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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1870 BC

82.104 pmC, so dated as 3500 BC (1)

1636 BC

97.562 pmC, so dated as 1840 BC (2)

1446 BC

100 pmC, dated as 1446 BC.

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

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

1870 BC

82.104 pmC, so dated as 3500 BC

1831 BC

84.652 pmC, so dated as 3208 BC

1792 BC

87.187 pmC, so dated as 2925 BC

1753 BC

89.71 pmC, so dated as 2651 BC

1714 BC

92.222 pmC, so dated as 2383 BC

1675 BC

94.721 pmC, so dated as 2123 BC

1636 BC

97.562 pmC, so dated as 1840 BC

The first table is quite OK.

1636 BC

97.562 pmC, so dated as 1840 BC

1598 BC

97.703 pmC, so dated as 1790 BC

1560 BC

98.194 pmC, so dated as 1711 BC

1522 BC

98.683 pmC, so dated as 1632 BC

1484 BC

99.17 pmC, so dated as 1553 BC

1446 BC

99.655 pmC, so dated as 1475 BC

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

1636 BC

97.562 pmC, so dated as 1840 BC

1598 BC

98.123 pmC, so dated as 1755 BC

1560 BC

98.682 pmC, so dated as 1670 BC

1522 BC

99.238 pmC, so dated as 1585 BC

1484 BC

99.791 pmC, so dated as 1501 BC

1446 BC

100.342 pmC, so dated as 1418 BC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Coloniae Agrippinae sancti Heriberti Episcopi, sanctitate celebris.

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

Suppose I were Wrong on Chronological Matches Related to Egypt?

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

What would a revised chronology look like?

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

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

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

I check and find this article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gives a table of:

1830 BC

81.708 pmC, so dated 3500 BC.

1724 BC

86.369 pmC, so dated 2935 BC.

1618 BC

90.971 pmC, so dated 2400 BC

1512 BC

95.515 pmC, so dated 1891 BC

1406 BC

100 pmC, so dated 1406 BC.

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

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

Gives a table closeup of:

1512 BC

95.515 pmC, so dated 1891 BC

1459 BC

97.764 pmC, so dated 1646 BC

1406 BC

100 pmC, so dated 1406 BC.

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

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

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

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

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

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

1634 BC

93.251 pmC, dated as 2212 BC

1612 BC

95.145 pmC, dated as 2023 BC

1590 BC

97.033 pmC, dated as 1839 BC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

Has the Carbon 14 Level Reached Stability?

In my own work, I say it has:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Calculations

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

* Feedback article:

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

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

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

Wrong Solution, Guys (Probably)

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

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

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

That pattern being, half paragraph a little earlier:

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

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

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

Comment expliquer la disparition du chromosome Y néandertalien ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, wiki!

Wait, he has some connection:

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

Now, what was he saying again?

the preposterous situation

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

of a Queen Mary sized Ark

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

being tossed hither and thither

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

in a turbulent global sea,

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

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

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

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

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

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

it being overloaded

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

with dinosaurs and other massive animals,

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

not to mention those swarms of irritating insects and pests

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

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

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

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

Massiliae, in Gallia, sanctorum Martyrum Hermetis et Hadriani.

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

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

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

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

° Rafts or Egyptian style reed ships.

Two Points Against non-Geocentrics in Creation Ministries International

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

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

True.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Resources by CMI I commented on:

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

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

Resources I've used:

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

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

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

3) My translation of relevant passages is available here:

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

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

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

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

Are Catholics Supposed to Assign Genesis 1—11 to the Literary Form "Myth" Because of Ancient Near East Parallels?

I once upon a time used to think Pius XII allowed for believing Adam had physical ancestry.

No, Humani Generis only allowed for discussing that behind closed doors. The only reason why YEC or Old Earth Progressive Creationists should keep their arguments against this behind closed doors would be to hide from the faithful that this position existed. Given the secret no longer isn't one, this discretion can hardly hold any more. Nor have I found that Popes Michael I and II have imposed it on me.

I once used to think Pius XII, by promoting Old Earth in 1951 was promoting apostasy. But he was probably unaware of carbon dates, so, probably considered humanity was 5199 years old when Jesus was born. Given carbon dates and the relation between an old atmosphere and a high level of carbon 14 around the modern one, this has now become inconsistent, but as per 1909, it is not currently stamped as a heresy. One can argue that it should be, but it isn't. And I cannot prove Pius XII went beyond that position, the 5 billion years were 5 billion years before the creation of Adam and Eve, 6000—7500 years ago.

I also used to dread the idea that by promoting the study of literary forms in Divino Afflante Spiritu, he had prepared the idea alluded to in the title. Or at least promoted divisions of Johannine corpus or of Isaias or the Pentateuch into different authors. Which he didn't promote.

46. But this state of things is no reason why the Catholic commentator, inspired by an active and ardent love of his subject and sincerely devoted to Holy Mother Church, should in any way be deterred from grappling again and again with these difficult problems, hitherto unsolved, not only that he may refute the objections of the adversaries, but also may attempt to find a satisfactory solution, which will be in full accord with the doctrine of the Church, in particular with the traditional teaching regarding the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture, and which will at the same time satisfy the indubitable conclusion of profane sciences.

Key point: a conclusion of a profane science has to be indubitable before we are required to satisfy it.

Other key point, he actually welcomes what I have been doing.

First, geology means, either the Flood was laying down all or most layers, or it is very untraceable. Solution, the Flood is actually global, not just large regional. Which means, there is no geological basis for Old Earth (old = well beyond Biblical chronology, whether 40 000 or 4 000 000 000 years).

Second, Geocentrism means, there is no basis for the Distant Starlight problem.

Third, Palaeontology means, most well preserved fossils were buried in situ and for land biota, that means one layer.

Fourth, a rise in carbon 14 compared to carbon 12 is not just a theoretical possibility which can be used in a handwave or "we'll sort the details out later" answer to human remains carbon dated to 40 000 + years ago, but for many dates between the Flood and the Fall of Troy, adequate calibrations can already be made on a somewhat rough and amateuresque level.

Fifth, while I may be wrong about anchor points related to the Sojourn in Egypt and the Exodus ... I'm considering to replace some XIIIth dynasty Pharao with Amenhotep II which might make the Hyksos Hebrew rather than Amalekite ... I think I have a very firm reason to consider Genesis 14 occurred a little less than 2000 BC (more or less 1900 BC) and is carbon dated to 3500 BC, namely Asason Tamar = archaeology of Ein Gedi. I am nearly as firm about Babel of Genesis 11 being:

• most of the years from Noah's death to Peleg's birth (like 40 out of 51)
• and this being archaeologically in Tas-Tepeler
• though an older layer of Göbekli Tepe or an older and in size comparable complex, potentially a city, being able to dethrone the current carbon dates of Göbekli Tepe.

The least firm part of this being whether the Hebrew words that normally refer to bricks and bitumen can have meant sth else prior to certain technological changes. But there was a world wide near monoculture prior to this, and there were very marked splits in regional cultures after it, especially as to the signs that could be writing or sth similar. Tas Tepeler is (mostly) in Mesopotamia, which is probably meant by Shinar, and from any landing place of the Ark in the mountains of Armenia, the people going into Shinar there would have been removing literally from the East, the most normal translation of miqqedem.

47. Let all the other sons of the Church bear in mind that the efforts of these resolute laborers in the vineyard of the Lord should be judged not only with equity and justice, but also with the greatest charity; all moreover should abhor that intemperate zeal which imagines that whatever is new should for that very reason be opposed or suspected. Let them bear in mind above all that in the rules and laws promulgated by the Church there is question of doctrine regarding faith and morals; and that in the immense matter contained in the Sacred Books - legislative, historical, sapiential and prophetical - there are but few texts whose sense has been defined by the authority of the Church, nor are those more numerous about which the teaching of the Holy Fathers is unanimous. There remain therefore many things, and of the greatest importance, in the discussion and exposition of which the skill and genius of Catholic commentators may and ought to be freely exercised, so that each may contribute his part to the advantage of all, to the continued progress of the sacred doctrine and to the defense and honor of the Church.

I think I merit this charity more than people who invent the "literary" category "mytho-history" in order to allege that while Genesis 1—11 are obviously true, they are not literally and factually true. Or who base this on the parallels with other Ancient Near East writings that we have the habit of classifying as myths, with no clear idea of what that word entails. I'm not sure whether Pius XII would have shared my views on Greek myths, probably not, but I am sure that he referred to the already then popular understanding of "mythology" as essentially fiction when he denied Genesis to contain myths, in Humani Generis.

Certain items in the Babylonian Flood Story are fraud, theological or political, tied to post-Flood Shuruppak or to a non-extant assignment of divine roles into "Enlil" and "Enki" the judge and the friend of men being opposed to each other in that false polytheism.

38. Hence the Catholic commentator, in order to comply with the present needs of biblical studies, in explaining the Sacred Scripture and in demonstrating and proving its immunity from all error, should also make a prudent use of this means, determine, that is, to what extent the manner of expression or the literary mode adopted by the sacred writer may lead to a correct and genuine interpretation; and let him be convinced that this part of his office cannot be neglected without serious detriment to Catholic exegesis. Not infrequently - to mention only one instance - when some persons reproachfully charge the Sacred Writers with some historical error or inaccuracy in the recording of facts, on closer examination it turns out to be nothing else than those customary modes of expression and narration peculiar to the ancients, which used to be employed in the mutual dealings of social life and which in fact were sanctioned by common usage.

It could be, on even closer inspection fewer and fewer of these appeals to customary modes of expression are required, and the literal fact can stand. Obviously, when Moses says the following, he is not talking of the subjective idea of people speaking of Bab-Ilu:

And therefore the name thereof was called Babel, because there the language of the whole earth was confounded: and from thence the Lord scattered them abroad upon the face of all countries
[Genesis 11:9]

But would Nimrod have spoken of Bab-Ilu, or would he have admitted a form of balal, confuse? Obviously, later Pagans didn't admit the confusion. Or only in a limited way. The "Lord of Aratta" alludes to it, but doesn't tell it's backstory in a way we find preserved, this text is also a fragment. Ancient Near East and even Greek, Roman, Celtic, Germanic, Hindu and perhaps also Persian paganisms have managed to forget this event. Like Homer probably managed to forget the Hittites, if Eratosthenes dated the war correctly. But like Bedřich Hrozný deciphered Hittite, though this be only indirectly related to Biblical Hittites, so Klaus Schmidt very arguably dug up Babel. And didn't know it.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Cyril of Alexandria
9.II.2026

[28.I] Alexandriae natalis sancti Cyrilli, ejusdem urbis Episcopi, Confessoris et Ecclesiae Doctoris; qui, catholicae fidei praeclarissimus propugnator, doctrina et sanctitate illustris quievit in pace. Ejus tamen festivitas quinto Idus Februarii celebratur.
[9.II] Sancti Cyrilli, Episcopi Alexandrini, Confessoris et Ecclesiae Doctoris, cujus dies natalis quinto Kalendas Februarii recensetur.