I'm Not Ron Wyatt

Before 45 minutes and 1 second to after 45 minutes and 42 seconds:

In one sense it doesn't matter at all. But my concern here is, you know, the reason I'm interested in it is that I don't want Christians to be misled into thinking that we have this powerful confirmation of the Bible that actually turns out to be bogus. You know, pointing to things in social media posts about, oh don't, you know, they've found chariot wheels in the Red Sea and they have the pillars of Solomon and there's a shallow sand bridge here when that turns out not to be true because you know, the danger is if a Christian maybe is convinced that this is proof of the Bible and they believe the Bible for this reason, what happens when somebody else comes along and points out, no, the evidence really doesn't align with this idea. It's based on the claims of Ron Wyatt and he's, you know, proven charlatan in many ways, is their faith going to be shipwrecked as a result?

Why This Red Sea Crossing Theory Doesn’t Hold Water
Creation Ministries International | 11 Sept. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neoYzTGLt0s

Now, Ron Wyatt claimed to have gone to excavations that other people have either criticised or found not really credible.

I'm not making such a claim.

When I refer to a fact, if I "discovered" it, it was by maths and logic, or by going to the Bible text, it was not by personal and ill documented exploits of an explorer.

Even Graham Hancock has looked on more material himself than I have, I'm far closer to him than to Ron Wyatt, except, I'm a Christian.

So, when I say "in 4500 BC, when Laish was founded, it was ..."

2097 BC

74.949 pmC, dated as 4481 BC

I'm referring to a post of mine:

Newer Tables, Flood to Joseph in Egypt

If you go over there, you find there are two other posts around, one from Joseph in Egypt to the Fall of Troy, and one called Preliminaries.

On Flood to Joseph in Egypt, that section is on table III—IV. On preliminaries, you will find III = end of Babel = Göbekli Tepe, birth of Peleg, 401 years after the Flood (II = beginning of Babel = Göbekli Tepe, death of Noah, 350 years after the Flood), and you may disagree with that. You may think Peleg was born 101 after the Flood or 530 after the Flood. You may disagree on Göbekli Tepe being Nimrod's Babel. If so, go to the post Preliminaries to see what I did.

You will also find IV is Genesis 14, real date 1935 BC, carbon date 3500 BC, from the reed mats when the Chalcolithic people of En-Geddi = Asason Tamar evacuated, corresponding to them being attacked in Genesis 14.

Under the nodes III and IV and all other nodes, you will find a date I think is the Biblical date and a carbon date I think is the archaeological item to the Biblical event. And you will find a decimal fraction, which, if converted to percentage fraction, translates as the pmC level of the atmosphere back then.

Under this enumeration of the nodes, you will find how I did the tables between the nodes.

So, if you agree with two consecutive nodes of mine (I/II and VI/VII have been inserted between a I and a II and between a VI and a VII already so identified in previous versions of my tables), you should, unless you insert a node in between them, agree with my table in principle.

But if you don't agree with a table, it should be because you either disagree on its two limiting nodes (Biblical date if you have another chronology or carbon date if you read another article, or identification, if you disagree with my assessment). You are perfectly free to use my method (I appreciate if you acknowledge I gave this cue) according to your own preferences, in an article of your own.

I'd like to see your results and be able to criticise them.

And I'd very much appreciate not to be compared to people who are just asking you to take their word.

Right now, I'm assessing whether I should revise my Exodus chronology to make it Amenophis II. Or Amenhotep II. The video I just cited would actually tell me, if not its author, that this is not the best choice, but I'm still on the fence. Why not? Because Keaton Halley argues that at this time no one was extending "Egypt" into Canaan, even as far as Sinai. From the promise to Abraham, his seed were 430 years in "Egypt" (Hebrew wording of Moses), or in "Egypt and Canaan" (Greek wording of LXX translators), meaning, when Jacob is in Bethel, this is within the 430 years "in Egypt" ... That is not a 19th Dynasty Situation.

I'm happy to get involved in debates on my other "claims" which are also not claims of discovery in the exploration sense, just claims of putting two and two together. From things already known, already published, already discussed in some cases.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
IIIrd LD after Easter
26.IV.2026

PS, obviously, the going after someone in his writings you acknowledge is a far less intrusive way than some to preserve Christians from falling away after trusting him too much or non-Christians from not converting when meeting Christians who still do. Making a deal to keep someone's writings a "secret" is obviously far likelier to bring financial trouble to the person concerned./HGL

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

"Beams of Distant Starlight"

New blog on the kid: Deflating a Star Size, Again, or Two · What Would an Astrophysicist Object, and Why Don't I Buy It? · Supernova of Kepler - 20 000 light years away? · Crab Nebula · Creation vs. Evolution: "Beams of Distant Starlight" · But of Course Astrophysics is a Science, Right ...?

Keaton Halley in a response to feedback* said:

Unfortunately, however, Plantinga does claim that evolution is compatible with Christianity. Is this because he has sufficiently answered the many points of incompatibility that creationists have raised? No. For the most part, Plantinga doesn’t even interact with creationist arguments or the many biblical texts that contradict evolution. In fact, he displays his utter ignorance of creationist literature when he claims that we believe God created the world with built-in fossils and beams of distant starlight (p. 10).

I have indeed not seen any Young Earth Creationist writer (perhaps some pastor making a sermon transscript available) presenting God as creating the world with built-in fossils.

However, my introduction to systematic creation science was a book by one Edgar Andrews. It was Ur Intet, a translation of two writings, that later on in English, after the Swedish example, were published together - From Nothing to Nature. The publication date for this English one volume access to the two writings was 1989, and by then I had left SSHL after completing 12th grade, done two years of university and was starting my military service. The Swedish volume Ur Intet was given me as a birthday present back when I was in ninth or tenth grade, by my mother. I was fifteen in 1983 and 16 in 1984. When I first read it, I had not yet planned on becoming Catholic, and by the end of 1984, I was "down that rabbit hole,"** after revising what I thought I knew about the Inquisition.

Now, in that book, one possibility (cited as such) for distant starlight was precisely beams of distant starlight built-in into creation, or starlight created in transit.

Considering this the only option Creationism has to deal with "Distant Starlight Paradox" is ignorant, but presenting it as one option actually given is not.

My own view is stars were close in creation week, one light day up, and perhaps still are so now. Indeed, this gives an elegant explanation to why the week has seven days with one day of rest. While the light of one star takes 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4 seconds and some to reach earth, the star itself is making 6.2831853 times this distance around Earth and is in the same spot as it was 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4 seconds before, while its light from then is observed. The distance of the radius, the distance covered by light in 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4 seconds, corresponds to week days with work and the fact that the seventh of them is less than half complete means that the Lord's day must have the work burden reduced. Note also, 2π after the obvious 6.28 (twice affirming Exodus 3.14) has decimals that involve 318 (the men of Abraham) or 53 (Hail Mary's in a Third of the Rosary).

This would be impossible if the 0.76 arc seconds in comparison to the c. 20 arc seconds back and forth per year of alpha Centauri were a parallax in relation to aberration - but quite possible if they are instead a proper movement, performed by angels, and Earth shall not be moved.

Other example, when it comes to Dating, the views of Setterfield are sometimes described as the ultimate or only go-to, these implying, apart from another solution to the Distant Starlight (speed of light was higher) also that the decay rates were faster. Again, Andrews can help to answer this, in this case not to say "it exists" (though he may have done that too) but to say there is another solution. One I partly endorse. In the time of the Flood, carbon 14 levels in the atmosphere were much lower, they have risen since then.

However, I do not think we have not yet reached a stable level of carbon 14, rather that we did reach it by part of the time having a faster build-up of carbon 14 levels than now. Between Flood and Fall of Troy in medium c. 5 times faster, but starting out 10 times faster.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Coloman of Stockerau
13.X.2022

* https://creation.com/plantinga-conflict-evolution
cited in
https://creation.com/epistemic-abyss-naturalistic-evolution
** Somewhat irreverent way of putting it, it is after all the Church that Christ founded!

Answering Koukl & Keaton Halley and Gary Bates

Two paragraphs from CMI:

Avoiding the obvious

According to Koukl, “There is nothing in the language of those passages that requires something like a global or universal Flood,” and he has offered arguments in defense of a local Flood on his radio program.2 For example, Koukl noted that in Genesis 8:9 Noah’s dove returned because “the waters were still on the face of the whole earth” (emphasis added), but earlier in verse 5 the text says that the waters had already receded enough so that “the tops of the mountains were seen”. So, Koukl reasoned, if “the whole earth” was still under water after some dry land had already been exposed, then “the whole earth” cannot refer to the globe.

However, this argument is flawed. If the planet was surrounded by water with some peaks poking up here and there, one would still be accurate in saying that the globe as a whole was covered. It wouldn’t mean every square inch of land, but rather that the land, broadly speaking, was submerged.3 The words are perfectly consistent with a global Flood, which the wider context demands.

Faltering on the Flood
by Keaton Halley and Gary Bates
Published: 18 May 2017 (GMT+10)
http://creation.com/local-flood

I disagree on the solution. As to "with some peaks poking up here and there", one could pretend tribes of mankind had survived at Andes and Himalayah's independently of Noah's Ark.

And I think this is wrong, even if an Inca Flood myth speaks of a sibling couples using Andes as Ark.

I think this is not what “the tops of the mountains were seen” really means.

In clear weather, you can see mountain tops down in the water some depth (say at least 1 to 2 yeards, depending on clearness of waters).

If you object that a raven (sent out before the dove) must have been surviving on one peak poking up somewhere, it could have survived on a mat of vegetation which included some carcasses as well. I take it that in verse 5, as yet no piece of land was both visible above waves sometimes and not at other times submerged by water. Or raven can have survived in a tree, hacking down on carcasses floating around it, while a dove needs to pick its food on the ground.

And whether raven survived or not is also moot on whether ravens were a pure bird, with seven individuals or couples, or an impure one, with only one couple. Only in the latter case need the raven have survived. But I think that is the case.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Venantius the Martyr
18.V.2017

A difference of style

I suppose some guys have heard Evolutionists say things like "if we didn't evolve from monkeys, why do we have a tail bone?"

Now, there is one answer, but Kent Hovind and Keaton Halley handle it in stylistically different ways.

Kent Hovind

(from memory):

If you think you don't need your tail bone, I'll pay for you to have it removed.

[+ a few hints about what can happen if you do, involving, I think "I don't advise you to do so"]

Keaton Halley

(citing copypaste-wise)

Some evolutionists have pointed out that there are cases in which a damaged or diseased coccyx has been surgically removed, proving that the coccyx is not essential. But so what? Having a purpose and being essential are not the same thing. The fact that one can live with the loss of a pinky toe, for example, does not demonstrate that it has no function. For that matter, one can live without arms, legs, hair, teeth, and half of a brain—yet all of these parts are clearly operative in a normal, healthy body. If they are missing, either other body parts must compensate, or the body will suffer from the loss.

The same is true regarding the coccyx. This is obvious from the fact that removal of the coccyx means severing those muscles, tendons, and ligaments to which it is attached (and perhaps re-attaching them elsewhere). But personal testimonies are also available online that indicate recovery from a coccygectomy can be difficult—including pain when sitting or moving, not to mention bathroom complications.

[The last point was included in Kent Hovind's hints.]

Keaton Halley's article can be enjoyed in extenso, it is very informative as the sample can make you see, on todays blog post of CMI:

Tailbone “serves no purpose”?
by Keaton Halley Published: 27 April 2017 (GMT+10)
http://creation.com/tailbone

Caption : New York Museum of Natural History misleads the public

I am glad that ma, as med student and back then part time "intern" (if that is the term for a Medicinae Candidatus or Candidata who is working as physician under others at a hospital, before getting Legitimation or even Med. Dr.), was also a creationist, aware that tonsils and appendix are not useless junk.

This, the article linked to, at least for appendix:

Appendix shrieks ‘Creation’ (at least 18 times!)
by David Catchpoole Published: 2 April 2013 (GMT+10)
http://creation.com/appendix-shrieks-creation

Since not a physician myself, what about CMI getting one to write about tonsils?/HGL

PS, here is another goodie for those enjoying biological hard science and finding too little of that over here (except the repeated item of Chromosome Numbers, a k a Karyotypes):

The good, the bad and the evolutionary
Evolutionists designing (their arguments) badly
by Shaun Doyle, Published: 29 August 2007(GMT+10)
http://creation.com/the-good-the-bad-and-the-evolutionary

If you do a video on this one, how about getting a licence from Ennio Morricone for good sound track?/HGL