And what are the lineups between archaeology and Bible, in my tables?

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

I, Flood

Fossil wood from a quarry near the town of Banbury, England, some 80 miles north-west of London, was dated using the carbon-14 method.1 The ages calculated ranged from 20.7 to 28.8 thousand years old. However, the limestone in which the wood was found was of Jurassic age, of 183 million years. Clearly the dating methods are in conflict.

https://creation.com/radioactive-dating-anomalies

That C14 for the wood and limestone by Jurassic type fauna, for the limestone, are two methods in conflict is not the least surprising. Each has its own reasons to deviate from the true and Biblical chronology, and the reasons do not line up.

However, the problem is, if the Jurassic limestone has the shell Sharpirhynchia sharpi, this means it got lots of shells during the Flood.

In my recconning, 20 700 to 28 800 BP (18 700 to 26 800 BC) would be early post Flood:

2935 B. Chr.

0.039541 pmC/100, so dated as 29 635 B. Chr.

...

2867 B. Chr.

0.119246 pmC/100, so dated as 20 467 B. Chr.

Flood in 2957 BC, the wood from between 2935 and 2867 BC. But a landslide after the Flood could have buried the wood, while containing shells exposed above sea since the Flood. Or the wood could have suffered radioactive radiation before the Flood (it increases the number of C14 isotopes). Or, this is my problem, the wood could have a normal carbon level like that and be buried in the Flood, for my part, I have preferred the carbon levels corresponding to 40 000 BC, last known Neanderthals and Denisovans, or body parts, as those of the Flood. And against this being normal carbon levels in the Flood is, "18 700 BC" (as carbon dated) is recent enough to correspond to what I take to be post-Flood peopling of the continents.

Other quote, here I'd consider the carbon level pre-Flood, but within a more acceptable fluctuation of levels for Flood year:

Diamonds analyzed from mines in South Africa and Botswana, and from alluvial deposits in Guinea, West Africa, found measurable carbon-14—over ten times the detection limit of the laboratory equipment.2 The average ‘age’ calculated for the samples was 55,700 years. Yet the rocks that contained the diamonds ranged from 1,000 to 3,000 million years old. Dating methods are in conflict again.

There is very little difference in original carbon level for 40 000 and 55 000 BP, if from Flood year, both are below 2 %, so fluctuation would be more explainable. For 19 000 BC, we would be more like 14 %, so it should be later, original content of samples in relation to modern atmosphere.

Want to know more why I think Flood is carbon dated to c. 40 000 BP? Neanderthal Pre-or Post-Flood?, Neanderthal - speculations and certainty, Pääbo and Habermehl, Answering Robert Carter's Four Reasons, Anne Habermehl Still Wants Göbekli Tepe After Babel and Neanderthals Post-Flood - some of these have in the top of post body, under the header, a list of related posts, read them too, if interested. The last of these is obviously also relevant for next topic:

II and III, beginning and end of Babel

I have wagered on Göbekli Tepe, and have used earliest and latest carbon dates from lowest and highest level of GT as beginning and end of Babel. The problem is Tell Qaramel having levels dated earlier, but on the other hand, Tell Qaramel is West of Euphrates, so outside Shinar, while GT is just East of Euphrates and so in Shinar. Other problem is, how to explain "bricks for stone and bitumen for mortar" as the words are usually translated. I wonder whether we will:

• find a lower level of GT or smaller habitations around GT with literally what we would call bricks and bitumen?
• find that the stamped earth in GT contains burned chalk skeleta, so one should translate "bricks burned in fire" or literally "whites burned in burning" as the chalk skeleta with the burning process, and "bitumen for mortar" literally "thickness for thickness" as the stamped earth?
• or that the words as they stand are a reference to monumentality, or to instability, taken from a later Babylonian situation and wording?

Want to know more on why Göbekli Tepe? Graham Hancock had sth to Say on Göbekli Tepe, Is Graham Hancock Right on Göbekli Tepe?, Why would Nimrod Want a Rocket?, Bricks at Göbekli Tepe or Close? with Ten Keys to my Idea of Göbekli Tepe as Babel and its Tower as a Rocket, Changing the Text, NIV?, For those sceptical about Göbekli Tepe as Babel, Lining up Cities. As with previous, some have links to other posts in same series.

IV, Genesis 14 and Calcholithic of En-Geddi

No doubts about identification in so far as En-Geddi is Asason Tamar, and the identification was (with some leeway to Neolithic of En Geddi, which I reject) made by Dr A.J.M. Osgood in The Times of Abraham on the site of CMI, but he dismissed carbon dating overall, so gave no indication of what the digs by Pessah Bar-Adon had been carbon dated to. Only recently did I find 3500 BC, after guessing between 3400 and 3100 based on indications for chalcolithic in general, and taken 3200, which is too recent, based on Narmer's times.

Only these new tables incorporate, finally, this find. As well as go further into the dissolution in Biblical times to periods of 22 to 23 years apart (22.3828125 is a binary division of 5730, corresponding to the square rooting I entertained myself with during the lockdown, where 0.9973 is a square root of square root type power of 0.5).

This one is probably my strongest one. After Chalcolithic of En-Geddi, as Osgood says, you have habitation periods in Kingdom of Israel times and in Roman times, neither of which are relevent for Genesis 14.

V, Joseph in Egypt, VI birth of Moses

My timeline is this : Joseph is known to Egyptians as Imhotep, or rather, the pagan figure of Imhotep is based on him, and as Imhotep's pharao is Djoser, Joseph's pharao is Djoser. Moses is born a little before Sesostris III dies, was coregent as Amenemhat IV, after fleeing Egypt had a cenotaph, and is succeeded by his adoptive sister, then comes back for the Exodus during next dynasty.

Alternative readings would include :

• Joseph's pharao was Sesostris III, dealt with here : Sobekemhat instead of Imhotep? Sesostris III instead of Djoser?, where I also link to my source for Sesostris III as the childkilling pharao, and Amenemhet IV as an alias for Young Moses : Searching for Moses by David Down.
• Amenemhat IV was the pharao of Exodus (also compatible with the cenotaph), discussed with Anne Habermehl here : With Habermehl 2017, II

VII, taking of Jericho

There is a level of habitation in Jericho, which was followed by complete abandonment. Kenyon dated it to 1550 BC. Problem is, there is a dating of the walls of Jericho to 2200 BC.

Jericho was discussed on both parts of the Habermehl correspondence, and also with Damien Mackey here : Jericho and Carbon Dates

I propose the solution, that the 2200 date, if carbon, depends on:

• either walls being made of material older than "1550 BC", including organic materials
• or walls falling so deep, they fall below the "1550 BC" level down to the "2200 BC" level.

Or 2200 is not itself carbon dated at Jericho. I don't know.

VIII, Troy

Carbon date corresponds to Greek historical date. Like IV, a fairly good case, needs very little discussion, as far as I know. As to its place in Biblical chronology, both Syncellus and (perhaps depending on him) Historia Scholastica consider Troy fell when Eli was High Priest. Eli, Samuel, Saul, King David.

IX, 1032 - Anointing of King David or Temple of Solomon?

In the entry for 25th of December, the Roman Martyrology has since 1490's said that Christ was born 1032 years after the anointing of King David.

Syncellus, on the other hand, has 1032 for the Temple (completed) and 1082 for the anointing of King David. Roman martyrology lacks both temple and 1082 date, so, perhaps, the 1032 date was mixed with the 1082 event.

For anointing of King David being in 1082 rather than 1032 speak:

• the 1510 BC date for Exodus from Egypt - 487 years (III Kings 6:1,38) = 1023 (and not 1032)
• the 1082 BC date for anointing of King David fits better than the 1032 with the fall of Troy when Eli was High Priest.

This would be what speaks for an early date of the Temple, the most common date now accepted being later.

Roman Martyrology for December 25 with its roots via Historia scholastica in St. Jerome and in Julius Africanus are discussed here:

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Background to Christmas Martyrology
https://filolohika.blogspot.com/2019/02/background-to-christmas-martyrology.html

While adjustments could probably be made here and there, I think I have taken, if not all, at least most factors into account.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Octave of Assumption
Feast of the Immaculate Heart of the Blessed Virgin Mary
22.VIII.2020