who in Sheol were waiting for Jesus to descend (which the Good Thief didn't need to wait for, Jesus had died before he was killed by breaking of leg bones) in verses 86,87. It is also the opinion of an overwhelming number of approved theologians, Coimbra Jesuits (welcomed in 1542, banned in 1759 by Pombal), Suarez, St. Thomas Aquinas, Nicolas of Lyra (Bible commentator), Nicolas of Cusa and lots more.

So, while the Tychonian view didn't come with an automatic mechanism attached, it also didn't lack a mechanism, that was simply a separate question, given to theologian or philosopher rather than to astronomer as such. Riccioli being a Jesuit priest felt more comfortable handling these questions than Tycho would have been.

Today, we accept a “geokinetic” (moving-earth) view based on the work of Newton and Einstein. For the student of history and/or science, how we came to the modern view is an amazing exploration of how things work and a testimony to the amazing ability to reason that God uniquely put into people.

We live in a created universe, meaning its existence did not come about through naturalistic processes alone. We also live in a well-ordered universe; meaning it behaves according to a set of rules.

However, physics and biology are not the only processes that God governs by law.

He can govern His own direct acts by law — which I think He does every day in moving Heaven as a whole (question previous to above in Novum Organum, and Riccioli was against the opinion I and Thomas hold in common). He can govern the actions of angels by law. For instance, if St. Michael wants to fight Satan over the body of Moses, it's probably out of obedience, and he shows a certain decorum in not reviling even the devil. Or, if the angel who takes the Sun around ... us each day (Riccioli) or the Zodiac each year (Thomas Aquinas and I) wants to show mourning over God being crucified by His creatures, He certainly doesn't do so wilfully, but either asked permission or was given an order by his Creator and Lord.

Therefore, the angelic view, which is the most standard mechanism for a normal Tychonian system, actually does fall within the theological desiderata directly mentioned.

Unfortunately, CMI also voiced this: "We live in a created universe, meaning its existence did not come about through naturalistic processes alone." The problem is, it presupposes a watchmaker God. A God whose divine action sets the universe going and into existance, but where divine interference after that is exceptional.

Paley would not have found a fan in St. Thomas who considered the universe as comparable to an instrument that God first makes as an instrument maker and then plays as a musician.

And what did St. Paul say? Allow me to make numbered underscores in a famous passage from Romans.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven (1) against all ungodliness and injustice of those men that detain the truth of God in injustice Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it unto them For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world (2), are clearly seen (3), being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also (4), and divinity: so that they are inexcusable
[Romans 1:18-20]

1 — we see and they saw it in heaven, i e in the sky.
2 — what is seen did not need geographical discoveries like the Americas or microscope or telescope, but could always be seen
3 — by the naked eye if we aren't totally forgetful of what we are watching
4 — and it's a thing (perhaps among others) where God shows off working every day without any fatigue

God turning the universe around us each day fits all these criteria. However, in the previous question Riccioli posed, he unfortunately denied this. He considered Heaven as a whole is not moved. The historic reason is, to St. Thomas, God was turning the star sphere around us each 23 h 56 min or whatever, this sphere then touches the sphere of Saturn, the sphere of Saturn that of Jupiter, that of Mars, that of the Sun, that of Venus, that of Mercury, that of the Moon and then the atmosphere and then this touches the waters. Tycho refuted the idea of solid spheres, because he proved a comet was not a meteorological but an astronomical phenomenon, it's not in the airs, it's between planets. If I resume the idea God is turning the visible universe (below Empyrean and above Earth) around us each day, I need another mechanism for transmission, and if I have it, Riccioli didn't. However, he considered Thomas' Prima Via as having this meaning.

My own mechanism is, every piece of bodily creation is "bathing" in a substance I'd call aether, which is continuous, not discrete, so, not particles. It's the medium of space (which is why a star moving around us in 23 h 56 min doesn't need to go through the aether in 6.28 times the speed of light, it just follows along the movement of the aether), of light (so, light is waves) and of vectors (which is why Geostationary satellites work: holding a position straight above a fixed place on earth means they have a momentum Eastward through an aether moving Westward). The portion above Earth and below stars behaves like a solid ball that can be moved around, whatever place on it you move around the axis, the other places move along. So, God can do that. When we see a sunrise or a sunset, we see God at work, even on the Sabbath, as Jesus recalled after curing a lame.

A miracle, then, isn't God doing more in His creation than He usually does, but doing it differently from usual, either so we can see it (when He obeyed Joshua and stopped the daily movement Westward for the time of about a day) or instructing us to believe it (when He instructs us to believe He turns bread and wine into His flesh and blood, even if it doesn't show, or a sinner into a saint, at Baptism or Confession).

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Roman, Abbott
28.II.2026

In territorio Lugdunensi, locis Jurensibus, depositio sancti Romani Abbatis, qui primus illic eremiticam vitam duxit, et, multis virtutibus ac miraculis clarus, plurimorum postea Pater exstitit Monachorum.

Resources by CMI I commented on:

Refuting absolute geocentrism
By Dr Robert Carter | Published 27 Aug, 2015 | Updated 06 Sep, 2016
https://creation.com/en/articles/refuting-geocentrism-response

Why the Universe does not revolve around the Earth
By Dr Robert Carter, Dr Jonathan Sarfati | Published 12 Feb, 2015
https://creation.com/en/articles/refuting-absolute-geocentrism

Resources I've used:

1) Liber nonus. De Mundi Systemate
Sectio secunda de motibus caelorum
CAPVT I. An Caeli aut Sidera Moueantur ab Intelligentijs, An verò ab intrinsecò à propria Forma vel Natura. P. 247
http://www.e-rara.ch/zut/content/pageview/194748

Next page : 248
http://www.e-rara.ch/zut/content/pageview/141308

2) Memory of a previous or subsequent chapter about heaven as a whole.

3) My translation of relevant passages is available here:

What Opinion did Riccioli call the Fourth and Most Common One?
Thursday, 28 August 2014 | Posted by Hans Georg Lundahl at 17:24
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2014/08/what-opinion-did-riccioli-call-fourth.html

4) Nearly forgot, an online resource by CMRI, meant to prove "Popes" who think Muslims or Jews worship the true God are not Popes (and I'd add, neither are Evolutionists) by referring to a Latin text by St. Robert Bellarmine:

Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen: St. Robert Bellarmine: What if a Pope [were] to Become a Heretic
https://cmri.org/articles-on-the-traditional-catholic-faith/on-the-roman-pontiff/

They think we haven't had a Pope since 1958, I that we have had Popes with a one year break, again, since 1990, Popes Michael I and II.