Masoretic plus II Cainan?

Lita Cosner suggested this relation between Masoretic OT, LXX OT and NT, in answer to "Faith and Fossils" by Grabbe:

He also claims that NT quotes of the OT that are different from the MT are a problem for inerrancy (pp. 108–110), but they fall under the same category. Either the MT is original, and the NT authors are quoting the LXX, thus making that LXX reading authoritative New Testament Scripture while not affecting the biblical status of the MT reading, or the LXX reading is actually original and the copyist error arose in the MT, meaning that the LXX reading reflects the original, inspired Hebrew reading. And such instances are usually very minor and do not involve a radically different meaning.

One-sided discussion of theistic evolution
A review of Faith and Fossils: The Bible, creation, and evolution by Lester Grabbe
Reviewed by Lita Cosner
https://creation.com/review-faith-and-fossils-grabbe

One of the major implication points would be Genesis 5 and 11.

So, suppose Masoretic text has the original reading of Genesis 11. Suppose also that St. Luke by admitting the II Cainan in chapter 3 makes this inclusion valid NT Scripture - it would still be a valid fact about the genealogy - would this be possible?

Textually, yes, though I insist that the chronology was changed (perhaps according to Book of Jubilees) from a LXX one to a MT one, in the lifetime of Josephus, since he gives an MT total and enumerates a LXX series of particulars.

Ignore this, as CMI (Lita and Robert Carter) do, is an inerrant text of MT Genesis 11 possible, while an inerrant text of Luke 3 has the II Cainan? Yes, could be if the inclusion of II Cainan in LXX text is what I would call "contextual translation". Matthew 1 shows a Hebrew genealogy pregnantly omitting three consecutive generations, and this not just for the purpose of getting a subtotal of 14 generations in that part of the genealogy : they are the three generations following Athalia, and omitting them may very well be damnatio memoriae. Omitting a mention of II Cainan in Genesis 11 could be so too. If so, this Cainan sinned worse than just by idolatry when other people idolised, since Nachor and Sarug were included, while we know they committed idolatry - it would have been something like black magic or inaugurating idolatry.

But the other question is, would it be possible with carbon dates?

For Babel, instead of ending 101 after the Flood, it ends then 229 after the Flood (supposing Cainan's year when becoming father is the one year that's correct in LXX). For Abraham's birth, instead of 292 after the Flood, it becomes 420 after the Flood. And for Genesis 14 events (with archaerological implications for En Geddi, see Osgood, often enough referenced at least implicitly by me), they would be like 500 after the Flood.

In Ussher (I'm supposing he does not include the II Cainan), creation is 4004 BC, Flood 1656 years later in 2344 BC, Abraham would then be born in 2052 BC, add 420, pushes Flood back to 2472 BC. Babel's end would be 2243 and Genesis 14 would be 1972 BC.

I'll now give them a carbon date 30 000 BP for the Flood. Even BC. Makes 27 528 extra years. Twice minus two halflives (0.25*0.25) leaves 4608, gives another three quarters of a half life, 4297, (0.59461), leaves 309, nearly exactly 313 or 7/16 of 1/8 of a halflife (0.96806).

0.25*0.25*0.59461*0.96806
= 0.03597613479

Babel, I will first show implication of using Göbekli Tepe ... its highest layer of carbon dates are at 8600 BC, for an actual birth of Peleg in 2247, making 6353 extra years, which gives one halflife (0.5) and leaves 623 years, nearly the 627 years of 7/8 of 1/8 of a halflife (0.92701).

0.5*0.92701
= 0.463505

This happened during 229 years, nearly exactly 223 or 5/16 of 1/8 of a halflife 0.97331. In this time, the original 0.035976 ... would be shrinking like this:

0.03597613479*0.97331
= 0.03501593175

But we have 0.463505, so the replacement was:

0.463505 - 0.03501593175
= 0.42848906825

What would a normal replacement rate have been?

1 - 0.97331 = 0.02669

How much faster was the replacement, the production of new carbon 14, then?

0.42848906825 / 0.02669
= 16.05429255339

And here comes the conundrum - would this be straight off how much more radiation one suffered? Would it have to square or cube to give that? We don't really know.

Square : 257.74030938983
Cube : 4137.83832974558

The normal radiation dose from space is a very moderate 0.34 milliSieverts per year, at medium height. The total background radiation varies from 3 to 10, typically above 3 in Europe and around 6 in US.

0.34 * 16.05429255339
= 5.45845946815

0.34 * 257.74030938983
= 87.63170519254

0.34 * 4137.83832974558
= 1406.8650321135

Only the linear would be acceptable. Confer my timeline, where the values for linear, square and cubic are: 3.494, 35.896, 368.828 mSv / per year.* My square would be a bit above the now accepted danger zone, estimated at 20 or 30 mSv / year (Fukushima has measured 20 mSv). The square for MT + II Cainan, with Babel = Göbekli Tepe is however near 88 mSv / year.

I'll spare you the calculations for now, since my time is running up, but ignoring GT as Babel makes for an overall rise from Flood to Genesis 14 with 13.8 times the current production, up to a value of 0.83185 times current ratio (83.185 pmC) meaning the linear function is a comfortable 4.692 mSv / year, but the square function is 64.7496 mSv / year.

Unfortunately for a balanced debate, we do not perfectly know how carbon 14 production and mSv / year relate, neither is a function of the other, but both are direct functions of number of particles and energy they arrive with and inverse function of strength of magnetic field. So is production of a radiogenic isotope of Beryllium. These relations have been modelled, but not up to 10, let alone 13 or 16 times the current production of C14. The modeller, one Ilya Usoskin at the University of Turkku in Finland has refused to make a modelling which would reach anything like that far up:

Correspondence de / of / van Hans Georg Lundahl : Other Check on Carbon Buildup https://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2017/11/other-check-on-carbon-buildup.html

However, I recall an answer on quora (link later, if I find it) modelling in context of palaeoclimate sth that one part of the graph was square function resembling, one part cube function resembling, no part was resembling a linear function.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Sts. Cyril and Method
7.VII.2020

PS, I forgot to mention, CMI currently favours taking Babel as prior to Palaeolithic rather than as early Neolithic. This has an even steeper carbon curve for times of Peleg's birth up to Genesis 14. On the other hand, I may have been unfair in making Flood's carbon date on their view = 30 000 BP, even though on mine it is 40 000 BP (death of last pureblooded Neanderthal and Denisovan remains). I have not dealt with how reservoir effect could affect carbon dates of palaeolithic men, but that should go with lots of shellfish and fish in the diet, which one can check by dental calcar./HGL

Erratum : "Babel's and" should be "Babel's end". Corrected now, 10.VII.2020./HGL

* See:
New blog on the kid : Implications des vitesses de production
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2020/06/implications-des-vitesses-de-production.html