Someone Has Decided My Apologetics Blogs Cannot Be Shared on FB Walls, own, a friend's or a group's.

Now, the censorship takes different forms.

One is, the URL for this blog infringes on Community Standards.

The next time, it was seen as "looks like spam" ...

Incidentally, and I hope this is really incidental, there are some positions in CMI and in AiG that I don't share, and I say so.

"Neanderthals can't be Nephelim because the Flood wiped all away" ...

God wiped away men who were on the face, i e above surface of the earth. A Neanderthal that's buried was already below earth's surface, so no longer on the face of the earth, when the Flood came. Therefore God didn't wipe those people out. He did wipe the people out who were still walking. Neanderthals, Denisovans, reg'lar post-Flood guys.

I'd probably agree Neanderthals per se aren't Nephelim, because Denisovan / Heidelbergian / Antecessor seems a better candidate. Homo erectus may be a kind of very ugly and stupid Nephelim, or a kind of ugly and stupid person bred to serve the Nephelim in brutality. I base the ugly part on cannibalism of Trinil. And also on the 1922 reconstruction (which however was based on a skull cap, so, the facial features were fantasy). I base the stupid part on the estimate that the average brain size of a Homo erectus was that of a ten year old child. Or an ear which is basically a human ear, but one with a slight tendency to an ape ear's greater thickness, so that a Homo erectus may have heard consonants like K and CH, but not the shriller consonants P and T. A dangerous combination with a more than normally human strength. And if they didn't have the difformity as a punishment to their angelic fathers, as in them being Nephelim, they may certainly have had it as a kind of deliberate breeding of supersoldiers by the Nephelim.

Now, CMI and AiG seem to put great stock on this idea that we have NO human bones from before the Flood, which I see as a misreading of Genesis 6:7, and this means, as long as they do this, they cannot afford to accept my recalibration of carbon dating. It says squarely that if a skeleton is dated to 40 000 BP or earlier, it is pre-Flood. As all Neanderthal skeleta and also Denny (Denisovan) are carbon dated to older* than 40 000 BP, this makes them pre-Flood. Hence, they need to put more doubts on carbon dating than really needed.

Connected to this is the idea, there was no spread of mankind before Babel. "They" in Genesis 11:2 = (according to them) "all the earth" in Genesis 11:1. No spread before Babel allowed, which means that a post-Babel Palaeolithic can be explained by technology loss when some of the groups splitting off from Babel hadn't been specialising in farming.

My view of Babel is, it is Göbekli Tepe and during the period or just after it, farming becomes commonplace. But this obviously means there is a geographic spread of mankind before Babel, which they wrongly think contradicts Genesis 11:1,2. Incidentally, they are Protestants, and Protestants generally misread Matthew 6:7, and incidentally, Luke 11:1,2 is a parallel passage.

Can I really hope they have not been meddling with links to this blog, by reporting it as spam or as against community standards? I'm not sure, but alas, there are other candidates. One could theoretically state that a Secularist, heavily allergic to everything Creation science did it, and I cannot disprove that. On the other hand, if it were the case, and if CMI / AiG were not into a kind of gate keeping (like Judaism about Isaias 53), well, why haven't they made any move to accept my offers of publication and why haven't they defended my freedom of speech at least? Including, in freedom of information, the freedom of others to find me on FB? Perhaps I haven't clearly enough asked for it, but now I do. I hope this is clear.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Conversion of St. Paul
25.I.2025

* The observation only applies to those that are carbon dated, which is not all of them.

Sometimes, I Get the Impression that CMI Has Decided to Treat Me as ... Enquirer, Adult Child, Infidel, God Knows What More

If they want to treat me as an infidel because of my being Catholic, they are inconsistent, they don't treat Chesterton or St. Thomas Aquinas as infidels.

If they want to treat me as a disbeliever in the Bible, they need to show how their interpretation of the relevant passages is water tight. No, it's not about Earth being thousands rather than millions of years old, that's where I agree with them. It's things like Geographic spread before Babel, things like skeleta of men coming from before the Flood, Göbekli Tepe being a candidate for Babel, three things I accept and they reject.

I am in fact a writer (like many on CMI, engaged at times (like most often on this blog) with things related to Creation Science (like CMI), and I claim to be offering a contribution to a problem or if you prefer lack that the overall Creation Science community has long had. The lack of a Creationist Calibration for Carbon 14.

Now, some would argue, there can be no such thing as any reliable calibration for Carbon 14. Some have for instance taken the example of a painting, mainly oil painting, from South Africa being dated to 10 000 years old. The oil painting was obviously from within my lifetime. But the thing is, the dating is of the medium age of carbon atoms in the painting, not of the painting as composition. However, some of the pigments could involve old carbon from the Flood, some could be old if the painter used acrylic colours, which many oil painters do at least for the white foundation, these days. Mixed with that there would be fresher carbon, like the fibres in the linen canvas or the wooden frame.

I do not claim, no one is claiming, or only very ignorant people who want to look smarter than they are, that a calibration will cover every sample, since obviously some samples are off by the bomb effect and some samples are off by the reservoir effect. I also do not claim that a dating unsupported by textual evidence from back then is 100 % certain. But I do claim, a date without any contrary textual evidence according to a calibration is at least as likely to be correct as not, and that the other 50 % of likelihood would be spread around it. So, for instance, if the calibration says that the Dolní Věstonice burial was close to the birth of Shelah, namely a carbon date of 24,000 BC = a real date of near 2812 BC, if there are likelihoods this is not correct, I don't expect them to go back to close to the birth of Arphaxad (also for other reasons, since there would not be all that many people back within the first decades after the Flood) or on to close to the birth of Eber, 84 years before Noah died, I expect this to be true about that carbon date to that post-Flood year and its surroundings.

Now, Robert Carter has taken an opposite view. He thinks* the atmospheric carbon 14 level went up and down several times after the Flood, at least locally, but I'll calculate for globally. I wonder what it would take like that to get Babel = Ziggurat of Eridu, Neanderthals post-Babel and then Genesis 14 carbon dated to 3500 BC. If he doesn't identify the Tower of Babel with the Ziggurat of Eridu, carbon dated to 5400 BC (in the following, I unfortunately used 5000 BC from memory), he obviously has one problem less. In the following I'll be very technical for a while, so I'll put it in a "fact box" ...

Let's use some of the chronology from Osgood**, shall we: So we are in fact dealing with a period between the events of Abraham's life described in Genesis 14 and the conquest of Canaan by Israel in 1406 B.C., a period of 464 years. I get 465 years, but OK. However, I consider Jericho fell in 1470 BC, which puts Genesis 14 in 1935 BC. However, I'll use 1406 and 1870 BC instead. 1870, Abraham was 81, he was born 292 years after the Flood (or perhaps 75 years before Terah died physically?***), which would make 1870 BC 373 or 433 years after the Flood. 1870 + 373 = 2243 BC 1870 + 433 = 2303 BC I'll use the latter to give Carter a maximum of headway. But I'll have to use a low pmC for the Flood for the Neanderthal dates to remotely work. Version A 2303 BC 1.504 pmC, 34 697 extra years, dated as 37,000 BC 2202 BC° 71.286 pmC, 2798 extra years, dated 5000 BC (2202 + 1870) / 2 = 2036 BC 2036 BC 1.013 pmC, 37964 extra years, dated as 40 000 BC°° 1870 BC 82.104 pmC, 1630 extra years, dated as 3500 BC. Version B 2303 BC 1.504 pmC, 34 697 extra years, dated as 37,000 BC 1963 BC°°° 69.255 pmC, 3037 extra years, dated 5000 BC (1963 + 1870) / 2 = 1917 1917 BC 0.998 pmC, 38083 extra years, dated as 40 000 BC°° 1870 BC 82.104 pmC, 1630 extra years, dated as 3500 BC. Now, for some maths ... first the rises, implying for years the decay of original C-14, in percentage, the addition of new C-14, normally now, in pmC, the actual addition, again in pmC, and the ratio of how much higher production: Version A 101 years => 98.786 %, 1.214 pmC. 267 years => 96.822 %, 3.178 pmC. Version B 340 years => 95.971 %, 4.029 pmC. 47 years => 99.433 %, 0.567 pmC We'll just deal with how much faster in the shorter period of rise. Version A, dealing with 2303 to 2202 BC: 1.504 * 98.786 / 100 = 1.486 pmC remaining 71.286 - 1.486 = 69.8 pmC added 69.8 / 1.214 = 57.5 times faster production than now. Version B, dealing with 1917 to 1870 BC 1.504 * 99.433 / 100 = 1.495 pmC remaining 82.104 - 1.495 = 80.609 pmC added 80.609 / 0.567 = 142 times faster than now. The most radical rise would be two less radical ones if we placed Babel midway in the life of Peleg. Now, let's take a look at another factor. After Babel we need to get down to a Neanderthal dating pmC level. This subdivides into Babel carbon with modern addition and Flood carbon. We want the proportion for them to arrive at post-Babel Neanderthal dating carbon. Version A Babel-carbon, 166 years 98.012 %, 1.988 pmC 71.286 * 98.012 / 100 + 1.988 = 71.857 pmC Flood carbon, 267 years 96.822 %, no addition 1.504 * 96.822 / 100 = 1.456 pmC Even 100 % Flood carbon and all atmospheric carbon vanished would not account for Neanderthals dating to 42 000 BP or older, since 1.456 pmC only gives 35,000 extra years. Version B Babel carbon, 46 years 99.445 %, 0.555 pmC 69.255 * 99.445 / 100 + 0.555 = 69.426 pmC Flood carbon, 386 years 95.438 %, no addition 1.504 * 95.438 / 100 = 1.435 pmC. Again, not even 100 % Flood carbon replacing all the atmospheric carbon there was would account for Neanderthals dating to 42 000 BP or older, 1.435 pmC gives only 35100 extra years. Compared to this, putting Neanderthals pre-Flood and giving a single post-Flood rise taking a few centuries more runs into neither of these difficulties. Version HGL 2957 BC 1.628 pmC, 34000 extra years, dated as 37000 BC. 1935 BC 82.753 pmC, 1565 extra years, dated as 3500 BC. 1022 years 88.371 %, 11.629 pmC 1.628 * 88.371 / 100 = 1.439 pmC remaining 82.753 - 1.439 = 81.314 pmC added 81.314 / 11.629 = 6.99 times as fast. I think the latter is much more feasible without involving a radioactive total disaster on Earth. Even with parts of that time having a rise as steep as 20 times today's production. To compare, Carter's double rise (at least)~ as far as I can make sense of his views. To be fair, he doesn't say double rise, but "not fully mixed" would hardly lead to parts of atmosphere dating to 5400 BC and other parts to 40,000 BC at the same time. Or especially to urban areas getting the higher C-14 and areas with Neanderthals the lower in a badly mixed atmosphere. So, what remains would involve sth like "rise, fall, rise again" ... with a rapid rise, but a single one, of the overall atmosphere, it's unlikely that mixing problems would lead to radically different directions of carbon dates and real dates in some stretches.

Obviously, if he doesn't endorse Petrovich, and his idea of Babel dated to 5400 BC, that's some less problems for him, but he could have said so.

Now, I think I may have made it clear to those who carefully read the comparison in the fact box, between his presumable implications and mine, that I have made a substantial contribution to the field. The guys on CMI don't seem to think so. I'm concluding that they are kind of shutting off the technical detail I provide, and instead categorising my contribution as the spoof by a scoffer, as insecurity in painfully minute details that aren't that important, as my simply bungling things, when I don't arrive at the same conclusions as they, as the blindness of a "nominal Christian" who was never truly saved, as the incomprehensible ravings of someone demon possessed, and why don't I just carefully listen to their much more mature take, and start to get on board?

Well, perhaps what they would most eagerly want to know might be why a homeless person imagines he can become a learned man, from the street. And my very simple response would be: turn the question around! How does a learned man (if not a full baked PhD) become homeless? Or if he's learned while homeless, how does he remain homeless? Well, the answer to the latter is, by running into people who ask why a homeless person imagines he can become a learned man, from the street. People who think they owe a homeless man, perhaps even lots of patience, tenderness, generosity, prayers, BUT not anything like intellectual curiosity.

The situation can have been aggravated by some people listening to people on the spot who imagine they are doing me some kind of favour by denying I'm a die-hard Young Earth Creationist and a few other positions that are not very popular over here. Such denials would involve lots of systematic reinterpretation of my statements, and in such reinterpretations the kind of thing I did in the fact box would be untranslatable and incomprehensible, a crude residue of pure irrationality and gibberish. Simply because it shows I'm really a Young Earth Creationist, and really think one can bend science to that position. As unpalatable to some as admitting I really put Mussolini (at least most of his carrreere) over Olof Palme (apart from revoking eugenics of a type Mussolini never had) and definitely over Per Albin Hansson (who introduced eugenics), that I really dislike painting even National Socialists with too broad a brush, that I really am Roman Catholic (the type of which some say we recrucify Christ every Mass and we worship Mary as a goddess, to name two strawmen), that I'm really Geocentric, that I really believe in angelic movers. And really think I can handle moderate drinking even in the street.

As long as they (people over here) step in to hide what I'm actually saying, because they think they do me a favour, that's even more damning to any prospect of a decent life than the kind of attitudes I am guessing CMI could have.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Gertrude
16.XI.2024

Notes:

* Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl: Correspondences on Carbon Dating, Often Davidic and Exodus Times
Sunday, 14 April 2024 | Posted by Hans Georg Lundahl at 05:05
https://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2024/04/correspondences-on-carbon-dating-often.html

** From Abraham to Exodus
By Dr A.J.M. Osgood
https://creation.com/from-abraham-to-exodus

*** 205 - 75 = 130, 130 - 70 = 60, 292 + 60 = 352, 352 + 81 = 433

° I'll do another one with the Babel event later in Peleg's life. Note, according to Petrovich, Babel is the Ziggurat of Eridu, dated to c. 5000 BC.

°° The youngest Neanderthal is dated to 42 000 BP.

°°° This poses Babel at Peleg's death! As said.

~ In my correspondence with him, he says:

If we have rapidly rising ¹⁴C levels, we cannot even assume the atmosphere would be fully mixed during the transition period. Throw in an Ice Age, shifting atmospheric circulation patterns, vast amounts of old carbon being dumped into the biosphere via vulcanism and via the erosion of calcium-containing rocks, a collapsing magnetic field, and who knows what bombarding us from outer space, and I fully suspect that the oldest measurements will be far from precise.

The Ark was Not a Portal from Narnia, Mike Russell!

I saw Mark Harwood's response to your book's review by Akos Balogh. It was apparently double posted both to CMI and to The Daily Declaration. On the latter site, I saw Akos Balogh's review, and I think this review confirmed what I suspected when reading Mr. Harwood. You have posited that God created mankind in two separate worlds, and that the world of Genesis 1 to 9 is a different one from ours. In Genesis 6 to 9, the other world is destroyed and somehow Noah is even so watching waters recede around the mountains of Ararat (or Urartu or geographical Armenia) in our world.

There are three destructions of the world. The Flood. The Death of God on Calvary. The one schedualled for Apocalypse 21:1. If you want, the fall itself was also a destruction of the world, or perhaps it wasn't, because the destructions are meant to clean up, and the Fall absolutely didn't do that.

When people on Good Friday want to bed that night, they went to bed in a world that was destroyed. When they woke up two mornings later on Easter Sunday, they woke up in a new world. But this doesn't mean that they went through a portal, like the Wardrobe or the painting featuring the Dawn Treader or the door in the wall around Experiment House. It means that the outermost and therefore most surrounding and englobing layer of our space time, the Empyrean Heaven, changed constitution. A different Heaven looks down on us, one in which the pearly gates are opened to human souls and to glorified resurrected human flesh, which was not the case in the Old Covenant. Henoch and Elijah are certainly in some Heaven to which Earthly Paradise was transferred, but not in the throne room of God. They will only get there when they have been martyred in Apocalypse 11. Ezechiel saw this throne room, not by getting displaced there, but in a vision. In a tele-vision, arranged by good angels, just as much as Our Lord saw far off kingdoms in one arranged by Satan.

For the Flood and for the upcoming change in Apocalypse 21:1, there is also a change in quality of earth. In the Flood, Earthly Paradise was taken up into some kind of Heaven, below the Empyrean one. Earth got higher mountains and deeper deep sea trenches like the Mariana Trench. This will be reversed in Apocalypse 21:1. One of the better Lutherans of my country, far removed from the Deformers, though not a Catholic, Franzén, wrote a hymn for Advent season, in which he alludes to Isaiah 40, to these verses:

The voice of one crying in the desert: Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight in the wilderness the paths of our God Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low, and the crooked shall become straight, and the rough ways plain
[Isaias (Isaiah) 40:3-4]

The exaltation of valleys and lowering of mountains was metaphorical in the first coming. It refers to minds. The humble were going to dare to approach God and the highly placed were going to be shown they needed to, as Our Lady stated in Luke 1:52. But in Apocalypse 21:1, the Mariana Trench will be exalted and dried (the sea was no more), and the Himalaya's will not be much higher than Newport Beach in California.

So, we are not dealing with portals, precisely as I Corinthians 15 is not speaking of metempsychosis, a removal of the soul from a material body and its placing in a different one, but of the change in quality that the material body will experience, if that of a person finally saved and glorified, when the tombs give up their dead. By the way "the crack of doom" doesn't mean tombs "cracking" open, but the noise that makes or that the trump of doom makes. The term "crack" is cognate with the German Krach, noise. Just as Irish-English and Irish Gaelic from English "craic" refers to the noise of festivity.

But to get to smaller matters than the doctrinal ones, how do you figure Tower of Babel in "our world" (on your view a very old one, with carbon 14 in the atmosphere presumably already close to 100 pmC) at a real date of 2370 BC? Here is a list of events that by carbon dating and similar have been dated to 24th C. BC, I'm excluding the last one, since Korean "mythology" is arguably more like into real dates than into carbon dates:

• c. 2900 BC–2334 BC: Mesopotamian wars of the Early Dynastic period continue.
• c. 2400 BC–2000 BC: large painted jar with birds in the border made in the Indus River Valley civilization and is now at Museum of Fine Arts, Boston
• 2400 BC–There is archaeological evidence that the site of Assur was occupied at around this time.
• c. 2360 BC: Hekla-4 eruption.
• c. 2350 BC: The 2350 BC Middle East Anomaly (apparent comet or asteroid impact) happened.
• c. 2350 BC: End of the Early Dynastic III period in Mesopotamia.
• c. 2350 BC: Lugal-Zage-Si of Umma conqueres Gu-Edin and unites Sumer as a single kingdom.
• c. 2350 BC: First destruction of the city of Mari.
• c. 2345 BC: End of Fifth Dynasty. Pharaoh Unas died.
• c. 2345 BC: Sixth Dynasty of Egypt starts (other date is 2460 BC).
• c. 2340 BC–2180 BC: Akkadian Empire.
• c. 2334 BC–2279 BC: Semitic chieftain Sargon of Akkad's conquest of Sumer and Mesopotamia.

These, mostly carbon dated, events need to be after Babel, since they show the earth was already divided into different languages and cultures. Take a look at this* Korean Neolithic pot:

As it is carbon dated to 3500 BC (misspelled BCE in the attribution details), this is from a time, in our world, when the atmosphere was such and which was so far back in time, that taken together, this today yields a carbon age of 5500 years or in other words, we today observe a level of 51.411 pmC.

As it is in a culture different from other cultures at the same time, it is post-Babel.

On my recalibration of carbon 14, this is not a problem. In a cave near En Geddi, Israeli archaeologists have found treasures dated (through the reed mats) to 3500 BC, and this fits the Biblical narrative of Genesis 14. However, if this happened 3900 years ago, and if the original carbon 14 level was 100 pmC, we'd find a level of 62.389 pmC in the samples, which clearly we don't.

However, if carbon 14 was low back then so as to account for 1565 extra years, the original content in the sample and therefore in the back then atmosphere (all over earth, presumably) would have been 82.753 pmC. Now watch this:

82.753 pmC * 62.389 % of original content / 100 (since % is counted twice) = 51.629 pmC left in the sample today.

This is close enough to the 51.411 pmC or around that acually found.

But if the atmosphere in our world was 4.5 billion years old, there is no way that the carbon level 3900 years ago would have been as low as 82.753 pmC all over the atmosphere.

I've already written elsewhere on the impossibility of Evolutionary origins of Man, for instance as to Human language.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Leonhard of Limouges
6.XI.2024

Lemovicis, in Aquitania, sancti Leonardi Confessoris, qui fuit beati Remigii Episcopi discipulus. Hic, nobili genere ortus, solitariam vitam delegit, et sanctitate ac miraculis claruit; ejusque virtus praecipue in liberandis captivis enituit.

The article by Balogh:

Does the Bible Speak of Two Worlds? A Fascinating Rethink of Genesis
Akos Balogh | 23 October 2024 | BIBLICAL | The Daily Declaration
https://dailydeclaration.org.au/2024/10/23/two-worlds-genesis/

* A Korean Neolithic pot found in Busan, 3500 BCE
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistoric_art#/media/File:Korea-Neolithic.age-Pot-01.jpg

Good friend100 at English Wikipedia - Transferred from en.wikipedia to Commons. Korean neolithic pot, found in Busan. Taken from the Korea National Museum.

Public Domain File:Korea-Neolithic.age-Pot-01.jpg Created: 21 July 2007 Uploaded: 12 December 2007

CMI Seems to Have a Will to Hammer Away Geocentrism

New blog on the kid: Heliocentrism aggravates the wound of ignorance? · Creation vs. Evolution: Sigh. There Are People Who Consider Me a Conspiracy Theorist Already · CMI Seems to Have a Will to Hammer Away Geocentrism

No, the Earth Is NOT Flat!
Creation Ministries International | 2016 18 Oct.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y28OaM5c0Fg

I'll cite two dialogues, somewhat beyond the 10 % provided by fair use legislation.

3:13 — 5:02

Gary Bates

And then there’s another area, where … called geocentrism which are these ideas that in fact the universe revolves around the earth.

Now you with Surveyor of course you helped land a craft on the moon.

Now the moon orbits the earth. So when that Surveyor spacecraft left the earth, where did you have to aim, in advance.

Dr Henry Richter

Well we know the laws of planetary motion and the laws of physics that determine it. And we can compute with great precision where the moon was 100 years ago or where it’s going to be in 100 years from now.

And so when we launch toward the moon or a planet we know about the arrival time and we have to compute where the planet will be in its motion around the sun at that point.

The moon rotates around the earth. It took several days for Surveyor to get there. We knew the speed and the arrival time.

So we could compute just where the moon was, set the guidance system to aim for that point in space so it meets the moon at the proper place at the proper time.

Gary Bates

In other words it intersects its path.

And of course the moon orbits the earth, so that wouldn’t be a violation of what a geocentrist believes.

But now, what about when we send satellites out into those far reaches of space.

We’re intercepting planets like Saturn or Jupiter or even Pluto as they’ve done recently.

It takes years for those craft to travel there.

So if I said to you something like, in fact, the clockwork motion of the planets, I think, is an attribute of God’s design. Would you agree with something like that?

Dr Henry Richter

Oh, absolutely.

I'd disagree. The motion may be very clockwork like, but it is not a clockwork motion. If it were, God would be a designer who then left the designed object to run its own course. Paley is a kind of Deism.

Planetary motions are not just a tribute to God's design, but also of angelic beings guiding them with great precision.

9:21 — 10:04

Gary Bates

So Rob, when I interviewed Dr Henry Richter we talked about design in the universe. He talked about the laws of planetary motion. And, of course, those planets obey gravity.

Gravity is something you and I can test here on earth and in fact, Isaac Newton is credited with the discovery of gravity, one of the greatest scientists, arguably, who ever lived.

He professed to be a Christian.

Dr. Rob Carter

—And a creationist.—

Gary Bates

The laws of planetary motion devised by Johannes Kepler.

Dr. Rob Carter

—Another Christian, great testimony.—

Gary Bates

Another Christian, etcetera.

I understand that there’s a genuine motive in all of this. People believe that they’re wanting to have a high view of Scripture.

Dr. Rob Carter

Absolutely.

... the dialogue with Rob Carter got involved with gravity, without spelling out the implication, and they started spelling out "Sun and Jupiter are bigger than earth" without spelling out the implication of that, and then before they could get back to it, they were bogged down by Flat Earthers denying "Sun and Jupiter are bigger than earth" and forgetting that they had promised and were not keeping the promise of also arguing against Geocentrics who are not Flat Earthers.

There are two possibilities:

• 1) Gravity is the only motor of motions, along with inertia tending to prolong a movement already initiated, well the implications of this are Heliocentrism holds. But what is it an implication of? Pretty often of Atheism or Deism and especially denying Angelic movers (including denying as not being aware they are even a theory and being so used to not knowing it, you dismiss the theory offhand when you hear it).
• 2) Gravity and inertia are not the only motors of planetary motion, God told angels where to steer them. In this case, "Jupiter must orbit the Sun, Earth must orbit, if not Jupiter, as too far, at least the Sun" is not implied, since the movements can be determined by other factors than only inertial and gravitational orbitting.

Rob Carter also (actually first) basically pretended there are passages in the Scripture which would if taken strictly literally (without considering context) spell out the earth as flat. No, not one single such. I challenged Hannam to provide, and he didn't.

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl: With James Hannam on Whether Bible and Fathers Agree or Not on Shape of Earth
https://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2015/04/with-james-hannam-on-whether-bible-and.html

There is a passage of Scripture which was not cited as purported proof of Geocentrism to be refuted by context. Romans 1, verses 18 — 20.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven 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, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.

What exact part of natural theology is St. Paul talking of? I can agree with Jonathan Sarfati that the flagellum of the bacterium and the failure of the Miller Urey repeat would add to natural theology. But this can't be what St. Paul was talking of. Because, they are recent discoveries. Imagine someone had in the NT used Babel to appeal to the historic memories of the Jews. He would have been added to by the discovery of Göbekli Tepe, but he would not have been referring to that discovery, he would have been referring to traditions as those in Josephus and especially the inerrant and inspired part of them put by Moses into the book of Genesis, in a place now referred to as chapter 11, verses 1 to 9.

But St. Paul was here not stating anything about Plato or Aristotle having access to Jewish tradition. He was stating their idolatry was inexcusable, because natural theology. Here is an analysis of Aristotle:

Based on what Aristotle proves in Metaph. Λ6-8 and Phys. Θ5, I reconstruct Aristotle’s cosmological proof as follows. Having accepted the astronomical findings of his time, Aristotle believes that there are fifty-five heavenly bodies in the universe.10 Aristotle also establishes an important principle, namely, that what is moved must be moved by something (ἐπεὶ δὲ τὸ κινούμενον ἀνάγκη ὑπό τινος κινεῖσθαι, Metaph. Λ8, 1073a26).11 On this basis, Aristotle states that among these heavenly bodies, A is moved by B, B is moved by C, and C is moved by D. However, this would lead to an infinite regress, which Aristotle does not recognize. Because of the limited number of heavenly bodies, the chain of moving and being moved among them cannot enter infinite regression. In addition, Aristotle’s universe does not allow for infinity because, in his view, the universe is finite, bounded, and cannot expand infinitely, in contrast to the Big Bang theory of recent scientific cosmologists, according to which the universe has no boundaries and is still expanding. In the case of an Aristotelian finite universe and a finite number of heavenly bodies, one can either recognize the last two heavenly bodies interacting or establish a heterogeneous first mover to end this infinite regression. Aristotle does not recognize the interaction between the heavenly bodies12 but believes that there must be a first mover that moves the heavenly bodies without being moved by anything else.13 Given the prohibition of infinite regression, Aristotle thus deduces God as the First Mover from the moved heavenly bodies.

On Proofs for the Existence of God: Aristotle, Avicenna, and Thomas Aquinas
by Xin Liu, Department of Philosophy, Nanjing University, Nanjing 210023, China
Religions 2024, 15(2), 235*
https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/15/2/235

I would disagree on the possibility of expansion into infinity as disproving the supposition of Aristotle that infinite regress is impossible, since an infinite regress would depend on a regress of already existing and therefore actual infinity, while the expansion, as supposed by Big Bang, is an expansion into potential infinity. The universe is at each point still finite.

But I would totally agree that this was the proof of God that Aristotle had in mind. And God turning the universe around earth each day would be a very perfect illustration of God's eternal power. One that's not just observable now, not just observable in St. Paul's time, not just observable in the time of Aristotle, but which had been observable since back in the time of Adam, and even two to five days** before he was created. In other words, this is a perfect match to what St. Paul is talking about.

So is Plato's tracking of the human mind back to God, it's not just the visible things that are made, but also the invisible things that are made, that show the invisible things of God. This is the proof of God repeated by C. S. Lewis in Miracles. Both Aristotle and Plato offer proof that's not often repeated by CMI, because they are scientists, not philosophers, not trained to deal with that kind of stuff. But St. Paul was speaking of the philosophical proofs from everyday experience, not of specifical science facts discoverable only by microscopes. The latter are valuable, they add to that, but they are not what St. Paul is mainly talking of.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Vigil of Assumption
14.VIII.2024

Vigilia Assumptionis beatae Mariae Virginis.

PS. "the flagellum of the bacterium and the failure of the Miller Urey repeat" While, as said, not the prime example of what St. Paul was talking about, CMI do have very good resources on them, and when Geocentrism is culturally out, these are a valuable standin. Enantiomeric amplification of L amino acids: part 1—irrelevant and discredited examples, The Miller–Urey experiment revisited, The Amazing Cell Evidence for creation and against evolution!

Let me quote the middle one of these links:

Studying Table 2 in this paper ... they failed to detect the proteinaceous amino acids phenylalanine, proline, histidine, tyrosine, lysine, asparagine, arginine, or glutamine.

Abiogenesis from "Primordial Soup" is, pun intended, dead in the water./HGL

* https://doi.org/10.3390/rel15020235
** Before God turned the mass of planets (including Sun and Moon) and of stars around earth each day, since day IV, He had been turning the division of light and darkness around earth since day I (see St. Augustine, De Genesi ad Literam Libri XII, Book I, which has a longer discussion of what the days were before there was a Sun).

Do I Reject Natural Selection?

I'm writing this on St. Genevieve's Day, Jan. 3, but leaving previous posts on top to honour Christmas.

Some people don't go to my main blog and see me honour Christmas there, this year I had two Christmas themed things that were also Genesis themed, so, I can show the guys who read only this one, I do honour Christmas.

Here is CMI:

The fact of natural selection
First published 16 Nov 2014; last updated 23 Nov 2023.
https://creation.com/natural-selection-fact-contra-guliuzza

Here are a few featured positions commented on in this post:

• Guliuzza believes God could have programmed kinds to be able to do "continuous environmental tracking";
• he denies that the term "natural selection" is appropriate, since it personifies nature, which is undue.
• CMI accepts natural selection as being at work in preserving different genes in different environments.
• CMI accepts epigenetics as partially fulfilling the role of "continuous environmental tracking".

Here is the argument by CMI for natural selection:

CMI scientists are unanimous that natural selection is a fact, and part of this fallen creation where unfit creatures die and sometimes even become extinct. Creationists proposed it before Darwin, so why should we be fearful of the term, and let Darwinists monopolize this phenomenon? So our major books like The Greatest Hoax on Earth? and Evolution’s Achilles’ Heels each have a whole chapter explaining this.

Now, I accept epigenetics and reject other options for "continuous environmental tracking. However, this is not directly telling us why kinds diverge into different species that keep different genes.So, it is not really the issue.

But I also accept Guliuzza's rejection of the term "natural selection" for two reasons:

• "nature" is quasi personified into an agent
• it involves "survival of the fittest".

Instead I propose "providential selection", that is God is constantly using the kinds for his purposes, and on some occasions letting the fittest survive is not the means that best serves God's purpose.

Psalm 103 (as it is in Catholic Bibles), also a go to for Geostasis,* has a few verses.

20 Thou hast appointed darkness, and it is night: in it shall all the beasts of the woods go about: 21 The young lions roaring after their prey, and seeking their meat from God. 22 The sun ariseth, and they are gathered together: and they shall lie down in their dens.

Often when lions hunt gazelles, the weakest and naturally slowest gazelle is the one caught, which means in a way the culling of the least fit. However, this would not necessarily mean gazelles are all the time primed to be fitter and fitter, it would, if totally systematic, mean that God in that way preserves a gazelle population from degrading.

However, there are occasions when this is clearly not so, since the slowest gazelle might be slowest for being born last. It could have excellent material genetically and epigenetically. But it would on such an occasion still be lost. Or the gazelle caught could have stumbled on an obstacle, if the fright by the lions came very abrupt for all the gazelle herd, each gazelle off-tracked when it came to detecting stumbling blocks, it would be a matter of providence that this particular gazelle was the one which took the path that led to the stumbling.

There is even a Biblical example:

Genesis 22:13 Abraham lifted up his eyes, and saw behind his back a ram amongst the briers sticking fast by the horns, which he took and offered for a holocaust instead of his son. 14 And he called the name of that place, The Lord seeth. Whereupon even to this day it is said: In the mountain the Lord will see.

If you have any sense of what sacrifice means, it is inconceivable that God was culling a herd of its least fit member, rather the ram had the absolute best genetic material, and was not transmitting more of it, when Abraham was done.

So, instead of "natural selection" I propose a "providential selection" which often, but far from always, coincides somewhat with what "natural selection" would predict.
/Hans Georg Lundahl

* It's neutral between flat earth Geostasis in a boxed universe that could be vertically assymetric, and globe earth Geostasis in a globe shaped or orange shaped universe, which by definition means Geocentrism. I hold to the latter.

Some CMI Classics Aren't Classic

Creation vs. Evolution: Some CMI Classics Aren't Classic · Tas Walker 2015 vs Tas Walker 2008 · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Tas Has Sth to Say About the K-Ar Date of a Rock

In the days of Peleg
by Larry Pierce, This article is from
Creation 22(1):46–49, December 1999
https://creation.com/in-the-days-of-peleg

There are three errors common in biblical chronology today. ... Third, there are those who would lengthen the biblical chronology. One of the earliest were those rabbis in Egypt who translated the Hebrew Bible into Greek to produce the Septuagint (LXX) in the third century BC. They arbitrarily added about 700 years to the biblical chronology for the period between Noah and Abraham, to make it agree with the works of Manetho. If what they had done was correct, then Peleg would be dead and gone (as would most of the leaders of the division of the nations) before the Tower of Babel happened.

Strawman.

Many modern biblical archaeologists, like the translators of the LXX, are just as guilty of the same thing today. Just as the LXX’ translators listened to the fairy tales the Egyptian priests told them, most modern biblical scholars follow the just so stories told by secular historians and archaeologists who push the founding of Babylon and Egypt back thousands of years.

Bad comparison.

Why is the comparison bad? Why is it a strawman?

First, why do I answer this in the first place? I have often linked to CMI, as their work is partly parallel and mainly complementary to mine, despite them being Protestants. Also, they were in the field before me. Also, the views per day would be more numerous than mine. Much of my readership has for all three reasons a probability to consult them about what I write. If they are stating sth which would if taken seriously make me look bad, my readers are likely to be aware of it. CMI are aware of it, they have classified me as a spammer who needs no response. The problem with that approach is, it precludes debate. Either way, they are beyond reasonable doubt aware of it.

A few days ago, I actually sent them an article which I gave them the right to use.

It involved the "admission" or rather explanation that my Biblical chronology followed the Roman Martyrology for Christmas Day. The samples I gave in it made it clear, this is a LXX based chronology. I also made a claim that carbon dates can be accurately calibrated to Biblical chronology (it could be made with Ussher chronology too, I suppose, but the problem is this would need a faster carbon 14 rise, which would need more radioactivity to achieve). It also involved as a conclusion from the recalibrated carbon dates, as opposed to the uniformitarian ones, that Yamnaya culture was too late to be the common ancestor of all Indo-European languages, if that is what happened.

The article immediately brought to sight was not the one above, but another retake of an article from the same issue, which made me look up this article. It is Radioactive ‘dating’ failure The problem is, this is worded in the title as if the unreliability basically totally of K-Ar (and it really is unreliable) disproved any and all radioactive dating methods, even carbon 14 in a modified shape. But back to the claim of Larry Pierce that this would contradict the lifespan of Peleg.

10 And these [are] the generations of Sem: and Sem was a hundred years old when he begot Arphaxad, the second year after the flood. 11 And Sem lived, after he had begotten Arphaxad, five hundred years, and begot sons and daughters, and died. 12 And Arphaxad lived a hundred and thirty-five years, and begot Cainan. 13 And Arphaxad lived after he had begotten Cainan, four hundred years, and begot sons and daughters, and died. And Cainan lived a hundred and thirty years and begot Sala; and Cainan lived after he had begotten Sala, three hundred and thirty years, and begot sons and daughters, and died. 14 And Sala lived an hundred and thirty years, and begot Heber. 15 And Sala lived after he had begotten Heber, three hundred and thirty years, and begot sons and daughters, and died. 16 And Heber lived an hundred and thirty-four years, and begot Phaleg. 17 And Heber lived after he had begotten Phaleg two hundred and seventy years, and begot sons and daughters, and died. 18 And Phaleg lived and hundred and thirty years, and begot Ragau. 19 And Phaleg lived after he had begotten Ragau, two hundred and nine years, and begot sons and daughters, and died. 20 And Ragau lived and hundred thirty and two years, and begot Seruch.		10 Καὶ αὗται αἱ γενέσεις Σήμ. καί ἦν Σὴμ υἱὸς ἑκατὸν ἐτῶν, ὅτε ἐγέννησε τὸν ᾿Αρφαξάδ, δευτέρου ἔτους μετὰ τὸν κατακλυσμόν. 11 καὶ ἔζησε Σὴμ μετὰ τὸ γεννῆσαι αὐτὸν τὸν ᾿Αρφαξὰδ ἔτη πεντακόσια καὶ ἐγέννησεν υἱοὺς καὶ θυγατέρας καὶ ἀπέθανε. 12 Καὶ ἔζησεν ᾿Αρφαξὰδ ἑκατὸν τριάκοντα πέντε ἔτη καὶ ἐγέννησε τὸν Καϊνᾶν. 13 καὶ ἔζησεν ᾿Αρφαξὰδ μετὰ τὸ γεννῆσαι αὐτὸν τὸν Καϊνᾶν ἔτη τετρακόσια καὶ ἐγέννησεν υἱοὺς καὶ θυγατέρας καὶ ἀπέθανε. Καὶ ἔζησε Καϊνᾶν ἑκατὸν καὶ τριάκοντα ἔτη καὶ ἐγέννησε τὸν Σαλά. καὶ ἔζησε Καϊνᾶν μετὰ τὸ γεννῆσαι αὐτὸν τόν Σαλὰ ἔτη τριακόσια τριάκοντα καὶ ἐγέννησεν υἱοὺς καὶ θυγατέρας καὶ ἀπέθανε. 14 Καὶ ἔζησε Σαλὰ ἑκατὸν τριάκοντα ἔτη καὶ ἐγέννησε τὸν ῞Εβερ. 15 καὶ ἔζησε Σαλὰ μετὰ τὸ γεννῆσαι αὐτὸν τὸν ῞Εβερ τριακόσια τριάκοντα ἔτη καὶ ἐγέννησεν υἱοὺς καὶ θυγατέρας καὶ ἀπέθανε. 16 Καὶ ἔζησεν ῞Εβερ ἑκατὸν τριάκοντα τέσσαρα ἔτη καὶ ἐγέννησε τὸν Φαλέγ. 17 καὶ ἔζησεν ῞Εβερ μετὰ τὸ γεννῆσαι αὐτὸν τὸν Φαλὲγ ἔτη διακόσια ἑβδομήκοντα καὶ ἐγέννησεν υἱοὺς καὶ θυγατέρας καὶ ἀπέθανε. 18 Καὶ ἔζησε Φαλὲγ τριάκοντα καὶ ἑκατὸν ἔτη καὶ ἐγέννησε τὸν Ραγαῦ. 19 καὶ ἔζησε Φαλὲγ μετὰ τὸ γεννῆσαι αὐτὸν τὸν Ραγαῦ ἐννέα καὶ διακόσια ἔτη καὶ ἐγέννησεν υἱούς καὶ θυγατέρας καὶ ἀπέθανε. 20 Καὶ ἔζησε Ραγαῦ ἑκατὸν τριάκοντα καὶ δύο ἔτη καὶ ἐγέννησε τὸν Σερούχ.
Genesis 11 page 1 and page 2, LXX with English translation.
Arph. 2 to 537 AF (after the Flood) Cainan 137 to 597 AF		Sala 267 to 727 AF Heber 397 to 801 AF Phaleg 531 to 870 AF

In the graph, I see "2242 BC Tower of Babel (Manetho)" ... without much explanation. So, lets assume the Tower of Babel had been mentioned as such by Manetho, and given a time reference which adds up with its relation to his time to 2242 BC, in and of itself possible, Peleg would at least have been pretty old when it came to be. Let's see, Creation* 5500 BC, minus 2242 = Flood* in 3258 BC, minus 870 after Flood, sure enough, in this case, yes, Peleg would have been already dead when it happened, a total counterintuitive oxymoron.

But I have verified, this is not what happened. Manetho's Book of Sothis is not independently available, it is cited in George Syncellus who made an Ussher method based Biblical chronology, but one based on the LXX. So, arguably, if Manetho had claimed the tower of Babel was in 2242 BC, this would preclude this agreeing with Pelegs placement in George Syncellus' chronology. But that would have meant that Syncellus was disagreeing with Manetho.

In fact, Manetho's Book of Sothis is a fragment, that is only available in the citation it gets in Syncellus.** Let's first see a footnote on it.

The Book of Sôthis which Syncellus believed to be the genuine Manetho, but which in its original form was based upon Eusebius and Josephus, is dated by Gutschmid to the third century after Christ. It is not possible to divide the kings of this "Cycle" into dynasties, for their sequence is unchronological: e.g. 18‑24 belong to Dynasties XIX and XX, 26‑29, 32 to the Hyksôs period, 33‑48 to Dynasty XVIII, 49, 58 to Dynasty XIX, 50, 51 to Dynasty XXVI, 59‑61 to Dynasty I, 63‑67 to Dynasty XXI, 68‑70 to Dynasty XXIII, 74 to Dynasty XXIV, 75‑77 to Dynasty XXV, and 79‑86 to Dynasty XXVI.

The Book of Sôthis includes names taken from another source than Manetho.

Hardly likely, if the book of Sothis had given us an indication for 2242 BC, that this would be better proof than the LXX. But if we look at the content of the actual page, it is mainly a series of king names. And the mention of the Tower of Babel is in a comment by Manetho under name 25. Here are that name 25 as well as Syncellus comment.

25. Concharis, 5 years.

In this 5th year of Concharis, the 25th king of Egypt, during the Sixteenth p239 Dynasty of the Sôthic Cycle as it is called in Manetho, the total of years from the first king and founder of Egypt, Mestraïm, is 700 belonging to 25 kings, i.e. from the general cosmic year 2776, in which the Dispersion took place in the 34th year of the rule of Arphaxad 7 and the 5th year of Phalec. 8 Next in the succession were 4 kings of Tanis, who ruled Egypt in the Seventeenth Dynasty for 254 [259] years, according to the following computation.

As you may have noticed, the Biblical mentions are only in Syncellus' comment. Manetho is no independent source for Menes' real name being Mestraim, alias Mitsraim, nor for the Tower of Babel, nor for its relation to Arphaxad (somewhat obscure, a kind of thought lapse?) and to Phaleg. And, even more, no mention of the Tower of Babel being in 2242 BC. He places it in Anno Mundi 2776. In order to translate this to BC, you need to know that Syncellus considered Christ as born some time between 5500 and 5509 Anno Mundi.

5500 BC = 0 AM
2776 AM =
2724 BC

What would be the age of Phaleg in this year?

2242 AM (Flood)
+531 AF
2773 AM

He would have been three years old.

To be fair, there really were authors who (seemingly at least) placed Tower of Babel in the ballpark of 2242 (or nine years later 2234) BC.

The year was 331 BC. After Alexander the Great had defeated Darius at Gaugmela near Arbela, he journeyed to Babylon. Here he received 1903 years of astronomical observations from the Chaldeans, which they claimed dated back to the founding of Babylon. If this was so, then that would place the founding of Babylon in 2234 BC, or about thirteen years after the birth of Peleg. This was recorded in the sixth book of De Caelo (‘About the heavens’) by Simplicius, a Latin writer in the 6th century AD. Porphyry (an anti-Christian Greek philosopher, c. 234–305 AD) also deduced the same number.

But the problem is, does this "founding of Babylon" correspond to Tower of Babel? I would say no. But even over and above that, Syncellus used Manetho and LXX, Simplicius and Porphyry used neither. I cannot locate the sixth book of Simplicius, and the Aristotelic work he comments on has only four books ... Syncellus obviously did not use Aristotle. But if he had, he might have concluded for the date being about the founding of Classical Babylon, not the Nimrodian one. Yes, I think there is a distinction, and since some time back, I think*** Classical Babylon was originally called Agade, was Sargon's capital before he "founded Babylon" and also after he did so, namely by renaming Agade, after conquering a location in Turkey, Sinjar province, which before his time (and I would argue only from some time after Peleg's birth) had been the location known as Bab-ilu or Hebrew Babel. So, 2234 BC could be referring to Sargon rather than Nimrod.

So, while the article seems to throw a bad light on my view of Göbekli Tepe being Babel and LXX being a good chronology, unjustifiedly so.

Now, I found this as said via an article on Radioactive ‘dating’ failure, while this is technically correct, this old article glosses over (or rather hadn't begun to notice) that there could be a difference between K-Ar (what the article actually talks about) and C14.

The reason I got to making a Biblical recalibration for C14 is I had a kind of trust in that one, which someone on FB seemingly independently put to the test. Not sure if he wants credit on my blog, I'll for now just cite the responses I made to him, which include minimal quotations from his comments.

"Also, C14 has not reached equilibrium. It's been calculated by Creation scientists to take 30,000 years to reach equilibrium, making the Earth less than 30,000 years old."

I think "has not reached equilibrium" is wrong, what we see now is variation around it (up to recent emissions of old carbon).

If C14 hadn't reached equilibrium, why would C14 dating work pretty well and in accordance with known history around known historic objects for past centuries back to Christ and beyond to fall of Troy (greatest deviation from 100 pmC being in the times of the Hallstatt plateau)?

"The point is, the C-14 dating method is junk science. It can't be accurate, because other science disproves it."

There is in fact no other science, including theology, that disproves it.

Theology proves it needs recalibration after Biblical events rather than continuing with dendro-chronological calibration after that becomes insecure (further back then etc).

But theology doesn't disprove the method as such. Nor does any natural science.

By theology, I don't mean anything else than Biblical history, its chronology, and potentially theological ramifications of the chronology. Note, I said it doesn't disprove the method as such, but it certainly disproves the older dates in the currently most often used calibration. I e, theology proves a need for this to be recalibrated.

Now, why would I have any kind of trust in just this one radiometric method? Well, for one it works in relation to recent three millennia.

For another, one of the Creationist classics about this one, namely the "still ongoing" rise in it, gave me the hunch that it could be and most importantly for a Biblical recalibration, formerly have been, rising. A rising C14 level would mean the successive real dates are put into successive datings by two processes:

• as even now, and imperfectly, by older samples having decayed more of its initial carbon 14
• but on top of that, to even out the imperfections or swings, by older samples having less and less initial content the further back you go.

This is how 2958 BC, 2557 BC, 1936 BC° carbon date°° to 37 000, 8600, 3500 BC, i e a much wider span of time than in reality.

I could suspect that CMI looked for an old issue which had two articles contradicting me, and then just in case I should miss it also sent someone to the FB group where I am known to make the points there.

But it could also be, they simply prayed, and God answered their prayer in a way that unexpectedly gave me the opportunity to justify my position, rather than retract it. Whether they were devious in the way first suggested or simply "cautious" and then prayed as suggested this paragraph, I think I can thank God for the opportunity.

It remains that Larry Pierce did a far from professional job. Per se fine, but doesn't really put CMI in a position to boycott me for my (real or at least culturally perceived) lack of professionality. I suspect he did some face to face seeking for feedback numbers could have tumbled over each other to his ears, and he could have inserted one year which was a numeral for a time span, not a date, and misunderstood what was Manetho and what wasn't Manetho.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
XXI Lord's Day after Pentecost
22.X.2023

PS, it seems the guy I stumbled on was a documentarist, which means, he would very arguably like the publicity even if I think he's wrong on detail.

Here's a sneak peek at my upcoming documentary, where I will prove the Book of 1 Enoch was written by Noah's great grandfather, and I will provide archaeological evidence, matching astronomical movements, matching the text of Enoch, that shows it is the most significant eye witness evidence of a young Earth

The Mystery of Enoch - Sneak Preview
David Willhite, 21 Dec. 2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=tLp6VgTkbE0

To which I responded by looking up Josephus (mentioned in video) and commenting:

// ...Now this Seth...did leave children behind him who imitated his virtues.... They also were the inventors of that peculiar sort of wisdom which is concerned with the heavenly bodies, and their order. And that their inventions might not be lost before they were sufficiently known, upon Adam's prediction that the world was to be destroyed at one time by the force of fire, and at another time by the violence and quantity of water, they made two pillars; the one of brick, the other of stone: they inscribed their discoveries on them both, that in case the pillar of brick should be destroyed by the flood, the pillar of stone might remain, and exhibit those discoveries to mankind; and also inform them that there was another pillar of brick erected by them. Now this remains in the land of Siriad to this day. //

I will not deny that sons of Seth could well have done this before the Flood, but I think Noah could have brought a model on the Ark, and Göbekli Tepe is a copy of that model by Nimrod.

A k a Babel.

It could also be, Nimrod was more of an astrologer than the sons of Seth, and Josephus being that too but having a negative view of Nimrod (correctly so) replaced that into the pre-Flood world, so as to exonerate it from being by Nimrod (who was obviously a son of Seth by the way) — or some of his predecessors did so.

PPS, same FB group started to get 2 more posts of videos debunking radiometric dating in general. For the one we see an enumeration of methods in the time stamp, it doesn't cover C14. For the other I'm basically verifying it halfways through or a third through, it seemingly wants to give the impression carbon 14 isn't any good either, without actually stating so and without adressing its specificities. The fact that carbon 14 has been found in fossils supposed to be millions of years old doesn't prove the method is fundamentally flawed. The fact it gives in the first instance ages that are inflated beyond Biblical, a k a real timeline shows there needs to be a recalibration. This I have already done, and it's kind of being cancelled./HGL

PPPS, if anyone wonders why I follow CMI at all, some of their classics really are classic. Here is one:

Is Jesus Christ the Creator God?
by Russell Grigg, This article is from
Creation 13(3):43–45, July 1991
https://creation.com/is-jesus-christ-the-creator-god

* Syncellus' chronology involves a few more centuries than that of the Roman martyrology. In the latter, creation is in 5199 and Flood in 2957 BC (or 5200 and 2958 BC, since Christ is not born in "year zero" but in "year 1 BC" = most of the year was before He was born), this also makes 2242 years in the Genesis 5 genealogy.

** Appendix IV The Book of Sôthis or The Sôthic Cycle
This webpage reproduces a section of The Fragments of Manetho
https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Manetho/Appendices/4*.html

*** And here I looked up my source:

An Upper Mesopotamian location for Babel
by Ken Griffith and Darrell K. White | This article is from
Journal of Creation 35(2):69–79, August 2021
https://creation.com/babel-upper-mesopotamia

° Flood, Babel dispersion (end of Babel occupation), Genesis 14.
°° By tephra from a supervolcano, considering these belong to the Flood, by charcoal layer uppermost in Göbekli Tepe, by reed mats for evacuation of temple treasures from Amorrhaean En-Geddi.

Does I Tim. Cite the Gospel of St. Luke as Scripture? Probably Yes.

CMI made a response post* about claims of NT being Scripture in the sense of Sacred Scripture.

The person writing them finished, without this nuance being noted:

There is NOT one passage in the Greek "Bible" where the "writer" of a book in the NT Greek writings claims to be speaking the inspired words of YHWH.

Perhaps he should note that the Greek translation of the Old Testament, YHWH (or JHVH, as one writes in German or Swedish) is given with a circumlocution, "ὁ κύριος" (like the usage of reading Adonai in Hebrew).

But the answer has a very important and somewhat elusive formulation:

The books accepted by the church have the ring of truth and divine authority and are entirely consistent with prior revelation, unlike the Gospel of Thomas, the Qur’an, or the Book of Mormon, for example.

Like the OT books were collected twice over by Kohanim, first by Ezra, then in the Maccabee period (and the Pharisees and Judaism took Ezra's canon, confirmed as exclusive at Jamnia, the Church took the later canon), so the NT books were also collected by someone. By "the church" - well, what Church?

Now, the CMI has a habit of not referring to the authority by which Christ invested His Catholic Church, and as a result, they take cross referencing between Scriptures as important. To me it is so, and that because it confirms the books were accepted by the Catholic Church in stages, as they were written.

One item they give is certain:

For example, Peter recognized Paul’s letters as Scripture (2 Pet. 3:15–16),

Indeed. But they omit:

in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.

A warning against taking just any and every interpretation that passes through one's mind without sooner or later checking with the Church - over the centuries, may I add (some apparent "Catholic authorities" today contradict the teaching of centuries).

The other item, I am less sure:

and Paul quoted Deut. 25:4 and Luke 10:7 together, calling them both Scripture (1 Tim. 5:18).

Here is the verse:

For the scripture saith: Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn: and, The labourer is worthy of his reward.

When I searched synonyms for the latter, "The worker deserveth his wages" I found four OT passages that can be resumed so or as The labourer is worthy of his reward.

"And I will come to you in judgment, and will be a speedy witness against sorcerers, and adulterers, and false swearers, and them that oppress the hireling in his wages; the widows, and the fatherless: and oppress the stranger, and have not feared me, saith the Lord of hosts."
[Malachias (Malachi) 3:5]

"If any man hath done any work for thee, immediately pay him his hire, and let not the wages of thy hired servant stay with thee at all."
[Tobias (Tobit) 4:15]

"And every excellent work shall be justified: and the worker thereof shall be honoured therein."
[Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) 14:21]

"Thou shalt not calumniate thy neighbour, nor oppress him by violence. The wages of him that hath been hired by thee shall not abide with thee until the morning."
[Leviticus 19:13]

If St. Paul had said here verbatim "it is written" one could not suspect this, since this would clearly indicate a verbatim quote, perhaps composite, but not reduced to resumé, but he said "the scripture saith" - however, it is still probable that it means a verbatim quote, and that the Gospel of St. Luke was already available. Even so, the wording could have been an already traditional resumé of the given teachings, so it was used both by Our Lord in St. Luke, and by St. Paul.

It is also possible that Timothy personally knew Luke and knew of what he was writing, while in progress.

Of him S. Paul is supposed to speak: (2 Cor. viii. 18.) We have sent also with him (Titus) the brother, whose praise is in the gospel, through all churches: and again, Luke, the most dear physician, saluteth you: (Coloss. iv.) and, only Luke is with me. 2 Tim. iv. Some are of opinion that as often as S. Paul, in his Epistles, says according to my gospel, he speaks of the Gospel of S. Luke.

This is from the Haydock comment Preface to the Gospel of St. Luke. Nevertheless, here are dates from Haydock comment for St. Luke and for 1 Timothy, the first same source as above:

This evangelist did not learn his gospel from S. Paul only, (who had never been with our Lord in the flesh) but from the other apostles also, as himself informs us in the beginning of his gospel, when he says, according as they have delivered them unto us; who, from the beginning, were eye-witnesses, (autoptai) and ministers of the word. His gospel, therefore, he wrote as he heard it; but the Acts of the Apostles, from his own observations; and both, as some believe, about the same time in which his history of the Acts finishes, towards the year of Christ 63. But the received opinion now is, that S. Luke wrote his gospel in Achaia, in the year 53, ten years previously to his writing of the Acts, purposely to counteract the fabulous relations concerning Jesus Christ, which several persons had endeavoured to palm upon the world. It does not appear, as Calmet observes, that he had ever read the gospels of S. Matt. and S. Mark.

Here is the Preface to 1 Timothy:

S. Paul passing through Lycaonia, about the year 51, some of the brethren at Derbe or Lystra recommended to him a disciple, by name Timothy, who from his infancy had studied the Holy Scriptures. S. Paul took him, making him his companion and fellow-labourer in the gospel: and not to offend the Jews, who could not be ignorant that Timothy's father was a Gentile, he caused him to be circumcised. Afterwards he ordained him bishop of Ephesus. Wi. — S. Paul writes this epistle to his beloved Timothy, to instruct him in the duties of a bishop, both in respect to himself and to his charge; and that he ought to be well informed of the good morals of those on whom he was to impose hands: Impose not hands lightly upon any man. He tells him also how he should behave towards his clergy. This epistle was written about thirty-three years after our Lord's ascension; but where it was written is uncertain: the more general opinion is, that it was in Macedonia. Ch. — After his epistles to the Churches, now follow those to particular persons; to Timothy and Titus, who were bishops, and to Philemon. Timothy was the beloved disciple of S. Paul, whom he frequently styles his son; but it is not certain that they were at all related. After having accompanied the apostle in many of his travels, the latter at last ordained him bishop, and fixed him permanently at Ephesus. Shortly after he wrote him this epistle, to instruct him in the episcopal duties, as he was but young for those great functions. He might be then about thirty-five. He mentions, likewise, in short the chief heresies which were then making mischief at Ephesus, and gives regulations and instructions for different states of persons in the Church. S. Timothy, who had been so long the disciple of S. Paul, and who never left him except when ordered by his master, could not be ignorant of his duties, but it was destined for the use of bishops of every age. Hence S. Austin says that such as are destined to serve the Church, should have continually before their eyes the two epistles to Timothy and that to Titus.

So, St. Paul and St. Timothy came to know each other in AD 51, before the Gospel of St. Luke was ready, but this epistle is much later, I'll cite it again so you don't miss it:

This epistle was written about thirty-three years after our Lord's ascension; but where it was written is uncertain: the more general opinion is, that it was in Macedonia. Ch.

Ch = Challoner. 33 + 33 = 66. The epistle was written around a decade after the Gospel, and therefore, yes, St. Paul is giving an actual quote from it.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Scholastica of Monte Casino
10.II.2023

Apud montem Cassinum sanctae Scholasticae Virginis, sororis sancti Benedicti Abbatis, qui ejus animam, instar columbae, migrantem e corpore in caelum ascendere vidit.

* Does the New Testament claim to be God’s Word?
Feedback archive → Feedback 2015
https://creation.com/new-testament-gods-word

How Much is the Pre-Flood World?

How Much is the Pre-Flood World? · How Much is Genesis 1 - 11

2242 years / 7222 years = 31.044 % of time.

Why did I calculate?

If several lineages from a single baramin were preserved on the Ark, then it could give an unexpected signal in baraminological statistical analyses. A bit over a quarter of Earth history is before the Flood.* If a baramin diversified greatly before the Flood, resulting in several ‘kinds’ at the time of Noah, and the lineages remained separate and continued to diversify after the Flood, one might find clustering (associated with a specific lineage) within a larger cluster (encompassing the kind). Certainly, this pattern could happen with even post-Flood diversification; however, multiple ‘Ark kinds’ from a baramin is likely to increase the frequency of and intensify such a signal.

* My emphasis.

https://creation.com/created-kinds-vs-ark-kinds

I am Stopping their Video at 11:34

Here it is:

Chimp-Human DNA: Less similar than previously reported
CMI Video | 9 Nov. 2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlNLoEGu0po

They are saying 450 million nucleotides would have had to be produced, if evolution were true.

Here are the data they base it on. I'll give it in blockquote so as not to credit myself, even if it's not an exact quote, but a summary of what they had previously said:

3 billion base pairs in the human genome.

16 % dissimilarity between man and chimp by two more recent studies than the famous "1 %" or "99 %" study.

480 million? As the similarity was actually somewhat above 84 %, the dissimilarity is actually below 16 %. So, replacing 480 million with 450 million is not a big deal.

What about 240 million? If half the mutations are on the chimp side, only half need be on the human side. Or 225 million.

How much would that take?

6 million years since Ardi (most recent species cited as common ancestor of men and chimps).

20 years per generation.* 6 million years by 20 = 300 000 generations.

240 000 000 / 300 000 = 800 mutations per generation.
225 000 000 / 300 000 = 750 mutations per generation.

That meaning net actually getting into all of the gene pool mutations. Not like one generation making 750 mutations between all different parts of the ancestry, but one generation making so many that are in fact also preserved.

Let me explain a bit.

We have 23 chromosome pairs. Each in two examples.

We all have one example each from the father, one example each from the mother (Adam, Eve and Jesus being exceptions).

For the generation before that, we cannot for instance have 23 chromosomes from one grandparent unless we also lack any from the other one. So, each grandparent is ancestral to anything between 0 and 23 of our 46 chromosomes, but around 12 or 13. 46 / 4 = 12.5, but 12.5 is not an option, since chromosomes come only in wholes. Also, 0 or 23 from one grandparent is a highly unlikely option.

When the ancestors become more than 46, we certainly don't have one chromosome from each any more. Some of them are in our lineage, but not in our genetic makeup.

Greatgrandparents. 8 people, often enough 8 different ones. 46 / 8 = 5.75, but 5.75 is not an option. On average, we have 5 or more likely 6 chromosomes from each. Already here, there could be one or two we have nothing from.

Their parents are 16 people. 46 / 16 = 2.875, which is not an option. We have on average three chromosomes from each great-great-great-grandparent, unless one is so more than once.

They have parents that are 32 people (often enough NOT 32 different ones), 46 / 32 = 1.4375, which is not an option, so from each great-great-great-great-grandparent, one has in average one or two chromosomes.

As to their parents, 46 / 64 = 0.71875, which is not an option. On average, one would have one chromosome from each, but zero from 18 of them. If you have two chromosomes from one great-great-great-great-great-grandparent, or from one great-grandparent of a great-grandparent, and he's not such more than once, it means you have zero from 19 of them. If you have three from one or two from two of them, you have zero from 20 of them, except the times the one who gave you more than one chromosome was an ancestor more than once over (meaning, he has more than one Sosa-Stradonitz ancestry number).

From their parents, 128 people, you still get only 46 chromosomes. In other words, variants are being lost all of the time. Obviously, a variant of your ancestor 128 or 255 (these are the extremes known as father's father etc and mother's mother etc) which is lost to you can be preserved in someone else, whom they are also 128 or 255 to. But even so, mutations leading up to becoming man would have been competing with lots of other mutations not leading that direction.

In other words, inheriting about 750 to 800 locus mutations from each generation for 6 million years is pretty unlikely. Unless ...

"it's impossible that that many changes wouldn't have introduced serious genetic defects, which would have destroyed the evolving life forms"

This is said at 11:50 of the video. Get back to it, it is good. Well, so far. But I see no indications it's getting downward.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Andrew
30.XI.2022

Apud Patras, in Achaja, natalis sancti Andreae Apostoli, qui in Thracia et Scythia sacrum Christi Evangelium praedicavit. Is, ab Aegea Proconsule comprehensus, primum in carcere clausus est, deinde gravissime caesus, ad ultimum suspensus in cruce, in ea populum docens biduo supervixit; et, rogato Domino ne eum sineret de cruce deponi, circumdatus est magno splendore de caelo, et, abscedente postmodum lumine, emisit spiritum.

PS There are in some issues just before and just after 20 minutes. Post upcoming with my comments to those, tomorrow./HGL

Notes:
* Confirmed that a chimp generation is not radically shorter:

As they report today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, chimpanzee mothers ranged in age from 11.7 to 45.4 years at the birth of their offspring. The average age of reproduction was 25 years for females and 24 years for males, giving them an average generation time of about 25 years.

Generation Gaps Suggest Ancient Human-Ape Split
The ancestors of today's humans and chimpanzees may have diverged millions of years earlier than thought
13 AUG 2012 BY ANN GIBBONS
https://www.science.org/content/article/generation-gaps-suggest-ancient-human-ape-split

Also states:

When they applied the new rates to the history of all three species, they calculated that humans and chimps split earlier than expected—at least 7 million to 8 million years ago and possibly as early as 13 million years ago. They estimate the split between gorillas and the lineage leading to humans and chimpanzees to 8 million to 19 million years ago.

Are CMI Hearing Me?

Are CMI Hearing Me? · Does Sennaar mean Sumer? · Ken Griffith and Darrell K. White considered Judi, but not Göbekli Tepe · Ah, Griffith and White Provided the Source Too · Sumeria, Damien Mackey, Intellectual Honour · Damien Mackey Has His View on Shinar, Nimrod and Babel

An Upper Mesopotamian location for Babel
by Ken Griffith and Darrell K. White | This article is from
Journal of Creation 35(2):69–79, August 2021
https://creation.com/babel-upper-mesopotamia

For starters, I am disagreeing with Abraham being there two centuries after the dispersion. On Biblical chronology, I am with the Historia Scholastica and the Christmas Proclamation of Martyrologium Romanum.

Next ....

Location. Not too bad.

37°47’48.84”N, 40°22’45.39”E "Babel, cand. C"
37°13′23″N 38°55′21″E Göbekli Tepe

The nearby Çınar, Diyarbakır is between Cizre (238,9 km) and Göbekli Tepe (183 km, distances by car, involve turns, and Çınar is a bit N of the line Cizre to Göbekli Tepe).

Time in archaeology ... could so far not find what "Babel candidate C" is carbon dated to.

Bricks? Well, the finding of bricks is being pushed backwards. They mention that bricks have been found at level XIII of Tepe Gawra. Now, they did not tell and I could not find what carbon date is associated with that level. The wikipedian article on Tepe Gawra says:

Tepe Gawra (Kurdish for "Great Mound")[1] is an ancient Mesopotamian settlement 15 miles NNE of Mosul in northwest Iraq that was occupied between 5000 and 1500 BC. It is roughly a mile from the site of Nineveh and 2 miles E of the site of Khorsabad. It contains remains from the Halaf period, the Ubaid period, and the Uruk period (4000–3100 BC). Tepe Gawra contains material relating to the Halaf-Ubaid Transitional period c. 5,500–5,000 BC.

So, oldest carbon dates are 5500 or 5000 BC. What years would this be on my tables?

2243 B. Chr.
0.657496 pmC/100, so dated as 5693 B. Chr.
2220 B. Chr.
0.680023 pmC/100, so dated as 5420 B. Chr.

or

2153 B. Chr.
0.706677 pmC/100, so dated as 5003 B. Chr.

If the meaning was, this was contemporary with 37°47’48.84”N, 40°22’45.39”E archaeology, I think this could still be too late. If the meaning however is "burned bricks are going back in archaeology" I agree this is good news.

What if I went back in (real/Biblical) time for 5000 BC carbon dates?

Peleg is born 401 after the Flood, 2556 BC.

5000 - 2556 = 2444 extra years, 74.405 pmC in 401 after Flood
5500 - 2556 = 2944 extra years, 70.038 pmC in 401 after Flood

A sample from 401 years ago, if original content were 100 pmC, would have 95.265 pmC. This means 95.265 is the percentage left of original sample - and 100 - 95.265 gives us the normal replacement in 401 years:

100 pmC - 95.265 pmC = 4.735 pmC.

Flood itself, 2.625 pmC (dated 39,000 BP).*

2.625 pmC * 95.265 %
2.625 pmC * 0.95265 = 2.5 pmC

74.405 pmC - 2.5 pmC = 71.905 pmC
71.905 pmC / 4.735 pmC = c. 15 times faster (my own work has 10 times faster)
70.038 pmC - 2.5 pmC = 67.538 pmC
67.538 pmC / 4.735 pmC = c. 14 times faster

What would the effect be in relation to Genesis 14?

2556 BC - 1935 BC (Genesis 14) = 621 years.

Percentage of original and normal replacement in 621 years. 92.763 % and 7.237 pmC.

Level at Genesis 14, 82.73 pmC** - sorry, just checked** - 82.753 pmC.

Let's compare normal replacement with actual replacement of C14, and we start by calculating the remainder from the 2556 level that's left in 1935 and deduce that from the total 1935 level.

74.405 pmC * 0.92763 = 69.02 pmC
82.753 pmC - 69.02 pmC = 13.733 pmC
70.038 pmC * 0.92763 = 64.969 pmC
82.753 pmC - 64.969 = 17.784 pmC

13.733 pmC / 7.237 pmC = 1.898 times faster
17.784 pmC / 7.237 pmC = 2.457 times faster

So, if Babel's end were in carbon dated 5000 or 5500 BC Flood to Babel would have seen 14 to 15 times faster replacement than normal, but in Babel to Genesis 14 it suddenly drops to around twice as fast - less than between Genesis 14 and the death of the childkilling pharao, if he was Sesostris III*** which is 3 times the present normal replacement.

But as said, they did not say that Tepe Gawra XIII and 37°47’48.84”N, 40°22’45.39”E were identical. They even said that Pre-Pottery Neolithic A is a good period to look:

The Bible states that Noah was the first farmer after the Flood (Genesis 9:20). In archaeology the ‘Neolithic’ are considered the first farmers, and the PPNA is the oldest known Neolithic culture. Therefore, we expect that the PPNA is a good place to look for the Tower of Babel.

While burnt bricks have so far neither been found in 37°47’48.84”N, 40°22’45.39”E, nor in Göbekli Tepe, the lower level of Tepe Gawra could go back to 5000 BC carbon dated, which is as mentioned 2153 BC.

2607 BC or begin of Babel - 2153 BC = 454 years

Perhaps not too long between the first actual bricks and the first so far found bricks.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Martin of Tours
11.XI.2022

Turonis, in Gallia, natalis beati Martini, Episcopi et Confessoris; cujus vita tantis exstitit niiraculis gloriosa, ut trium mortuorum suscitator esse meruerit.

PS, don't miss the delicious argument they made that Sargon first ruled in a city named Akkad (it hasn't been found separately from Babylon) and then conquered a place in modern Turkey called Babylon, and then renamed Akkad into Babylon. Their article really is worth reading./HGL

Notes:
* Checking. 39000 BP = 37000 BC - 2957 BC = 34043 extra years. A recent sample back then would have dated to "34043 years ago." Which gives 1.628 pmC. My bad.
** Checking. 3500 BC - 1935 BC = 1565 extra years, 82.753 pmC
*** If the childkilling pharao was later than Sesostris III, we need a higher pmC in 1590 BC, meaning the disproportion even further increases.

So, Starting to Answer ... 1 & 5, 2, 3a ...

Is Joseph = Imhotep Still Defensible? · So, Starting to Answer ... 1 & 5, 2, 3a ... · 3b) they think the Egyptian defense was too good for a people to invade them + compression

Take points 1 and 5 first.

1) Doesn't lead to any controversy with CMI. Nevertheless, the point I am coming from is, by the time of the Trojan War (which Christian scholars over centuries have seen as a real series of events, even if some explanations, like the magic about Achilles "invulnerability" would be misrepresented) carbon dates and real dates have started to merge.

This happened before King David, so, by the times of Solomon and Rohoboam, uniformitarians would no longer be misdating things from back then (other than slightly).

5) The most salient parts of the LXX chronology is of course Genesis 5 and 11, and the differences between Roman martyrology and Ussher after these times would be due to other things. Nevertheless, I do have some regard for scholars who did this calculation, notably St. Jerome, so, I would place Exodus in 1510 BC and the beginning of the soujourn 215 years earlier, 1725 BC. And I am here speaking of actual years, not misdating due to undue regards for carbon dating or Egyptian lore.

This brings us to beginning of the soujourn the number 2 in previous.

2) They put him under a Hyksos pharao. An Egyptian one, they argue, would have hated shepherds. Once they got an Egyptian one, the hatred for Hebrews took on.

My objections would be:
a) for reasons of that chronology, I am putting Joseph before any Hyksos pharaos;
b) the Egyptian hatred for shepherds dates from when, and how intermittent or durable was it?

So, for instance, would someone in the Old Kingdom already be hating shepherds (Djoser was in the Old Kingdom)?

3a) they think the Hyksos came with the chariots, so must have preceded the chariots of the pharao

My tables place the Exodus in the real year 1510 BC, but in the space between carbon years 1671 and 1618 BC, these being my values for the real years 1521 and 1498 BC, 11 years before and 12 years after the Exodus.*

This means the Hyksos could well have arrived with chariots and if they were Amalecites, this could be pharaos who did not know Joseph.

The problem is, these values come in a table where the salient years at the start and end with nodes are 1590 at birth of Moses and 1470 at taking of Jericho, and I posed Sesostris III as dying at the birth of Moses. This is based on ...

Searching for Moses
by David Down | This article is from
Journal of Creation 15(1):53–57, April 2001
https://creation.com/searching-for-moses

and when trying to find it right now, I saw there had been some debates on it ...

I think I'll pause and see how that debate went.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Day after Sts Simon and Jude
29.X.2022

PS, after pause** : 1) David Down's view on Exodus need not be linked (though it was in his case) to his wholesale acceptance of Velikovsky's chronology, taught under Sir Colin Renfrew in Cambridge, apparently; 2) he wanted to have Thutmosis III as Shishak; 3) both he and his critics assumed:

JDA

Secondly, if you move the 12th dynasty forward 350 years, you have to move the rest of them forward by the same increment as well. This would place the New Kingdom (the 18th and 19th Dynasties) existing from roughly 1200 BC to 950 BC.

DD

Yes, it does mean that other dates have to be reduced and that includes the 18th dynasty, but that is a bonus because it brings Thutmosis III down to the time of Solomon and Rehoboam and identifies him as the Shishak of 1 Kings 14:25.

My tables are on the contrary assuming a compression between 12th and - for instance - 22nd dynasties, with - for instance - Shoshenq I still as Shishak.

I have not so far taken into account the possibility of a compression this far on. Except in much earlier versions of my tables, where the meeting point of carbon and real is more like Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem. Which is too late./HGL

* Creation vs. Evolution : New Tables
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/08/new-tables.html
** Pdf from 2006:
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j20_1/j20_1_43-44.pdf

Is Joseph = Imhotep Still Defensible?

Is Joseph = Imhotep Still Defensible? · So, Starting to Answer ... 1 & 5, 2, 3a ... · 3b) they think the Egyptian defense was too good for a people to invade them + compression

CMI has over a few articles accumulated a few objections. They prefer the idea of Joseph's pharao being a Hyksos pharao.

They could of course have notified me, when I was notifying them on my tables, a few times even I think.

Now it's a few years' delay, and I am confronted with it at once. Following article and some it leads on to:

Is CMI confusing Egyptian chronology?
Feedback archive → Feedback 2022
https://creation.com/confusing-cmi-egyptian-chronology

1) For starters, I do not endorse any other synchrony than Shishak = Shoshenk.

2) Second, here is the first divergence. I put Joseph, as Imhotep, under Djoser (also called Geser or Zozer).

They put him under a Hyksos pharao. An Egyptian one, they argue, would have hated shepherds. Once they got an Egyptian one, the hatred for Hebrews took on.

3) I have endorsed the idea that the Exodus led to the Hyksos invasion = Amalecite invasion.

They oppose this based on their view on 2, but also for two other reasons:

a) they think the Hyksos came with the chariots, so must have preceded the chariots of the pharao;
b) they think the Egyptian defense was too good for a people to invade them.

4) I endorse the idea, Egyptian chronology is decent from New Kingdom on (after both Hyksos and Exodus), but too ill documented before that to get a real argument against compression with Bible and my carbon dating tables.

They say that the chronology is too well established to allow such compression.

5) For Biblical chronology, they use Masoretic, I use Roman Martyrology, a version of LXX chronology.

If they are right, I have some recalibration to remake in my tables. Stephan Borgehammar warned me a few years ago, but referred to source material I could not get at unless basically buying books, which my situation does not allow. The sites he linked to have been less upfront on the arguments than CMI are.

Meanwhile, this is a preliminary opening on the questions, I'll wait to later with answering.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Sts Simon and Jude
28.X.2022

To Show that Creationists Too are True Sc ...

No True Sc... · To Show that Creationists Too are True Sc ...

In yesterday's memo, they were showing some Sc ... rigour.

Insert Scottish or Scientific after taste, here is the link:

Soft tissue in fossils vs fossilized soft tissue—A clarification
by CMI Editors, 25.X.2022
https://creation.com/soft-tissue-clarification

When was the Upper Palaeolithic? Flood to Babel or post-Babel?

Origen has a few sermons on Genesis. The one on the Flood states that the words of Lamech about Noah (in Genesis 5:29), namely:

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.

... are only fulfilled typologically, in Christ, it is impossible to have them fulfilled in the son of Lamech back then.

In fact not. The Palaeolithic means the society of hunter-gatherers. And hunter-gatherers do in fact repose from agriculture.

So, was the Palaeolithic (after the démise of Neanderthals at least) post-Flood or post-Babel?

Kent Hovind compares the post-Flood situation to a Gilligan's Island scenario. CMI and AiG seem to have a preference for putting this Palaeolithic (and even the Neanderthals) post-Babel. Technology loss due to populations splitting up.

And I think the answer is given : it was Noah, not Nimrod, who brought repose from agricultural pursuits./HGL