Not quite like this, no

In the Beginning grew out of a request that Osamu Tezuka received from the Vatican by way of RAI in 1984, requesting that Tezuka produce an animated version of the Old Testament. Tezuka spent two years working on a pilot film for the project based on the story of Noah's Ark, both writing the scenario for the film and working in the production of the animation itself. However, Tezuka died in 1989 before the film was finished. The remainder of the production for the pilot film and the subsequent 26-episode television series was supervised by director Osamu Dezaki.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_the_Beginning:_The_Bible_Stories

Watching Tower of Babel episode:

In the beginning - Episode 4 - The Tower of Babel
11th Apr. 2016 | Kids TV English
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7s6VvqoPK1I

Nothing in Genesis 11 says the Tower of Babel was either a ziggurat or a temple to an idol.

Genesis 1–11 doesn’t explicitly mention any idolatry. Idolatry is mentioned everywhere in the Bible, even in Genesis (e.g. Genesis 31:19, 35:2). ... none of it is expressly represented as idolatry (whether strictly considering the use of images in the worship of God or a false deity, or even just considering the more general notion of the worship of false deities with or without images). Perhaps the closest anything comes to it is in the Tower of Babel incident. ... Idolatry seems to be absent even there. ... It seems that idolatry (at least the sort of idolatry prevalent throughout the Old Testament) arose after Babel.

Shaun Doyle made this feedback, published here:

Christianity and the origin of religion
Published: 23 January 2021 (GMT+10), feedback
https://creation.com/origin-of-religion-and-chrisitanity

Indeed, there seems to be a clue on when it arose ... Joshua 24:2

And he spoke thus to the people: Thus saith the Lord the God of Israel: Your fathers dwelt of old on the other side of the river, Thare the father of Abraham, and Nachor: and they served strange gods.

But Peleg was born when Babel ended, and Thare and Nachor are some generations later.

Sem, Arphaxad, (Second Cainan, if he existed), Sale, Heber, Phaleg ...

And to Heber were born two sons: the name of the one was Phaleg, because in his days the earth was divided: and his brother's name Jectan. Genesis 10:25

This fixes Phaleg's birth - 401 or 529 after the Flood, according to LXX readings without and with the Second Cainan - to the incident next chapter when the world was divided.

... Phaleg, Reu, Sarug, Nachor, Thare, Abraham with his siblings Nachor and Aran.

Abraham is born 942 or 1070 after the Flood. We can see Nachor would be the grandfather, not the brother of Abraham, since Joshua says "your fathers".

Now, let's go to a LXX to find out when between Babel's end / Phaleg's birth Nachor and then Thare were born:

18 And Phaleg lived and hundred and thirty years, and begot Ragau. 19 And Phaleg lived after he had begotten Ragau, two hundred and nine years, and begot sons and daughters, and died. 20 And Ragau lived and hundred thirty and two years, and begot Seruch. 21 And Ragau lived after he had begotten Seruch, two hundred and seven years, and begot sons and daughters, and died. 22 And Seruch lived a hundred and thirty years, and begot Nachor. 23 And Seruch lived after he had begotten Nachor, two hundred years, and begot sons and daughters, and died. 24 And Nachor lived a hundred and seventy-nine years, and begot Tharrha. 25 And Nachor lived after he had begotten Tharrha, an hundred and twenty-five years, and begot sons and daughters, and he died. 26 And Tharrha lived seventy years, and begot Abram, and Nachor, and Arrhan.

Genesis 11, page 2 and page 3.

We will reconstitute 79 for 179 for when Nachor begat Thare. Otherwise we might be getting 1042 and 1170 years between Flood and Abraham, which neither Roman Martyrology nor Syncellus has.

	without II C.	with II C.
Phaleg	401	529
Reu	531	659
Sarug	663	791
Nachor	793	921
Thare	872	1000
Ab / Nach / Ar	942	1070

Restate in BC terms*:

	without II C.	with II C.
Phaleg	2556	2737
Reu	2426	2607
Sarug	2294	2475
Nachor	2164	2345
Thare	2085	2266
Ab / Nach / Ar	2015	2196

Now, I'll insert - for Roman Martyrology only - the carbon calibration from my New tables:

Phaleg

2556 B. Chr.

48.1415 pmC, so dated as 8606 B. Chr.

2534 B. Chr.

49.4539 pmC, so dated as 8334 B. Chr.

2511 B. Chr.

50.7242 pmC, so dated as 8111 B. Chr.

2489 B. Chr.

51.9918 pmC, so dated as 7889 B. Chr.

2466 B. Chr.

53.2551 pmC, so dated as 7666 B. Chr.

2444 B. Chr.

54.5151pmC , so dated as 7444 B. Chr.

Reu

2426

2422 B. Chr.

55.7737 pmC, so dated as 7272 B. Chr.

2399 B. Chr.

57.0291 pmC, so dated as 7049 B. Chr.

2377 B. Chr.

58.4214 pmC, so dated as 6827 B. Chr.

2355 B. Chr.

59.6678 pmC, so dated as 6605 B. Chr.

2332 B. Chr.

60.9109 pmC, so dated as 6432 B. Chr.

2309 B. Chr.

62.1506 pmC, so dated as 6259 B. Chr.

Sarug

2294

2287 B. Chr.

63.387 pmC, so dated as 6037 B. Chr.

2265 B. Chr.

64.6199 pmC, so dated as 5865 B. Chr.

2243 B. Chr.

65.7496 pmC, so dated as 5693 B. Chr.

2220 B. Chr.

68.0023 pmC, so dated as 5420 B. Chr.

2198 B. Chr.

69.2256 pmC, so dated as 5248 B. Chr.

2175 B. Chr.

69.4483 pmC, so dated as 5175 B. Chr.

Nachor

2164

2153 B. Chr.

70.6677 pmC, so dated as 5003 B. Chr.

2131 B. Chr.

71.8838 pmC, so dated as 4881 B. Chr.

2108 B. Chr.

73.0966 pmC, so dated as 4708 B. Chr.

2086 B. Chr.

74.3062 pmC, so dated as 4536 B. Chr.

Thare

2085

2064 B. Chr.

75.4934 pmC, so dated as 4364 B. Chr.

2041 B. Chr.

76.6964 pmC, so dated as 4241 B. Chr.

2019 B. Chr.

77.8962 pmC, so dated as 4069 B. Chr.

Ab / Nach / Ar

2015

1996 B. Chr.

79.0927 pmC, so dated as 3946 B. Chr.

If we consider Nachor and Thare as beginning their error when Thare was born, this is around carbon dated 4536 BC.

Let's check when two diverse cults began to be used:

Inanna was worshiped in Sumer at least as early as the Uruk period (c. 4000 BC – c. 3100 BC), but she had little cult prior to the conquest of Sargon of Akkad.

The main temple to Enki was called E-abzu, meaning "abzu temple" (also E-en-gur-a, meaning "house of the subterranean waters"), a ziggurat temple surrounded by Euphratean marshlands near the ancient Persian Gulf coastline at Eridu. It was the first temple known to have been built in Southern Iraq. Four separate excavations at the site of Eridu have demonstrated the existence of a shrine dating back to the earliest Ubaid period, more than 6,500 years ago. Over the following 4,500 years, the temple was expanded 18 times, until it was abandoned during the Persian period.[8] Footnote = file:/-Enki-Ea-Peeter-Espak.pdf accessed 31 August 2014

In other words, the Enki temple, not the Inanna cult, began around when Thare was born. So, rather than putting Ziggurat of Eridu as Babel, and Babel as origin of idolatry, I put Ziggurat of Eridu 470 years in real time and 4070 carbon years in uniformitarian dating after the cessation of Babel. Those who have been around this blog for some time know already that I think we have Göbekli Tepe as the real Babel.

But the dating of idolatry to Nachor and Thare, by Joshua, is one more reason to believe this.

And there was no prophet trying to tell people to stop both idolatry and building of Babel, nothing in the Bible says there was one. God also did not speak to Lamech.** That was before the Flood, this was before the confusion of tongues. The Flood was a fairly harsh punishment, the confusion of tongues a gentle one. It involved new languages (something dear to us philologists) and also cessation of a hard work project (something dear to syndicalists and even unorganised workers). There is no reason to believe a giant idol was wrecking the stones of a ziggurat gone skyscraper endangering everyone.

If I am right that the "tower" itself was meant to be a rocket, and that it would have been fired with uranium, God was by interrupting the project before take off sparing mankind a major disaster, not inflicting one.

I will not reveal the end note of the video, it is beautiful, as are many other things in it, despite what I take to be grave factual errors.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Peter Nolascus
28.I.2021

PS, the Biblical advice for the episode or whole series was by Luciano Pacomio and Emilio Gandolfo. Tezuka productions did not start this project on their own, as mentioned. The Vatican was involved, and it was so under anti-Pope "John Paul II"./HGL

* I use Roman Martyrology for without II Cainan, Syncellus for with II Cainan. The diverse Flood dates are not just dependent on different numbers of years between Flood and Abraham. They are 2957 BC and 3266 BC. ** Mentioned at this video Who were the Descendants of Cain - Generation 3 to 8 by Periodic Table of History, https://youtu.be/vw92MZ0z2nU

Alternative as between Flood and Babel

I saw one article where a man with a Neanderthal mother (something we don't see these post-Flood days) was carbon dated 35 000 BC or if it was 35 000 BP.

I checked with another article weeks later, seems to be the same guy:

Pour la Science : Un néandertalien métis
FRANÇOIS SAVATIER | 27 mars 2013
https://www.pourlascience.fr/sd/archeologie/un-neandertalien-metis-11597.php

Comment les chercheurs sont-ils certains que l’individu de Mezzena est bien un Néandertalien ? Ils le sont en fait depuis sa découverte, puisque ce fragment humain vieux de quelque 35 000 ans a été retrouvé dans une couche pleine d’outils moustériens – des outils en pierre fabriqués uniquement par les Néandertaliens (entre 300 000 ans et 30 000 ans avant le présent). ... Chose rare, ils sont en effet parvenus à extraire du collagène de la mandibule et, dans cette substance que l'on rencontre entre les cellules de tous les animaux, ils ont retrouvé des traces d'ADN mitochondrial. Contenu dans les mitochondries, organites qui, dans les cellules, produisent l'énergie, cet ADN est transmis seulement par la mère. Or, une fois amplifié et séquencé, cet ADN mitochondrial s’est révélé contenir un motif caractéristique des Néandertaliens (retrouvé aussi dans 30 fossiles néandertaliens dont on a pu extraire de l’ADN). Dès lors, plus aucun doute n’était permis : la mère de l'individu de Mezzena était néandertalienne.

So, this man found in Mezzena is arguably son of a Neanderthal woman and he is carbon dated to 35 000 BP. Or rather, the carbon date, according to another article is not from him:

Direct radiocarbon dating and genetic analyses on the purported Neanderthal mandible from the Monti Lessini (Italy)
Published online 2016 Jul 8. | Sahra Talamo et al.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4937366/

However, the evidence regarding the age of the material is based only on a single radiocarbon date (RTT-5578: 14C Age 34,540 ± 655; (68.2%) 39,870-38,420 calibrated years before present (cal BP); (95.4%) 40,780-37,480 cal BP) obtained on a bovid bone from layer III7. Unfortunately this faunal sample was not directly associated with the human remains of layer I, but came from the lowermost part of the Mezzena sequence.

And human remains?

As a whole, the radiocarbon dates of the three successful samples are surprisingly young for a Mousterian site, with two samples dating to around 5,500 and one to 25,530 ± 107 14C BP (Table 1). Moreover, the IGVR 203334 mandible with a non-acceptable C:N ratio, resulted in an age of 5,580 ± 26 14C BP, which overlaps in 1σ with the two cranial fragments (IGVR63017-15 and IGVR63017-2) around 5,500 14C BP, passing the isotopic criteria mentioned above. These three dates fall within the Neolithic time period.

But that was not from the mandible with the Neanderthal mitochondriae, right?

Welcome to the confused world of actually looking at scientific evidence for old ages!

Now, there are different conclusions possible from this as to my theory Neanderthals were pre-Flood.

• one of Noah's daughters in law can have had Neanderthal mitochondriae, so these disappear later than overall Neanderthal genome and Y-chromosome.
• Neanderthals are post-Flood. I was wrong.
• or the different levels at Mezzena embody both pre- and post-Flood bones, and the man is pre-Flood, from around 34,540 BP.

34	540		35	195
+	655		-2	013
35	195		33	182

This would push the Flood's carbon date closer, to 33 000 BC at least. Now, we don't know this is the case, but I will explore it as a possibility.

Carbon date - real date (BP or BC for both, not one for each) = initial extra years. Carbon level when sample was isolated from atmosphere = carbon level for extra years supposing initial level had been 100 pmC.

33 182 - 2957 = 30 225 extra years, 2.583 pmC at Flood.

At the same time, the value for beginning of Babel stands. 2607 BC 42.8224 pmC, so dated as 9607 BC.

In 350 years, the carbon 14 left is "95.854 pmC", so 95.854 % of whatever was there before, and this means a renewal of 4.146 pmC.

2.583 * 95.854 / 100 = 2.4759 pmC left
42.8224 - 2.4759 = 40.3465 pmC added net
40.3465 / 4.146 = 9.7314 times faster production.

We divide the period into four times 87.5 years. 98.947 % left, then 1.053 pmC added as per normal replacement but * 9.7314 for the faster factor, each time.*

2957 BC

2.583 pmC "33 157 BC"

2870

12.803 pmC "19 870 BC"

2782

22.915 pmC "14 982 BC"

2695

32.921 pmC "11 895 BC"

2607

42.822 pmC "9607 BC"

But, due to uncertainties about the Mezzena man, we cannot guarantee this is a correct replacement of the previous tables in their part I - II Deluge to death of Noah, beginning of Babel. These therefore can still stand.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Raymond of Peñafort
23.I.2021

PS, on the search for Mezzano man, I also found Oase 1 - "Les ossements ont été datés de – 37 000 à – 42 000 ans par la méthode de datation au carbone 14." While, on New Tables a Flood date at 35 000 BC would be too recent, if he's from 40 000 BC, this is in order./HGL

PPS, it seems his real dates if post-Flood would be a bit too early on for my taste in human post-Flood deaths : 2957 - 2935 BC, first 22 years after the Flood. Reservoir effect, ate lots of fish or sea food?/HGL

* If this sounds confused, I have each time applied the formulas:
n * 98.947 / 100 = intermediate n
intermediate n + 1.053*9.7314 = new n

On the Contrary, Sufficeth Biblical Authority

Words by Aquinas quoted with relish by Lita Cosner:

CMI : Aquinas didn’t need modern science to defend Genesis
by Lita Cosner | This article is from
Creation 42(1):26–27, January 2020
https://creation.com/aquinas-science

But, she is less "friande de" his Aristotelian philosophy:

While there are parts of Aquinas’s answers that we would not agree with (for instance, where he deviates into Aristotelian philosophy), there is much in Aquinas’s answers that reveals a type of critical thinking about reality and biblical truth that we can embrace and emulate.

If she says "deviate" I wonder, compared to what norm? She already admitted he was not putting Aristotle above the Bible. He was as ready to bash those who did - usually known as Sorbonne Averroists - with argument, as his bishop was bashing them with condemnations* from his chair (ex cathedra, even if it is just ex cathedra S^ti Dionysii Areopagite and not ex cathedra S^ti Apostoli Petri).

When Aristotle considered the world was eternal, he did so because:

• God is eternal
• the world depends on God
• Aristotle couldn't come up with any way in which God would have any reason to chose to create.

Obviously, St. Thomas has an answer. Here is the objection and its answer:

Objection 6. Further, every mover is either natural or voluntary. But neither begins to move except by some pre-existing movement. For nature always moves in the same manner: hence unless some change precede either in the nature of the mover, or in the movable thing, there cannot arise from the natural mover a movement which was not there before. And the will, without itself being changed, puts off doing what it proposes to do; but this can be only by some imagined change, at least on the part of time. Thus he who wills to make a house tomorrow, and not today, awaits something which will be tomorrow, but is not today; and at least awaits for today to pass, and for tomorrow to come; and this cannot be without change, because time is the measure of movement. Therefore it remains that before every new movement, there was a previous movement; and so the same conclusion follows as before.

Reply to Objection 6. The first agent is a voluntary agent. And although He had the eternal will to produce some effect, yet He did not produce an eternal effect. Nor is it necessary for some change to be presupposed, not even on account of imaginary time. For we must take into consideration the difference between a particular agent, that presupposes something and produces something else, and the universal agent, who produces the whole. The particular agent produces the form, and presupposes the matter; and hence it is necessary that it introduce the form in due proportion into a suitable matter. Hence it is correct to say that it introduces the form into such matter, and not into another, on account of the different kinds of matter. But it is not correct to say so of God Who produces form and matter together: whereas it is correct to say of Him that He produces matter fitting to the form and to the end. Now, a particular agent presupposes time just as it presupposes matter. Hence it is correctly described as acting in time "after" and not in time "before," according to an imaginary succession of time after time. But the universal agent who produces the thing and time also, is not correctly described as acting now, and not before, according to an imaginary succession of time succeeding time, as if time were presupposed to His action; but He must be considered as giving time to His effect as much as and when He willed, and according to what was fitting to demonstrate His power. For the world leads more evidently to the knowledge of the divine creating power, if it was not always, than if it had always been; since everything which was not always manifestly has a cause; whereas this is not so manifest of what always was.

They are both there in this article:

Prima Pars : Question 46. The beginning of the duration of creatures
Article 1. Whether the universe of creatures always existed?
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1046.htm#article1

It is noteworthy how the main answer to all objection goes into Aristotle's real intentions:

Nor are Aristotle's reasons (Phys. viii) simply, but relatively, demonstrative—viz. in order to contradict the reasons of some of the ancients who asserted that the world began to exist in some quite impossible manner. This appears in three ways.

Firstly, because, both in Phys. viii and in De Coelo i, text 101, he premises some opinions, as those of Anaxagoras, Empedocles and Plato, and brings forward reasons to refute them.

Secondly, because wherever he speaks of this subject, he quotes the testimony of the ancients, which is not the way of a demonstrator, but of one persuading of what is probable.

Thirdly, because he expressly says (Topic. i, 9), that there are dialectical problems, about which we have nothing to say from reason, as, "whether the world is eternal."

Would to God that some people considered these days as Catholic theologians had the freedom to dispense with Darwin and Galileo like St. Thomas with the mere opinions of Aristotle.

Meanwhile, much more than Darwin on pigeon speciation, much more than Galileo on the pendulum, Aristotle did make major contributions. It is sad that CMI (or Lita Cosner writing on their behalf) is willing to forego all except those maintained by modern science or modern creation science. Probably it has sth to do with Aristotelic metaphysics being part of the definition on Transsubstantiation - at least as far as the distinction substance and accidents goes. But it is a distinction that makes sense. The substance Hans Georg Lundahl was not always the quantity 186.5 cm. My hair and beard being quality blonde with grey was formerly blonde, beard did not exist before a certain age and even my hair didn't. My locus is now in a cyber in Paris, this morning it was outside the porch but under the porch space of a house, 12 years ago I was not in Paris. My tempus began in 1968, or actually nine months earlier in late 1967. It has not ended yet. But I am now enjoying a different part of it. My status is less likely to be confused with Covid than yesterday, when my fever was highish, since I have successfully used blue cheese and strong liquor to tend to my teeth infections. My situs is right now sitting, but was some hour ago standing in a bus and then walking. My actio is writing an answer to Lita Cosner and a half hour ago it was writing one to a French atheist. I wonder whether reading counts as a passio, since it is a sense impression. And my habitus involves a bottle of coffee and some clothes I mended myself in not so modern ways.

To some Protestants, I will not accuse Lita of such base motives, Aristotle is suspect since he condemns, like sodomy, the taking of interest.

To some, since Aristotle believed in the "four elements" he is the guy, his is the philosophy, that St. Paul warns of. This has been a topos since Karl Marx denied St. Paul meant Epicurean philosophy. To Democritus and Epicure, a synonym of "atoms" is "elements".

Beware lest any man cheat you by philosophy, and vain deceit; according to the tradition of men, according to the elements of the world, and not according to Christ:
[Colossians 2:8]

And Greek has "stoicheia". But the fact is, St. Paul believes "τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου" exist.

So we also, when we were children, were serving under the elements of the world.
[Galatians 4:3]

To which Witham:

S. Chrys. understands the exterior ceremonies and precepts of the law of Moses, with an allusion to the first elements or rudiments which children are taught. Wi.

If then you be dead with Christ from the elements of this world, why do you yet decree as though living in the world?
[Colossians 2:20]

And here also it refers to how matter is ceremonially arranged according to the Jewish law.

St. Paul is concerned with Materialism, not with Aristotelic Hylomorphism or Geocentrism.**

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Tatiana of Rome
12.I.2021

Romae sanctae Tatianae Martyris, quae, sub Alexandro Imperatore, uncis atque pectinibus laniata, bestiis exposita et in ignem missa, sed nil laesa, demum, gladio percussa, migravit in caelum.

PS, obviously I was familiar with Thomistic version of Aristotelic metaphysics before I became geocentric, so the issue which drove me was one, which a video of Faulkner is trying to adress otherwise. Why Is There Distant Starlight If The Earth Is Very Young? - Dr. Danny Faulkner on Is Genesis History? Ans here is what I wrote (before watching, I had a hunch of his theory being white holes or time zone convention, so I haven't watched yet):

More elegant: geocentrism -> takes away distance implications of "parallax" ill so named -> takes away size implications of main series and a few more -> takes away the distances in light years exceeding Biblical chronology.

With angelic movers, it works.

This piece of Aristotelic Thomism is in Prima Pars, Question 70. The work of adornment, as regards the fourth day, Article 3. Whether the lights of heaven are living beings?, where he is not saying the stars are not moved by living beings, i e angels. Elsewhere he argues the Bible too says so, for instance Job 38:7./HGL

* I personally relish the first instance of the genre "syllabus errorum" nearly as much as I do with Aquinas, but to most this predecessor to syllabus errorum by Popes Pius IX and St. Pius X is unknown. In David Piché's book, I obviously did not copy his side by side translation of the original format, but I copied the appendix where he copied a medieval text based on it, namely the one in which English dioceses joined the Paris condemnations and systematised the contents, first all errors about God, then all errors about angels and so on. It is here, with my own footnotes:

EN LENGUA ROMANCE EN ANTIMODERNISM Y DE MIS CAMINACIONES : Index in stephani tempier condempnationes
http://enfrancaissurantimodernism.blogspot.com/2012/01/index-in-stephani-tempier.html

** There are obviously details in Aristotle where he goes wrong, as not yet a Christian. He lived where and when Christianity was not available. And St. Thomas opposes them.

Let's Not Silmarillionise the Genesis, Shan't We?

Or is it "shall we?" Anyway, let's not.

What do I mean by this phrase ...? Well, some good Christians, including good Catholics, I hope, have considered that as The Silmarillion (Ainulindale, Valaquenta, Quenta Silmarillion, Akallabêth, Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age) are not factual history, but do contain spiritual truth, so one could drop the claim Genesis is factually true and stick to its spiritual truth.

Now, the reason they just might not be as good Catholics as all that, after all, is, no, this is not how the Church has viewed Genesis.

Before I converted, I had been a very staunch Young Earth Creationist. I did not reevaluate that during the thought process leading up to my conversion process. Only at Catechesis (in US I think they call it RCIA), I was told that this was not needed. Note, back in 1987-1988, Antipope and then pseudo-Cardinal Ratzinger had not yet signed the Anti-Fundamentalist papers, which very anachronistically described the essence of Fundamentalism as rejection of spiritual senses, notably allegorical sense, but which very clearly actually went after the inerrancy of the literal sense as factual truth, especially factual history. When this happened, I was already "out of there" as adherent to trads like Le Barroux and Fraternity of St. Pius X (in that order) and I felt no need whatsoever to obey those new instructions. They came from "the occupied Church".

But back to when I converted, when I was told that, I did not drop literal belief in Genesis, I had most definitely not been told it was a heresy, and I was wary of new permissions (fasting too), but on the other hand, I had lived under a very constant strain in Sweden, socially, due to my Young Earth Creationism. So, I took time off. Laid the question aside.

A few years later, I was most definitely not buying the standard Evolutionist view, but I was willing to consider things like Cuvier and Hörbiger:

It was also claimed that Earth had had several satellites before it acquired the Moon; they began as planets in orbits of their own, but over long spans of time were captured one by one and slowly spiralled in towards Earth until they disintegrated and their debris became part of Earth's structure. One can supposedly identify the rock strata of several geological eras with the impacts of these satellites. It was believed that the destruction of earlier ice-moons were responsible for The Flood.[1]

The last such impact, of the "Tertiary" or "Cenozoic Moon" and the capture of our present Moon, is supposedly remembered through myths and legends. This was worked out in detail by Hörbiger's English follower Hans Schindler Bellamy; Bellamy recounted how as a child he would often dream about a large moon that would spiral closer and closer in until it burst, making the ground beneath roll and pitch, awakening him and giving him a very sick feeling. When he looked at the Moon's surface through a telescope, he found its surface looking troublingly familiar. When he learned of Hörbiger's idea in 1921, he found it a description of his dream. He explained the mythological support he found in such books as Moons, Myths, and Man, In the Beginning God, and The Book of Revelation is History. It was believed that our current Moon was the sixth since Earth began and that a new collision was inevitable. Believers argued that the great flood described in the Bible and the destruction of Atlantis were caused by the fall of previous moons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welteislehre

In such a scenario, whether there was more space between Adam and the Flood of Noah or whether there were once pre-Adamites, and not yet attending the consequences in soteriology or Biblical epistomology (human side, not inspirational), I considered that ages of men not recorded in Genesis could have been confirmed by the findings of Hörbiger, and could have been approximated as to their real histories by things like The Silmarillion or King Kull and Conan the Barbarian. I think if you take into account that Nimrod lived longer than men do today and then put Rahan and Conan the Conqueror together*, you can get a fair approximation of Nimrod's carreer. But back then I was more thinking in terms of getting periods of history that the Bible does not record.

When so many were Silmarillionising the Genesis, I was semi-Genesising (not attributing inerrancy!) The Silmarillion. By now, I'd be more modest : Akallabêth is, like The Last Battle, a good meditation on the Apocalypse, but not that close to real history.

Fortunately for my writing carreer, this mistake was past, after reading De Civitate Dei in Swedish translation, before I took up writing on the internet about a month or a month and a half after 20 years ago. The irony is, back then I thought Cuvier, since French, was a Catholic, now I know that he was a Protestant and all Catholics in his time, up to 1830, would have frowned on his work.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Epiphany Vigil
5.I.2021

* Or Rahan, Ramayana (Nimrod featuring as Hanuman), and then Conan.

Robert Carter did a Great Job of Summing Up Here

So, I link:

CMI : How did the earth dry out after the Flood?
Feedback 2020 | Published: 2 January 2021 (GMT+10)
https://creation.com/drying-out

That I was not entirely unaware of this, I can refer to my series from earlier past year:

Himalayas ... how fast did they rise? · Himalayas, bis ... and Pyrenees · ter · quater · quinquies ... double-checked