Some Guys Would Like to Know How I Made My Tables.

Back in 2015, I started out with two data. And a kind of non-datum.

A) Less carbon 14 in the atmosphere when a sample was from means the sample looks older than it is. I'm not talking about the reservoir effect, I am talking about the whole atmosphere behind the sample.
B) The rise of carbon 14 in the atmosphere never ever needed so much radioactivity that it would have wiped out vertebrate life.
C) In principle one should be able to calibrate the rise, but CMI hadn't done it (I didn't know about Tas Walker's rough calibration or I thought it rougher than needed).

I was talking to people at Nanterre University campus, especially the library, and I mentioned datum A. I got as reply a negation of datum B. I decided to look for an answer to that.

Obviously, my first reaction was to start with what I knew or could easily deduce from what I already knew.

Here is my very first preparatory message, in French:

Datation de Carbone 14, comment ça carre avec la Chronologie Biblique
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2015/10/datation-de-carbone-14-comment-ca-carre.html

Here is my improved version at the end of this initial quest:

Avec un peu d'aide de Fibonacci ... j'ai une table, presque correcte
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2015/10/avec-un-peu-daide-de-fibonacci-jai-une.html

It is kind of idealised, but corresponds to the idea that the main brunt of the augmentation was soon after the Flood, and then the augmentation slowed down up to stability.

While looking, I had proven that to get to 100 pmC after the Flood, I needed to have carbon 14 forming faster than at present at some time:

Examinons une hypothèse qui se trouve contrefactuelle un peu de près
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2015/10/examinons-une-hypothese-qui-se-trouve.html

And after the Fibonacci inspired table, I tried current rate of production for pre-Flood times, starting with zero, and got too high a value, so the pre-Flood production must have been lower, at east relative to overall carbon which was then higher, I presume:

Une table peut-être évitable ou contournable?
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2015/11/une-table-peut-etre-evitable-ou.html

While I use the chronology of St. Jerome, I am interested in the patriarchal longevity for LXX standard text:

Longevity Charts as per LXX
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2015/11/longevity-charts-as-per-lxx.html

About a year later, I came to doubt on the Fibonacci table. And made a plan for improving it:

A Fault in my Tables? A Plan for Improvement?
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2016/11/a-fault-in-my-tables-plan-for.html

This post is connected to debates with Roger Pearlman. But I also set out to actually first determine the limits of recalibration before modifying, here is the work of that, mainly January 2017:

1.) 50% du "carbone récent", quel âge? Si on divisait une demi-vie en "demi-notes" ....? · 2.) 25% du "carbone récent"? Divisons la distance en 48 parties? · 3.) Trêve de Maths pour l'instant : a-t-on des restes antédiluviennes d'Européens ou non? · 4.) 12,5% du carbone présent : au paléolithique tardif · 5.) Encore "plus bas" dans le paléolithique : 6,25 % restent · 6.) Paléolithique inférieur, alors? · 7.) Raffiner et finir ma table de Fibonacci? · 8.) Table modifiée, analysée par convergence avec l'a priori

Before the end, I feature another recalibration, in response to a remark by Osgood and partially in response to my idea Göbekli Tepe could be Babel:

1) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Osgood and the Dating of Abraham? And I am Wrong on Fibonacci Table · 2) Creation vs. Evolution : Recalibrating the Fibonacci Table, acc. to Abraham in Chalcolithic En Gedi · 3) If Göbekli Tepe is Tower of Babel ...

Over the next months, I was interested in getting the tables done, even comparing the St. Jerome / Roman Martyrology chronology to the Syncellus one:

Interim Report (4.III.20217) · Flood to Abraham, St Jerome A (6.III.2017) · Flood to Abraham, St Jerome B (8.III.2017) · Interim II St Jerome A / St Jerome Fibonacci (10.III.2017) · Syncellus A bis, B and St Jerome C & D - uncalibrated dates found, setup before making tables (13.III.2017)

I then make a series around Interim III, May—June 2017:

Tas Walker and Myself on C14 : Glacial Maximum and End · Interim III, Flood to Abraham with Syncellus · Continuing Interim III to Joseph in Egypt · Comparing Three Roads from Seven Cows to Seven Trumpets

By July that year, I do a series of responses to Graham Hancock about Göbekli Tepe:

Is Graham Hancock Right on Göbekli Tepe? · Is Graham Hancock Right on Göbekli Tepe? Part 2 · Is Graham Hancock Right on Göbekli Tepe? Part 3 · Is Graham Hancock Right on Göbekli Tepe? Part 4 · Excursus on Previous

In August 2020 I feel that I need to resolve some things I should have included in previous tables, but didn't, the series has for second post "New Tables" from St. Radegundis' Day (13.VIII.2020), but goes all the way into April 2024, discussing minutiae:

Have you Really Taken ALL the Factors into Account? · New Tables · Why Should one Use my Tables? · And what are the lineups between archaeology and Bible, in my tables? · Bases of C14 · An example of using previous · Difference with Carbon 14 from Other Radioactive Methods · Tables I-II and II-III and III-IV, Towards a Revision? · The Revision of I-II, II-III, III-IV May be Unnecessary, BUT Illustrates What I Did When Doing the First Version of New Tables · Convergence of Uneven pmC? · [Calculation on paper commented on] · Other Revision of I-II ? · Where I Agree with Uniformitarian Dating Experts

The "New Tables" are a joint translation of the posts Tables de carbone 14 sur les bases révisées (I - VI) and Tables continués (VI - IX). I had elaborated these on paper, only computer checking the time implications instead of my clumsier calculations, when finally after the lockdown accessing internet and putting these on the blog.

And the discussions of how to improve these, with some opportunism and changing information on what carbon dates Göbekli Tepe started and ended result in:

Newer Tables: Preliminaries · Flood to Joseph in Egypt · Joseph in Egypt to Fall of Troy.

The which I am currently using.

Meanwwhile, datum B, I have checked that I don't need to square or cube the "how much faster" rate of production of carbon 14 to get how much more radiation there was. Other Check on Carbon Buildup is from Thursday, 23 November 2017, and features the probably world best expert on the issue, who wasn't interested in helping me but kind of did so half the way anyway.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Dominic of Guzmán
4.VIII.2026

6.VIII Bononiae natalis sancti Dominici Confessoris, qui Ordinis Fratrum Praedicatorum Fundator exstitit. Hic vir, sanctitate et doctrina clarissimus, virginitatem perpetuo illibatam custodivit, et, ob singularem meritorum gratiam, tres mortuos suscitavit; cumque praedicatione sua compressisset haereses, ac plurimos ad religiosam et piam vitam instituisset, in pace quievit. Ejus autem festivitas pridie Nonas mensis hujus celebratur, ex constitutione Pauli Papae Quarti.
4.VIII Sancti Dominici Confessoris, qui Ordinis Fratrum Praedicatorum Fundator fuit, atque octavo Idus mensis hujus in pace quievit.

Green Arabia

Creation vs. Evolution: Green Arabia · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: A Side Note

Video:

This Discovery in the Arabian Desert Changes Everything
Michael Button | 26 July 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nwYeflJcjw

At 3:53 Michael Button is reading from a paper on Rub al Khali.

These water sites formed during the 'Green Arabia' period, a time of heavy rainfall that lasted approximately 11 000 to 5500 years ago.

9050 BC in carbon dates, is during Babel.

2591 BC

46.223 pmC, dated as 8970 BC

3550 BC is a bit before Genesis 14.

1959 BC

81.656 pmC, dated as 3634 BC

1957 BC

Nahor died

1936 BC

82.763 pmC, dated as 3500 BC

(1959 + 1936) / 2 = 1947 BC
(81.656 + 82.763) / 2 = 82.2095 pmC

5730 * log(0.822095) / log(0.5) + 1947.5 = 3567 BC

(1959 + 1936 + 1936) / 3 = 1944 BC
(81.656 + 82.763 + 82.763) / 3 = 82.394 pmC

5730 * log(0.82394) / log(0.5) + 1943.6666666666666667 = 3545 BC

So, closer to 1944 than to 1947 BC, and the Carbon 14 content closer to 82.394 pmC than to 82.2095 pmC.

Abraham and Lot had reached Canaan from the North, not from the Arabian direction, and a bit after Genesis 14, it's about 30 years since the Green Arabia period ended.

When Hagar and Ishmael are close to dying of thirst, it is possible Abraham had had no idea that he was exposing them to that. Probable, even.

1944 BC

82.394 pmC, dated as 3545 BC

1936 BC

82.763 pmC, dated as 3500 BC

1930

Ishmael born

1916 BC

Isaac born.

83.166 pmC, dated as 3440 BC

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Martyr Boys Sts Nazarius and Celsus
28.VII.2026

Mediolani natalis sanctorum Martyrum Nazarii, et Celsi pueri, quos Anolinus, sub rabie persecutionis quae per Neronem excitata est, diu maceratos et afflictos in carcere, gladio feriri jussit.

Deen Academy Tried to Pretend Genesis Attributes Independent Luminosity to the Moon

Creation vs. Evolution: Deen Academy Underlines that Biblical and Quranic Flood (As he sees it) are Not the Same · Deen Academy Tried to Pretend Genesis Attributes Independent Luminosity to the Moon · somewhere else: Deen Academy Tries to Pull a Quick One on John 17:3

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/1-16.htm

way·ya·‘aś ’ĕ·lō·hîm, ’eṯ-šə·nê [3974 e] ham·mə·’ō·rōṯ
And made God two the lights ...

However, ham·mə·’ō·rōṯ being marked as Strong word number 3974. maor, let's check what that word means.

https://biblehub.com/hebrew/3974.htm

1. (properly) a luminous body or luminary
2. (abstractly) light (as an element)
3. (figuratively) brightness, i.e.cheerfulness
4. (specifically) a chandelier

Wait, chandeliers are not self luminous, they give light because of sth in them, like candles or back then more typically oil.

But the page gives an even better refutation:

Proverbs 15:30

mə·’ō·wr-‘ê·na·yim yə·śam·maḥ-lêḇ;
The light of the eyes rejoiceth the soul

We need not decide whether it's a twinkle of reflected light in an eye that rejoyceth the soul of someone else or whether it's the light coming through your eyes that rejoyceth your own soul, the latter is a clearly defensible interpretation in a cultural parallel to the Gospels. Either way, the eyes are not self luminous. They don't give light inward in a dark room. They don't show your feelings to someone else in a dark room.

However, the Hebrew here has, not ’ō·wr but mə·’ō·wr-, the exact same word that is used about botb Sun and Moon. So the word of the Moon does not prove that Moon is seen as an independent light source.

As for Matthew:

And immediately after the tribulation of those days, the sun shall be darkened and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of heaven shall be moved
[Matthew 24:29]

Is this saying that moon is ceasing to produce light or ceasing to reflect light?

Because, the sign spoken of is sufficiently miraculous and apocalyptic if Sun and Moon are darkened at the same time. Solar eclipses are at Newmoon only. Lunar eclipses at Fullmoon only. If both are darkened at the same time and stars suddenly either leave voids or turn into bolts falling towards Earth, we can conclude it's not a natural and normal solar eclipse and also not a natiral and normal lunar eclipse.

It is in fact about what is observed in Heaven, as can be seen from the next verse:

And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all tribes of the earth mourn: and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with much power and majesty.
[Matthew 24:30]

A very apt application of something said in Providentissimus Deus:

Ordinary speech primarily and properly describes what comes under the senses; and somewhat in the same way the sacred writers-as the Angelic Doctor also reminds us - `went by what sensibly appeared,"(54) or put down what God, speaking to men, signified, in the way men could understand and were accustomed to.

PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS
https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus.html

However, it seems whoever wrote the Quran had a certain will to insist that God first created the Moon dark and then permitted it to reflect light of the Sun as the phases come. Really a full scientific understanding of when the Moon is not a light, but somehow obviously Moses missed out on the Moon having a dark phase.

Now, what about Ramadan?
How Many Muslims Would Be OK With This?
https://filolohika.blogspot.com/2026/07/how-many-muslims-would-be-ok-with-this.html

It seems the solution is to align the ramadan fast versus eat limits with certain prayers and they are aligned with night and day ideally. Even if concretely up in the land of midnight sun, they are not aligned with day and night as concretely up there.

I'm not disputing that Muslims can solve things like that, but the need for solution comes from the Quran itself being specific about fasting rules, and it seems to be written by someone either unaware that Earth is a globe, where parts will turn towards or away from the sun all the 24 hours, or that the habitable continents, in the North, reach above the polar circle. Somewhat strange for a book also avid to display scientific knowledge, like phases of the Moon ...

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
IX LD after Pentecost
26.VII.2026

Revise or Not Revise ? The Question for my Biblical Chronology

Let's assume that I don't revise.

Then Moses is born when Sesostris III is about to die, so the carbon date c. or from memory 1838 BC (from Sesostris sarcophagus) joins the date of Moses' birth in the Chronology of the Martyrology Reading of Christmas Day, which says Jesus was born 1510 after the Exodus.

If so, the real date for Sesostris' death would be around 1590 BC. Radiocarbon would have needed to be lower than 100 pmC, so that 1590 could date like 1838.

248 extra years imply an atmospheric level of 97.045 pmC.

Meanwhile, if the Exodus was in 1510 BC, that places the fall of Jericho in real year 1470 BC.

I had thought of Kenyon's date as being 1550 and thought it was a carbon date. 80 extra years = 99.037 pmC.

I have found the carbon dating of Jericho undiscussed by Creationist sites (apart from mine).

Here is another site:

Carbon-14 Dates at Jericho and the Destruction Date
https://apxaioc.com/?p=10

When the Bronze Age city of Jericho was destroyed by a fire, the burned grain and wood was carbonized, preserving some of it in the destruction layer (Kenyon, Kathleen. Digging Up Jericho, London, 1957, 261).

And:

The dates were corrected to 3300 +/- 110 BP, (Bowman, G.E., Ambers, J., Leese, M.N. “Re-Evaluation of British Museum Radiocarbon Dates Issued Between 1980 and 1984.” Radiocarbon 32, 1990, 74, BM-1790) which calibrates to approximately 1883-1324 BC, rendering the resulting C-14 date useless for settling the debate between a destruction in ca. 1550 BC or ca. 1400 BC (Using http://calib.qub.ac.uk/calib/calib.html). Another C-14 sample from this same destruction layer at Jericho gave results of 3300 +/- 7 BP, which calibrates to approximately 1618-1530 BC (Bruins, HJ and van der Plicht, J. “Tell es-Sultan (Jericho): Radiocarbon results of short-lived cereal and multiyear charcoal samples from the end of the Middle Bronze Age.” Radiocarbon Vol. 37 (1995), 213–220).

OK, sounds like I could have Jericho "carbon dated to 1550 BC" but I cannot trust it.

Therefore I cannot completely trust my equation of real 1470 with carbon dated 1550 either. But I'm not obliged to discard it.

Let's assume I revised.

First, it's a major hazzle. The tables I now use, Newer Tables: Preliminaries · Flood to Joseph in Egypt · Joseph in Egypt to Fall of Troy, took me a lot of time to elaborate. I can do it again, but given the work, I'd want some major incentive, such as being sure I was wrong and need to revise.

Second, I don't have that.

I was perfectly willing to revise ... taking Amenhotep II as pharao of the Exodus.

What If Exodus was 18th Dynasty and not 13th? · Testing for Pharao of Exodus = Amenophis II, with Three Alternative's for Joseph's Pharao · Advice, perhaps? · There Was a Time When Young Earth Creationists Wanted This Kind of Stuff

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

Then Douglas Petrovich told me Amenhotep II was reigning a long time after the Exodus and Webensenu was actually not the first born son that died in the tenth plague. That kind of takes away some of the incentive. His reason was, the first born was depicted and was a prince named Thutmose, but not identic to Thutmose IV. That could be resolved with Thutmose IV taking the name Thutmose from Webensenu when he died. But perhaps the depicted first son Thutmose was also not compatible with Webensenu.

Third, if the pharao was in fact Amenhotep II, it would make the 480 years in III Kings 6:1 an exact number, while going through Judges I had come to conclude it was a minimum. Some have argued they are 480 pure years, not counting the ones under oppression. That would argue against Amenhotep II being that pharao whose first born died. And so argue against the revision.

480 Years From Exodus to Temple?

Perhaps the solution could be that 528 years are counted as 480, if the subservience to Chusan Rasathaim (8 years) and to Philistines (40 years) are not counted, like years in which one could not celebrate Pesakh not counting as real years or even not allowing Cohanim to sit down and count another year.

If on the other hand the 480 years are the exact total number, that would mean several timelines in Judges overlap.

Fourth, Jericho's carbon dated items don't decide, as quoted, but today I also found another thing not deciding:

Les inscriptions de Tal Deir Alla
https://via-egeria.com/les-inscriptions-de-tal-deir-alla-jordanie/

If the inscriptions that mention Balaam had been dated to between 1450 and 1410 BC, the carbon date, presumably coinciding with real date, in that case, would have favoured the Amenhotep II theory, and therefore revising. If the inscriptions had instead been dated to between 1590 and 1550 BC, that would have supported not revising, supported that 1550 is "the" carbon date for Jericho. But they date to neither, worse, they date to a clearly different time:

Le texte retrouvé en plusieurs morceaux couvrait manifestement un mur. L’analyse paléographique, ainsi que celle au carbone 14, permettent de dater l’inscription vers 800 av. J.-C.

This means, the inscriptions are centuries after the Biblical Balaam, whether involving a namesake son of the father's namesake ... or making literary use of a long since past figure.

They too are unable to decide.

Meaning, I can still in good conscience, pending further evidence, decide to continue using the dating calibrations already given in Newer Tables.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. James, Apostle
25.VII.2026

Sancti Jacobi Apostoli, qui exstitit beati Joannis Evangelistae frater; et, prope festum Paschae ab Herode Agrippa decollatus, primus ex Apostolis coronam martyiii percepit. Ejus sacra ossa, ab Hierosolymis ad Hispanias hoc die translata, et in ultimis earum finibus apud Gallaeciam recondita, celeberrima illarum gentium veneratione, et frequenti Christianorum conctirsu, religionis et voti causa illuc adeuntium, pie coluntur.

Creationism, and Generally Catholic Fundamentalism, is Not Opposed to Reason

Because, science as a corporate enterprise or endeavour is not the incarnation of reason.

Human reason has no collective incarnation, like science, only individual ones, like my reason, your reason, the reason of St. Thomas Aquinas, the reason of Charles Darwin, the reason of Carlo Acutis and the reason of Charles Manson.

There is no collective entity in reason, and the reason of a very superstition person is as much a human reason as the reason of a very scientific person like Gregor Mendel or Marin Mersenne ... neither of whom were Evolution believers and the earlier one certainly not a Heliocentric either.

All Frenchies who think I am attacking reason because I attack Evolution and Heliocentrism need to stop.

They are as close to Panpsychism as Gentile and Rosenberg in works that are on the Index Librorum of 1948.

Pretending Heliocentrism and Evolution are where reason points is, a bit like pretending "cigarettes are healthy" ... which some publicity actually did until the evidence it was unhealthy became too obvious.

The difference is, the Marlboro salesmen of tobacco in small and paper enrolled sticks and the doctors who proved it unhealthy are distinct entities. The people who broadcast Evolution and Heliocentrism as reason are, alas, those who are trusted with testing where reason points, i e scientific establishment./HGL

Levi Pingleton Mainly Correct

Except one.

He refers to Wojtyla as "Pope John Paul II" and says Evolution is tolerated "in the Church" ...

But otherwise he does an excellent analysis:

Matthew Ramage and Suan Sonna are Mistaken on Scripture, Magisterial Studies, and Creation...
Levi Pingleton | Feb 23, 2025
https://levipingleton.substack.com/p/matthew-ramage-and-suan-sonna-are

Numbers in Genesis 5 (and 11?) non-random?

Some Pretend the Ages of Patriarchs are Symbolic · Numbers in Genesis 5 (and 11?) non-random?

The real evidence, and it still stands, is that all thirty numbers end in only 0, 2, 5, 7, or 9*

Let's look:

Adam 130 800 930
Seth 105 807 912
Enos 90 815 905
Cainan 70 840 910
Malaleel 65 830 895
Jared 162 800 962
Henoch 65 300 365
Mathusela 187 782 969
Lamech 182 595 777
Noe 500 450 950

How many have any ending number other than 5 or 0?

Seth 105 807 912
Jared 162 800 962
Mathusela 187 782 969
Lamech 182 595 777

How many of these have both the first another ending number?

Mathusela 187 782 969

So, in six cases, the final number of the total is 0 or 5 because both the begat and the after numbers are ending in 0 or 5.

In one case, the total is other because the begat number is other, and the after number ends in 0:

Jared 162 800 962

In two cases it is other because one of the primary numbers is other and the other in 5:

Seth 105 807 912
Lamech 182 595 777

In one case only, both the primary numbers are other and so is the total:

Mathusela 187 782 969

How does this look? Lets take out the totals and look at 0/5 as "O" and other as "X":

Adam OO
Seth OX
Enos OO
Cainan OO
Malaleel OO
Jared XO
Henoch OO
Mathusela XX
Lamech XO
Noe OO

The X are, Seth, one, Jared, one more, two, Mathusela, two more, four, Lamech, one more, five.

The obvious possibility for this Masoretic text is: begat age and after years are both counted in "five year" units, while in five cases the precise years were recorded. The total is simply the adding up of them. Whether this is because of slop in the original recording or because of simplifications up to the time when Moses wrote it is moot.

The other possibility, less obvious, is, as earlier mentioned, from Adam to Moses, totals add up to 12 600 years. Because, God wanted the time span from Genesis 3 to Moses (who wrote it down as part of one book) to be as obvious as that from Antichrist beginning world wide persecution up to Antichrist ending it (that being 1260 days, a bit less than 3 1/2 solar years, 1278.375 days being 18 days more than 1260).

Again, for both possibilities, I only know of the Masoretic, I have not yet checked what it brings to a LXX or LXX without the second Cainan.

Arpachsad 438 = Masoretic.

And Arphaxad lived a hundred and thirty-five years, and begot Cainan. And Arphaxad lived after he had begotten Cainan, four hundred years, and begot sons and daughters, and died.

135 + 400 = 535, not 438. The totals will be different for some LXX ages in chapter 11.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Camillus of Lellis
18.VII.2026

14.VII Romae natalis sancti Camilli de Lellis, Presbyteri et Confessoris, Clericorum Regularium infirmis ministrantium Institutoris; quem, virtutibus et miraculis clarum, Summus Pontifex Benedictus Decimus quartus in Sanctorum numero recensuit, et Leo Decimus tertius caelestem hospitalium et infirmorum Patronvun renuntiavit. Ipsius tamen festivitas quintodecimo Kalendas Augusti recolitur.
18.VII Sancti Camilli de Lellis, Presbyteri et Confessoris, Clericorum Regularium infirmis ministrantium Institutoris, caelestis hospitalium et infirmorum Patroni; cujus dies natalis pridie Idus Julii recolitur.

PS, next day.

It so happens, the probability of rounding is a pretty high one so, five being visibly too precise to be rounded to nearest 0 or 5, in twenty, is not a big deal, probability-wise.

So, what about the precise numbers, a two or a seven?

These are, together, two possibilities, not out of ten, but out of eight. Any precise number that's either ending in 0 or 5 just melts in with rounded ones.

2 in 8 equals 1 in 4, and this happens at 5 places, so, 1 in 4 raised to the power of 5. This is 1 in 1024. Not in billions. Significant, but not overwhelmingly improbable./HGL

* From description of a video which I commented on here: Another Failed Attempt at Denying Genesis 5 and 11's Obvious Chronological Implications