Some Thinks Lions Couldn't Have Eaten Fish after the Flood? Watch This Video!

Do BIG CATS Like Fish?
Collecte de fonds
Big Cat Rescue | 16 July 2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTvC2HSfitE

I am Stopping their Video at 11:34

Here it is:

Chimp-Human DNA: Less similar than previously reported
CMI Video | 9 Nov. 2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlNLoEGu0po

They are saying 450 million nucleotides would have had to be produced, if evolution were true.

Here are the data they base it on. I'll give it in blockquote so as not to credit myself, even if it's not an exact quote, but a summary of what they had previously said:

3 billion base pairs in the human genome.

16 % dissimilarity between man and chimp by two more recent studies than the famous "1 %" or "99 %" study.

480 million? As the similarity was actually somewhat above 84 %, the dissimilarity is actually below 16 %. So, replacing 480 million with 450 million is not a big deal.

What about 240 million? If half the mutations are on the chimp side, only half need be on the human side. Or 225 million.

How much would that take?

6 million years since Ardi (most recent species cited as common ancestor of men and chimps).

20 years per generation.* 6 million years by 20 = 300 000 generations.

240 000 000 / 300 000 = 800 mutations per generation.
225 000 000 / 300 000 = 750 mutations per generation.

That meaning net actually getting into all of the gene pool mutations. Not like one generation making 750 mutations between all different parts of the ancestry, but one generation making so many that are in fact also preserved.

Let me explain a bit.

We have 23 chromosome pairs. Each in two examples.

We all have one example each from the father, one example each from the mother (Adam, Eve and Jesus being exceptions).

For the generation before that, we cannot for instance have 23 chromosomes from one grandparent unless we also lack any from the other one. So, each grandparent is ancestral to anything between 0 and 23 of our 46 chromosomes, but around 12 or 13. 46 / 4 = 12.5, but 12.5 is not an option, since chromosomes come only in wholes. Also, 0 or 23 from one grandparent is a highly unlikely option.

When the ancestors become more than 46, we certainly don't have one chromosome from each any more. Some of them are in our lineage, but not in our genetic makeup.

Greatgrandparents. 8 people, often enough 8 different ones. 46 / 8 = 5.75, but 5.75 is not an option. On average, we have 5 or more likely 6 chromosomes from each. Already here, there could be one or two we have nothing from.

Their parents are 16 people. 46 / 16 = 2.875, which is not an option. We have on average three chromosomes from each great-great-great-grandparent, unless one is so more than once.

They have parents that are 32 people (often enough NOT 32 different ones), 46 / 32 = 1.4375, which is not an option, so from each great-great-great-great-grandparent, one has in average one or two chromosomes.

As to their parents, 46 / 64 = 0.71875, which is not an option. On average, one would have one chromosome from each, but zero from 18 of them. If you have two chromosomes from one great-great-great-great-great-grandparent, or from one great-grandparent of a great-grandparent, and he's not such more than once, it means you have zero from 19 of them. If you have three from one or two from two of them, you have zero from 20 of them, except the times the one who gave you more than one chromosome was an ancestor more than once over (meaning, he has more than one Sosa-Stradonitz ancestry number).

From their parents, 128 people, you still get only 46 chromosomes. In other words, variants are being lost all of the time. Obviously, a variant of your ancestor 128 or 255 (these are the extremes known as father's father etc and mother's mother etc) which is lost to you can be preserved in someone else, whom they are also 128 or 255 to. But even so, mutations leading up to becoming man would have been competing with lots of other mutations not leading that direction.

In other words, inheriting about 750 to 800 locus mutations from each generation for 6 million years is pretty unlikely. Unless ...

"it's impossible that that many changes wouldn't have introduced serious genetic defects, which would have destroyed the evolving life forms"

This is said at 11:50 of the video. Get back to it, it is good. Well, so far. But I see no indications it's getting downward.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Andrew
30.XI.2022

Apud Patras, in Achaja, natalis sancti Andreae Apostoli, qui in Thracia et Scythia sacrum Christi Evangelium praedicavit. Is, ab Aegea Proconsule comprehensus, primum in carcere clausus est, deinde gravissime caesus, ad ultimum suspensus in cruce, in ea populum docens biduo supervixit; et, rogato Domino ne eum sineret de cruce deponi, circumdatus est magno splendore de caelo, et, abscedente postmodum lumine, emisit spiritum.

PS There are in some issues just before and just after 20 minutes. Post upcoming with my comments to those, tomorrow./HGL

Notes:
* Confirmed that a chimp generation is not radically shorter:

As they report today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, chimpanzee mothers ranged in age from 11.7 to 45.4 years at the birth of their offspring. The average age of reproduction was 25 years for females and 24 years for males, giving them an average generation time of about 25 years.

Generation Gaps Suggest Ancient Human-Ape Split
The ancestors of today's humans and chimpanzees may have diverged millions of years earlier than thought
13 AUG 2012 BY ANN GIBBONS
https://www.science.org/content/article/generation-gaps-suggest-ancient-human-ape-split

Also states:

When they applied the new rates to the history of all three species, they calculated that humans and chimps split earlier than expected—at least 7 million to 8 million years ago and possibly as early as 13 million years ago. They estimate the split between gorillas and the lineage leading to humans and chimpanzees to 8 million to 19 million years ago.

Revisiting Henke2022b, 5:3

This passage

Henke

Lundahl (2022b) raises additional objections to Hypothesis #2. He complains that advocates of Hypothesis #2 are going against a tradition that Moses had a vision of the six days of Creation and that they tend to be Old-Earth creationists:

Citation of Lundahl

“One more: proponents of #2 for Genesis 3 go against tradition, as the tradition says that Moses had a vision of the Six Days, and they are also likely to be Old Earthers, trying to motivate why an event purportedly 2500 - 3000 years before Moses could in fact have been known if Adam was rather 250 000 BP.”

Henke

However, whose tradition is this? Where did it come from? How do we know that this tradition is reliable? Why should the favored prejudices (traditions) of past generations be necessarily trusted? Even if Moses had a vision of the six days of Creation, how does that rule out Moses having additional visions that included Genesis 3? Also, why do advocates of Hypothesis #2 necessarily have to believe in Old-Earth creationism? Couldn’t advocates of Hypothesis #2 argue that God could have given Moses visions of any event in the past at any time? The arguments in Lundahl (2022b) and Lundahl (2022c) are worthless and would not convince any advocate of Hypothesis #2. Furthermore, advocates of Hypotheses #3 and/or #4 would identify any “traditions” about Moses seeing visions as probably nothing more than groundless made-up stories that became widely circulated and popular over the centuries.

For clarity, for those who have missed earlier parts. Henke's four hypotheses for the epistemic origin of Genesis 3 are:

• 1) tradition from Adam and Eve
• 2) revelation to Moses
• 3) campfire story
• 4) fraudulent claim to prophecy

He is obviously favouring 3 or 4 over both 1 and 2, and in context, he is challenging why I prefer 1 over 2. He already did so in Henke2022a.

My argument is cited, and I will analyse it as two arguments:

I) proponents of #2 for Genesis 3 go against tradition, as the tradition says that Moses had a vision of the Six Days,

My point being, perhaps stated somewhat elliptically (at least in this citation), there is no tradition at all of Moses having a vision of the rest of Genesis. If Exodus 6 makes Levi his greatgrandfather, it makes much more sense for Moses to know about Levi from family tradition than from a vision. And Abraham is Levi's greatgrandfather, and his story begins to be told in detail already in Genesis 12, starting in some final verses of Genesis 11. But previous parts of Genesis 11 purport at least to be a genealogy, and the usual way to get genealogies is for generations to remember who they are and transmit that to ensuing generations.

So, it would make in some way sense for all of the preceding to be tradition, but this is impossible insofar as Adam as observer of events was absent totally from "the beginning" and days 1 through 5 and even the beginning of day 6. The obvious options for (most of) the six days are prophecy or made up or faked prophecy - only hypotheses 2, 3 or 4 are possible for Day 4.

And we do have a tradition (at least in book of Jubilees) that Moses had a vision of the six days. My main point however is, this tradition does NOT cover anything beyond the six days account. Even chapter 2 involves Adam being present before some things happen before his eyes. And the verses from Genesis 2:5 to when Adam is a conscious human being and an adult male are such that God could have briefly revealed them to Adam himself.

The end of the six day account, God blessing Adam and Eve with fertility and God blessing the Sabbath, would also have been available to Adam as observer, but were arguably (if Moses had a vision of the six days) transferred to the end point of this vision.

From the Haydock comment to Genesis 1, verse 4:

Good; beautiful and convenient:---he divided light by giving it qualities incompatible with darkness, which is not any thing substantial, and therefore Moses does not say it was created. C.

In other words, Moses was given complete understanding of the process of creation - at minimum a vision. You can believe this tradition is false, and his info on creation is worthless, but you can hardly deny this is the tradition about it.

II) and they are also likely to be Old Earthers, trying to motivate why an event purportedly 2500 - 3000 years before Moses could in fact have been known if Adam was rather 250 000 BP

I say this from experience with Catholic Old Earthers. I have been saying "Genesis 3 is pretty important for Mariology, right?" - "Yes" - "So, if as you believe Adam lived 40 000 years ago or more, how was it recalled correctly?" - "It was revealed to Moses." - "Well, there is no tradition of it."

My point is, the people trying to pinpoint Genesis 3 to vision rather than tradition are inventing a vision that is NOT in the tradition.

However, whose tradition is this?

Arguably one Hebrew tradition that predates the split between Jews and Christians, and arguably even the split between Samaritans and Jews, though in this case I cannot point to a specific expression of this tradition among Samaritans.

Where did it come from?

The tradition by implication points to coming from Moses. As long as it cannot be traced to a later and complex fraud (which would need to be argued), I'll leave it at that.

How do we know that this tradition is reliable?

How do we "know" that any tradition is reliable? By trusting it. History is ultimately about what tradition you trust, in the case of there being conflicting ones.

I may not be able to articulate why I trust the Hebrew tradition above the Babylonian one or the Khemetic (Egyptian one), but I do.

I can say why I trust tradition above reconstruction. This brings us to the next point:

Why should the favored prejudices (traditions) of past generations be necessarily trusted?

I prefer the favoured prejudice of a past generation above that of the present one, when it comes to past events. I do so on a lot of other issues too, but when it comes to past events, it's pretty obvious why. They were closer to them. And what we get from "scientific" reconstruction is not a near mathematical certitude trumping any past prejudices, we just get a sophisticated expression of present prejudices (including, since Hume, too often "miracles don't happen").

So, I would not go as far as "necessarily" but I would definitely say "usually, unless there is a major argument to the contrary."

In the case of Flood stories, that of Babylon and that of the Bible cannot both be true. It cannot both be true that one god was annoyed people were making too much noise and decided to send a flood, and his twin, being a trixter, and having had the task of creating men, saved some by warning Utnapishtim (or Noah) AND at the same time one and the same just God (neither peevish, nor trixter) decided to send the Flood because society was turning too horrible on a world wide scale, and also to save one family which stood out against the horrors of their times. It cannot both be true that the vessel was a giant version of the coracle, and that it was a wood box of tanker proportions. One can argue that the wood box of tanker proportions was adequate to save all kinds of animals, while the coracle wouldn't have been. Or one can argue that the coracle is likelier in a local Flood, and good luck explaining how Shuruppak, some tens of metres above the Persian Gulf (34?) was flooded locally and the flood rose to a mount Nisir that is upstreams and is 2588 meters above the Persian Gulf! But the ultimate reason for my preference is kind of what world I feel we live in. The one God who is just is more credible than one peevish lord of gods and one devious second in command who sometimes saves us from the peevishness. And obviously, the adherents of this other theology also say the Flood was world wide.

Even if Moses had a vision of the six days of Creation, how does that rule out Moses having additional visions that included Genesis 3?

It's not the presence of the vision of the six days, but the total absence of a tradition of such a vision for Genesis 3 that rules this out.

Couldn’t advocates of Hypothesis #2 argue that God could have given Moses visions of any event in the past at any time?

That God could do it is no argument to assume He did so without there being any indication of it either in the Bible or in traditions around it.

Furthermore, advocates of Hypotheses #3 and/or #4 would identify any “traditions” about Moses seeing visions as probably nothing more than groundless made-up stories that became widely circulated and popular over the centuries.

Indeed. One extra reason not to add to the visions Moses had. Burning bush and subsequent commands leading Moses and through him Israel, check. Ten Commandments, twice, check. Six Days, perhaps in connection with Sabbath commandment, check. All legislation passages involving "God spoke to Moses and said," check. Revelations about what Israel was to do, about Miriam and Aaron, about what he could expect for himself (seeing God from the back), check. But a vision of Genesis 3 - it's neither in Exodus, nor in the traditions surrounding any of it.

Finally, one more:

The arguments in Lundahl (2022b) and Lundahl (2022c) are worthless and would not convince any advocate of Hypothesis #2.

I haven't seen any, except the Old Earther I met in a Catholic charity where he was volunteering and I was received. And even he didn't claim to have given the matter totally thorough thought.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Sosthenes
28.XI.2022

Apud Corinthum natalis sancti Sosthenis, ex beati Pauli Apostoli discipulis; cujus mentionem facit idem Apostolus Corinthiis scribens. Ipse autem Sosthenes, ex principe Synagogae conversus ad Christum, fidei suae primordia, ante Gallionem Proconsulem acriter verberatus, praeclaro initio consecravit.

PS, the Old Earther, even Evolutionist, though a Catholic, it was in 2019, it would seem, if you read French:

New blog on the kid : Quatre évolutionnistes rencontrés
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2019/06/quatre-evolutionnistes-rencontres.html

Enjoy!/HGL

"If the whole earth were one ball of carbon 14"

Let's first take the amount this means. Mass = volume * density.

Volume of earth 1.08321 × 10¹² km³
Density of graphite 2.09–2.23 g/cm

Let's translate the density a bit. 1000 g = 1 kg. 1000 (yes!) cm³ = 1 dm³.
1000 kg = 1 metric tonne, 1000 dm³ = 1m³

1 km = 10 * 1 hm
1 hm = 10 * 1 dkm (dekametre, not decimeter)
1 dkm = 10 * 1 m

For cubic versions, it' 1000 per transformation.

1 083 210 000 000 km³
1 083 210 000 000 000 000 000 m³

So, we are dealing with up to
1 083 210 000 000 000 000 000 m³ * 2.23 tonne/m³ = 2 415 558 300 000 000 000 000 tonnes

But this would be true if the tonnes were from Carbon 12. Carbon 12 has an atomic weight of 12, and Carbon 14 a bit above 14. This means the real weight of this would be 14/12 or 7/6 of above.

3 218 151 350 000 000 000 000 tonnes.

What does it take to get carbon 14 under 1 % of original amount? Let's check the halvings.

100.000 00 I
50.000 00 II
25.000 00 III
12.500 00 IV
6.250 00 V
3.125 00 VI
1.562 50 VII
0.781 25 VIII

That's 8 halvings, would take 8 halflives = 8 * 5730 = 45 840 years. Let's round the final result up to 0.8 % to make calculating a bit easier. And the Roman numerals from here on don't reer to halflives, but to "one of those" - that being the unit of 45 840 years.

25 745 210 800 000 000 000 tonnes after I
205 961 686 400 000 000 tonnes after II
1 647 693 491 200 000 tonnes after III
13 181 547 929 600 tonnes after IV
105 452 383 436.8 tonnes after V
843 619 067.494 4 tonnes after VI
6 748 952.539 955 2 tonnes after VII
53 991.620 319 641 6 tonnes after VIII
431.932 962 557 132 8 tonnes after IX
1.727 731 850 228 531 2 tonnes after X

From the graphite the volume of earth to less than 2 tonnes in 458 400 years.

1.727 731 850 228 531 2 tonnes =
1 727.731 850 228 531 2 kg =
1 727 731.850 228 531 2 g

I think we can ignore what's below 1 gram, let's round up

1 727 732 g for 1 727 731.850 228 531 2 g

13 821.856 g after XI
106.574 848 g after XII
0.852 598 784 g after XIII

So, graphite the volume of the earth is becoming less than one gramme in 13 * 45840, that is in 595 920 years.

Obviously, this weight refers to the weight of Carbon 14. As far as we know, it doesn't become nothing - but does it become carbon 12 or carbon 13 or nitrogen 14?

That's another question. At least after a bit more than half a million years, carbon 14 the volume of the earth would be reduced to less than one gramme. For purposes of carbon dating, the maximum actually used goes a few more halflives beyond 45840 years. I put in 70 000 years in a carbon 14 calculator, and I find "This date is too large and beyond the limits of present accuracy (55000 to 60000 years)" - and I also find, the actual value would be 0.021 pmC. If we then take 60 000 years as the limit, this means ones goes a bit beyond ten halvings, ten halflives. So, if something is carbon dated to younger than 60 000 years, it means there is measureable carbon 14 left. If there is measurable carbon 14 left, either it is in fact younger than 60 000 years, or it was contaminated. But contamination should be less omnipresent than to provide dates of 20 000 to 39 000 BP for dinosaurs when carbon dated consistently. It is more logical, they are in fact younger than 60 000 years, not older than 60 000 000 years. Especially as we do find human skeleta or associated material dated to earlier than that (like 50 000 years ago).

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Catherine of Alexandria
25.XI.2022

Some Observations on How Creationism is Perceived

Look at these poly-syllogisms:

1) Evolution is Science and Creationism is Religion.
2) Therefore it is a fraud to speak of Creation Science,
3) since this makes Creationism usurp the honour of being Science, which rightly belongs to Evolution;
4) and if homeschooling parents are Creationist, they will teach homeschooling as science;
5) therefore homeschooling is dangerous.

That's the first and here's the second:

1) Evolution is Science and already proven.
2) But what's already proven doesn't need proof,
3) therefore the expert or believer in experts who believes evolution has no burden of proof
4) whereas the Creationist has the burden of proof along each step,
5) because he's the one making an extraordinary claim.

Some things are clear about people who reason like this (yes, I've come across them on the internet, I am just adding logical structure in my analysis of their process of thought):

• "Science" is their "Bible"
• not believing "Science" is their "heresy"
• the actual Bible is their "false prophet" since so often it involves people in "not believing Science"
• and this makes "Science" the positive religion of Atheists, notably this type.
• Meanwhile, logic and pertinent facts about what science and religion actually mean are thrown out of the window.

I'll give you one more. But unfortunately, it was not by an Atheist.

1) All nations have Founding Myths;
2) all Founding Myths are Myths;
3) all Myths are Made-Up Stories (because a dictionary says that is what the word means)
4) but the Torah is the Founding Myth of the Hebrew nation;
5) therefore the Torah (and on into books of Samuel at least) are made up stories.

But hey, they are still the word of God!

And the majority of Christian theologians support "some texts should be read literally and some metaphorically" ...

As the person in question was replying under the video of a Dominican and had a French name, I'll suppose he thinks of himself as a Catholic. I did that when informing him that St. Thomas Aquinas and most Catholic theologians historically would have disagreed with him. They would have said ALL texts need to be taken literally and ALL texts figuratively. Of the minorities who don't hold that, it seems the Literal Only with St. John Chrysostom is larger than the Figurative Only (if it ever existed) of Origen.

There is one more observation on all three syllogisms. The ones holding this kind of reasoning are in fact betting on things always being what they are labelled as, on there being no conflicts about labels and on there being no multiple meanings of words, like George Washington certainly being a "Founding Myth" and as certainly NOT a "made up story" for the US, and that the correct labels are those that are circulating most widely in formal and informal communictions right now.

As a linguist, I can say that Adam's language could not have developed from animal communications. But as a philologist, one concerned with old texts, I can also say that this is not how reality works. Several of these labels have shifted meaning over the centuries and all have been applied in ways that not just some lonely nut case, but large portions of the world would consider as mislabelling.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Présentation de la Sainte Vierge
dans le Temple
21.XI.2022

Hierosolymis Praesentatio beatae Dei Genitricis Virginis Mariae in Templo.

PS - the thread under the Dominican's (?) video is mirrored here, for readers of French:
Répliques Assorties : Quand un Dominicain fait du Stephen J. Gould
https://repliquesassorties.blogspot.com/2021/07/quand-un-dominicain-fait-du-stephen-j.html

The post was posted in its original shape on Friday, 9 July 2021, has since been seen 1790 times and the updates with Roger Girard start last week./HGL

PPS, yes, I am tired. I think I am fulfilling the brag of Kent Hovind of beating them in a discussion, "even with half my brain tied to the back" - over tired counts as that, and I'm still beating his prestanda./HGL

PPPS, to illustrate my fatigue, I forgot first that the Feast was supposed to be given in English, then to point this oblivion out when writing previous PS./HGL

Are CMI Hearing Me?

Are CMI Hearing Me? · Does Sennaar mean Sumer? · Ken Griffith and Darrell K. White considered Judi, but not Göbekli Tepe · Ah, Griffith and White Provided the Source Too

An Upper Mesopotamian location for Babel
by Ken Griffith and Darrell K. White | This article is from
Journal of Creation 35(2):69–79, August 2021
https://creation.com/babel-upper-mesopotamia

For starters, I am disagreeing with Abraham being there two centuries after the dispersion. On Biblical chronology, I am with the Historia Scholastica and the Christmas Proclamation of Martyrologium Romanum.

Next ....

Location. Not too bad.

37°47’48.84”N, 40°22’45.39”E "Babel, cand. C"
37°13′23″N 38°55′21″E Göbekli Tepe

The nearby Çınar, Diyarbakır is between Cizre (238,9 km) and Göbekli Tepe (183 km, distances by car, involve turns, and Çınar is a bit N of the line Cizre to Göbekli Tepe).

Time in archaeology ... could so far not find what "Babel candidate C" is carbon dated to.

Bricks? Well, the finding of bricks is being pushed backwards. They mention that bricks have been found at level XIII of Tepe Gawra. Now, they did not tell and I could not find what carbon date is associated with that level. The wikipedian article on Tepe Gawra says:

Tepe Gawra (Kurdish for "Great Mound")[1] is an ancient Mesopotamian settlement 15 miles NNE of Mosul in northwest Iraq that was occupied between 5000 and 1500 BC. It is roughly a mile from the site of Nineveh and 2 miles E of the site of Khorsabad. It contains remains from the Halaf period, the Ubaid period, and the Uruk period (4000–3100 BC). Tepe Gawra contains material relating to the Halaf-Ubaid Transitional period c. 5,500–5,000 BC.

So, oldest carbon dates are 5500 or 5000 BC. What years would this be on my tables?

2243 B. Chr.
0.657496 pmC/100, so dated as 5693 B. Chr.
2220 B. Chr.
0.680023 pmC/100, so dated as 5420 B. Chr.

or

2153 B. Chr.
0.706677 pmC/100, so dated as 5003 B. Chr.

If the meaning was, this was contemporary with 37°47’48.84”N, 40°22’45.39”E archaeology, I think this could still be too late. If the meaning however is "burned bricks are going back in archaeology" I agree this is good news.

What if I went back in (real/Biblical) time for 5000 BC carbon dates?

Peleg is born 401 after the Flood, 2556 BC.

5000 - 2556 = 2444 extra years, 74.405 pmC in 401 after Flood
5500 - 2556 = 2944 extra years, 70.038 pmC in 401 after Flood

A sample from 401 years ago, if original content were 100 pmC, would have 95.265 pmC. This means 95.265 is the percentage left of original sample - and 100 - 95.265 gives us the normal replacement in 401 years:

100 pmC - 95.265 pmC = 4.735 pmC.

Flood itself, 2.625 pmC (dated 39,000 BP).*

2.625 pmC * 95.265 %
2.625 pmC * 0.95265 = 2.5 pmC

74.405 pmC - 2.5 pmC = 71.905 pmC
71.905 pmC / 4.735 pmC = c. 15 times faster (my own work has 10 times faster)
70.038 pmC - 2.5 pmC = 67.538 pmC
67.538 pmC / 4.735 pmC = c. 14 times faster

What would the effect be in relation to Genesis 14?

2556 BC - 1935 BC (Genesis 14) = 621 years.

Percentage of original and normal replacement in 621 years. 92.763 % and 7.237 pmC.

Level at Genesis 14, 82.73 pmC** - sorry, just checked** - 82.753 pmC.

Let's compare normal replacement with actual replacement of C14, and we start by calculating the remainder from the 2556 level that's left in 1935 and deduce that from the total 1935 level.

74.405 pmC * 0.92763 = 69.02 pmC
82.753 pmC - 69.02 pmC = 13.733 pmC
70.038 pmC * 0.92763 = 64.969 pmC
82.753 pmC - 64.969 = 17.784 pmC

13.733 pmC / 7.237 pmC = 1.898 times faster
17.784 pmC / 7.237 pmC = 2.457 times faster

So, if Babel's end were in carbon dated 5000 or 5500 BC Flood to Babel would have seen 14 to 15 times faster replacement than normal, but in Babel to Genesis 14 it suddenly drops to around twice as fast - less than between Genesis 14 and the death of the childkilling pharao, if he was Sesostris III*** which is 3 times the present normal replacement.

But as said, they did not say that Tepe Gawra XIII and 37°47’48.84”N, 40°22’45.39”E were identical. They even said that Pre-Pottery Neolithic A is a good period to look:

The Bible states that Noah was the first farmer after the Flood (Genesis 9:20). In archaeology the ‘Neolithic’ are considered the first farmers, and the PPNA is the oldest known Neolithic culture. Therefore, we expect that the PPNA is a good place to look for the Tower of Babel.

While burnt bricks have so far neither been found in 37°47’48.84”N, 40°22’45.39”E, nor in Göbekli Tepe, the lower level of Tepe Gawra could go back to 5000 BC carbon dated, which is as mentioned 2153 BC.

2607 BC or begin of Babel - 2153 BC = 454 years

Perhaps not too long between the first actual bricks and the first so far found bricks.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Martin of Tours
11.XI.2022

Turonis, in Gallia, natalis beati Martini, Episcopi et Confessoris; cujus vita tantis exstitit niiraculis gloriosa, ut trium mortuorum suscitator esse meruerit.

PS, don't miss the delicious argument they made that Sargon first ruled in a city named Akkad (it hasn't been found separately from Babylon) and then conquered a place in modern Turkey called Babylon, and then renamed Akkad into Babylon. Their article really is worth reading./HGL

Notes:
* Checking. 39000 BP = 37000 BC - 2957 BC = 34043 extra years. A recent sample back then would have dated to "34043 years ago." Which gives 1.628 pmC. My bad.
** Checking. 3500 BC - 1935 BC = 1565 extra years, 82.753 pmC
*** If the childkilling pharao was later than Sesostris III, we need a higher pmC in 1590 BC, meaning the disproportion even further increases.

Catholic Devotion and Young Earth Creationism

The Jesse Tree
An Advent Devotion
by Eric Sammons, Suzan M. Sammons
https://www.sophiainstitute.com/products/item/the-jesse-tree

This Advent, lead your family closer to Christ as you prepare for the Lord’s coming at Christmas. Engage with the Old Testament patriarchs and prophets who are the branches in Jesus’ family tree and come to understand fully how, in Christ, this family history becomes the history of our salvation.

As you explore Jesus’ fascinating ancestry, you’ll see how God’s plan of salvation unfolds from Adam and Eve, through the Old Testament prophets, to the birth of Christ, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and the sacraments of the Church. Marvel at the parallels between Adam and Christ, the New Adam; Eve and Mary, the New Eve; the patriarch Joseph and St. Joseph, guardian of the Redeemer; and others.

I have no beef with any of this obviously.

But perhaps the American Conference of Bishops has? You see, the Jesse Tree is based on Biblical genealogies, like Genesis 5 and 11 and the later generations over Genesis to the end, like Ruth, Paralipomena (or Chronicles), and obviously a resumé in Matthew 1 and Luke 3.

The people who started the devotion were, unlike American ... I'll look up the official name: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops ... unlike these guys, the people who started the devotion were very obviously Young Earth Creationist. Oh, feel free to get this devotion!/HGL

Potato Fallacy in Percentage Math of Natural Processes - Are My Critics Guilty?

I was guilty myself, while starting to see a video on the Potato fallacy. Or, as Susanne Scherer calls it "hard core fallacy at the potato paradox" ...

Krasser DENKFEHLER beim Kartoffel Paradoxon! – Machst du ihn auch? 🤓
MathemaTrick, 1 Nov. 2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUV1zoJA9L8

The question:
A farmer got 100 kg of potatoes for a harvest. 99 % of these are water, before you dry them. After you dry them, 98 % are water. How much do the potatoes weigh now?

The wrong answer:
There is one % less of water, but each of the 99 % of water weighed 1 kg, therefore the new weight is 99 kg.

The right process:
Potatoes consist of water and the rest, let's call it dry substance. Only the water is affected by the drying out. A total is never 99 %, but a 100 %.
This means, the dry substance, which was 1 kg, was 1%.
The dry substance, which is still 1 kg, is now 2%. Not of the original weight, but of the new weight.
The potatoes weigh 50 kg after the drying.

I get inadequate feedback from people not agreeing with me. This means, I sometimes have to guess what is going through their heads. And the following, with my own correction, is an educated guess of why they keep reading and disagreeing and waiting "for me to see the light" ...

The atmosphere can be seen as one, big, sample of organic compounds involving carbon 14. In 5730 years, the carbon 14 content should halve. If it doesn't, it is because 50 "percent modern carbon" are added, net, in 5730 years. Let's use the phrase "percent modern carbon" as referring to percentages of "today's atmosphere" (corrected for pre-industrial values). If something halves or doubles, it will be in relation to what it was, but if I say pmC, this is like how 50 pmC are what you find in a sample supposed to be 5730 years old, or like how 70.7 pmC (square root of 50 % in pmC) is for a sample that is (and can be checked against Assyrian chronology to be) 2865 years old. Keep in mind, either way this is not absolute quantities, but proportions of the overall carbon content in the atmosphere or in samples. Counted in % of the modern proportion.

So, doubling the carbon content could also take 5730 years - from today's 100 pmC? Not really. From 50 pmC to 100 pmC? More like it. But never mind, the fallacy I have in mind would even have a doubling from 100 to 200 pmC take 5730 years, with the normal production of C14 in the atmosphere.

So, if the deluge atmosphere was one now dated (where preserved in samples from then) to 39 000 years, this means it had 1.625 pmC. How many times would you have to double this before arriving at 100 pmC?

1.625 pmC (1 doubling) 3.25 (2) 6.5 (3) 13 (4) 26 (5) 52 (6 doublings) 104 pmC, slightly in excess of 100 pmC.

You'd have to double this 6 times. Hence, the normal process would be 6 halflives.

6 * 5730 = 34 380 years.

Flood to Troy = 2957 BC - 1179 BC = 1778 years

34 380 / 1778 = 19.34 times faster.

But constantly going 19.34 times faster would totally be disruptive of everything, so ... I need to be wrong.

Wait a bit. Doubling the C14 content and adding 50 pmC points to it, that's two different types of operation, they coincide only between 50 and 100 pmC.

Where in my tables does this doubling fall?

Creation vs. Evolution : New Tables
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/08/new-tables.html

1185 B. Chr.
1 pmC/100, so dated as 1185 B. Chr.

1 pmC / 100, multiply both sides with 100, 1 * 100 = 100, pmC / 100 * 100 = pmC, so 100 pmC. The reason I counted New Tables in "pmC / 100" being that I am more familiar with decimal fractions than percentage counting.

1185 BC is approximate, should have been 1179 BC as per both carbon date and historic date of Troy VIIa.

2534 B. Chr.
0.494539 pmC/100, so dated as 8334 B. Chr.
2511 B. Chr.
0.507242 pmC/100, so dated as 8111 B. Chr.

So, 50 pmC is reached between 2534 and 2511 BC. 2522 BC is medium or 2523 BC.

2523 - 1179 = 1344 years.

I am basically cramming a process that could take 5730 years into 1344 years. I will not go into the fact that 5730 years would actually not raise 50 pmC to 100 pmC, but just to 75 pmC, while it keeps 100 pmC at 100 pmC*

5730 / 1344 = 4.26 times as fast. Not quite true, but roughly.

Now, the previous doubling only involves adding 25 pmC net. When was 25 pmC reached?

2756 B. Chr.
0.250709 pmC/100, so dated as 14 206 B. Chr.

2756 - 2522 = 234 years - for a process that should take 2400 years. Where a sample goes down from 100 to 75 pmC and the atmosphere replaces 25 pmC, so stays at 100, is 2400 years** ...

2400 / 234 = 10.26 times as fast.

Previous to that, we need to go from 12.5 to 25 pmC. When did we have 12.5 pmC according to me?

2867 B. Chr.
0.119246 pmC/100, so dated as 20 467 B. Chr.
2845 B. Chr.
0.145681 pmC/100, so dated as 18 745 B. Chr.

Between 2867 and 2845 BC, medium of which is 2856 BC

2856 - 2756 = 100 years.

100 - 12.5 = 87.5, and the time to get a sample down to 87.5 pmC is tha of getting the atmosphere replacing 12.5 pmC. 1100 years.

1100 / 100 = 11 times as fast.

Previous doubling to that would be 6.25 to 12.5 pmC.

2912 B. Chr.
0.066161 pmC/100, so dated as 25 362 B. Chr.

2912 - 2856 = 56 years

100 - 6.25 = 93.75 pmC, which a sample starting with 100 pmC has after 530 years.

530 / 56 = 9.46 times faster.

6.25 / 2 = 3.125 pmC.

2935 B. Chr.
0.039541 pmC/100, so dated as 29 635 B. Chr.

3.95 is actually a bit too high to count with, so we use two doublings, getting down to

2957 B. Chr. 0.012788 pmC/100, so dated as 38 957 B. Chr.

3.125 / 2 = 1.5625


1.5625 + 3.125 = 4.6875 pmC
100 - 4.6875 = 95.3125 pmC, 400 years.

2957 - 2912 = 45

400 / 45 = 8.889 times faster.

Problem solved. Each doubling previous to 50 pmC backwards involved less and less pmC points net added and therefore involve less and less normal time for the process, which is sped up. We never get as fast as 19.34 times the normal speed.

Yeah, but having a C14 production between 8.889 and 11 times as fast from 2957 to 2523 BC would hardly have been healthy?

Precisely. Lifespans after the Flood were 500 years only after having lived 100 years before the Flood, and they were dwindling. This faster C14 production was a result of more radiation from the cosmos primarily meant to implement God's decision in Genesis 6:3 And God said: My spirit shall not remain in man for ever, because he is flesh, and his days shall be a hundred and twenty years. Two concomitant results were the ice age and pushing up C14 levels to what has been since the Fall of Troy a fairly stable 100 pmC.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Sts Zachary and Elisabeth
parents of St. John the Baptist
5.XI.2022

Sancti Zachariae, Sacerdotis et Prophetae, qui pater exstitit beati Joannis Baptistae, Praecursoris Domini.

Item sanctae Elisabeth, ejusdem sanctissimi Praecursoris matris.

* 100 pmC * 50 % = 50 pmC + 50 pmC = 100 pmC BUT 50 pmC * 50 % = 25 pmC + 50 pmC = 75 pmC.
** I am using this:
Carbon 14 Dating Calculator
presented by Earth Science Australia through the kind permission of the author Mark Gregory
http://earthsci.org/space/space/geotime/C14/Carbon%2014%20Dating%20Calculator.html

New American Bible : Footnoted to Apostasy

Case study, Genesis 11.

The whole world spoke the same language, using the same words.

Footnote one:

[1-9] This story, based on traditions about the temple towers or ziggurats of Babylonia, is used by the sacred writer primarily to illustrate man's increasing wickedness, shown here in his presumptuous effort to create an urban culture apart from God. The secondary motive in the story is to present an imaginative origin of the diversity of the languages among the various peoples inhabiting the earth, as well as an artificial explanation of the name "Babylon."

So, the origin of diversity of languages is "imaginative" ... it seems the footnoter was imagining, the process called by linguists "language evolution" or "language development" or - rarely but more correctly - language change (diverse in diverse populations) is responsible for the diversity of languages in Abraham's time.

Let's go to the Roman Martyrology, shall we, Christmas Day. Oh, not the modernist version from the nineties, the traditional one, still used, as I presume intactly, when Pope Michael and Father Francis Dominic last celebrated Christmas, so, we see traditional Catholic liturgy, reflecting traditional Catholic doctrine.

a diluvio autem, anno bis millesimo nongentesimo quinquagesimo septimo; a nativitate Abrahae, anno bis millesimo quintodecimo;

So, Deluge happened 2957 BC, Abraham was born 2015 BC. This means, the time lapse from Flood to Abraham's birth is 942 years.

Abraham visited a pharao who was presumably speaking Old Egyptian of some sort. He had to do with an Amraphel from Mesopotamia who had probably Sumerian or Akkadian or Aramaic as mother language. He had left a city called Ur of the Chaldees which could in certain views have been speaking Sumerian (if it was Woolley's Ur) and on another view (which I prefer, so far) could have been speaking Akkadian or Aramaic, namely if it is Urfa.

This means, in Abraham's day, we have languages as diverse as Egyptian, Sumerian, Akkadian.

Now, in the Ark there was presumably one language, precisely as in the beginning of this account. Noah, his wife, their three sons, their three daughters in law, very arguably shared one language. But even supposing they had five, it is not probable the five would have developed separately for the following 942 years. And obviously, the ancestors of certain Indo-European languages, and of Chinese and so on, even if not mentioned in the text, would have been spoken in Abraham's day too. So, five mutually influenced languages are very inadequate as a purely natural explanation for the language diversity in Abraham's time.

Precisely as linguist - and no, I don't have to be able to decipher Cyrillic, even if I can* do so, to be a linguist. Precisely as a linguist, pretending Sumerian and Akkadian could have developed from the same language on the Ark or even Akkadian and Egyptian (closer, since both are Afro-Asiatic) is like stating my 75 year old mother could run the marathon in ten seconds.

In c. 1000 years, you get a difference like between Danish and Icelandic, which 1000 years ago were one and the same language. That's far less than between even Egyptian and Akkadian, let alone between either and Sumerian. Neither Sumerian nor Afro-Asiatic are by Evolution believing linguists (and yes, many in the field do believe Evolution) counted as even Nostratic, narrower sense. But Afro-Asiatic could count as at least pre-Nostratic, or mega-Nostratic, and Sumerian doesn't. It is mainly thought to be an isolate, those who disagree would group it with:

• Basque
• Sino-Tibetan
• some languages in North Kaukasia (not same group as Georgic!)
• Na-Dene in First Nations in some parts of North America
• Yeniseian - which is somewhat more commonly grouped with Na-Dene.

This mega-group is referred to as Dene-Kaukasian by those who believe it. Now, Dene-Kaukasian is kind of parallel to Nostratic.

And usual view of Nostratic, by those believing in it, is:

• Indo-European
• Uralic and Altaic (Finnish to Japanese over Turkic)
• Greenlandic.

The common ancestor for these would be 20 000 years ago. Afro-Asiatic falls just outside, perhaps on their view separated from Nostratic 25 000 years ago. Dene-Kaukasian is very different, so would have separated even earlier.

No, the explanation here given of language diversity given is not imaginative. It is on linguistic grounds necessary, unless you want to have in Abraham's time diverse populations that diverged with no common majority ancestry in the last 40 000 years. And once you state even the Flood, let alone Adam, was 40 000 years before Abraham, you have ruined the faith. You have also - for those believing Vatican II was a valid council - contradicted §3 of Dei Verbum.

But what are the alternatives to natural, normal, language change?

Miracle.
Con-Lang.

The small family groups after the Flood were so bored in hours after killing big game and roasting them before their caves, that they invented lots of new languages, like Tolkien invented Quenya or David Peterson invented High Vallyrian. And most of them forgot the language their ancestors had spoken on the Ark, despite there being evidence for far distance trade in the Upper Palaeolithic.

Doesn't sound realistic to you? Me neither. Leaves us with the miracle, right? So, the explanation in Genesis 11:1 - 9 is not imaginative, but strictly realistic. At least the main thing in it is proven fact, unless you want to place Adam as not the first mortal man (contradicting St. Paul) or as too far back to allow a faithful historic transmission of Genesis 3 (contradicting all Marian dogmas based on Genesis 3:15 and St. Paul on mortality too).

While men were migrating in the east, they came upon a valley in the land of Shinar and settled there.

Translation issue : all old translations translate miqqedem as from the east.

But there is a footnote 2.

[2] Shinar: see note on ⇒ Genesis 10:10.

I turn back a page, see:

The chief cities of his kingdom were Babylon, Erech, and Accad, all of them in the land of Shinar.

Footnote 7 says:

[10] Shinar: ancient Sumer in southern Mesopotamia, mentioned also in ⇒ Genesis 11:2; ⇒ 14:1.

There is a problem here. In Southern Mesopotamia, the valley stretches outside Mesopotamia proper (namely the two rivers) and also outside Sumer (even where Sumer itself stretches outside the two rivers). You would not be finding a valley in Shinar either way you take it, you would find Shinar in a valley.

I take Shinar simply means Mesopotamia, and if you object LXX translating "land of Babylon" this translation is from a time where all of Mesopotamia, even the North West in what is now Turkey, was Babylon. Alexander ruled the area of Edessa and Seleucus who refounded it ruled the actual new-old city in both cases as kings of Babylon. Edessa being Urfa, not far from the Göbekli Tepe I identify with Babel in this chapter.

I mentioned Amraphel - and I am not aware of any Sumerian etymology for his name. I look up the word in Strong, from Hebrews interlinear of Genesis 14, and find:

569. Amraphel
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/569.htm

Strong's Concordance Amraphel: king of Shinar Original Word: אַמְרָפֶל Part of Speech: Proper Name Masculine Transliteration: Amraphel Phonetic Spelling: (am-raw-fel') Definition: king of Shinar

NAS Exhaustive Concordance Word Origin of uncertain derivation Definition king of Shinar NASB Translation Amraphel (2).

To me it doesn't really sound Sumerian. This is one clue Shinar was more of Mesopotamia, arguably all of it, than just Sumer.

Back to footnotes on chapter 11. Verse 3 has no footnote.

Then they said, "Come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the sky, and so make a name for ourselves; otherwise we shall be scattered all over the earth."

When you translate "with its top in the sky" you are basically tying the meaning down to the top statically being there, that is to it being a skyscraper project.

Hebrew has "and the top [is] in the heavens" according to the interlinear, but of the words (ū·miḡ·dāl) wə·rō·šōw ḇaš·šā·ma·yim contains no word with as static a meaning as "is" - in psalm 73:9 (presumably 72:9) ḇaš·šā·ma·yim is translated as against the heavens.

This leaves room for a dynamic meaning of it, which is the translation of the old versions in Greek and Latin :

turrim, cujus culmen pertingat ad caelum
πύργον, οὗ ἔσται ἡ κεφαλὴ ἕως τοῦ οὐρανοῦ

ἔσται Third-person singular future middle indicative of εἰμί (eimí).
Latin pertingat is subjunctive.

Pertingere is a dynamic verb, and even "to be" becomes dynamic like "to become" by being in the futur. Even on the skyscraper theory, we would not in the sentence be contemplating the completed and stable state of the top staying in heaven, we would be contemplating the moment it comes up there.

But the dynamic meaning leaves room for rocketry - and no, I do not the least imagine Nimrod could have pulled things off like at Cape Canaveral, I just think that is what he wanted to do, with inadequate grapsz on pre-Flood technologies he hadn't seen and which themselves would have been inadequate for the purpose - and God put the project on hold for 4500 years. Not to prevent man from doing the tower, but to allow us to finally do so in recent years (so we could see relative points and pointlessnesses of doing so).

Verses 5 to 8 have no footnote. Here is verse 9:

That is why it was called Babel, because there the LORD confused the speech of all the world. It was from that place that he scattered them all over the earth.

Here is footnote 4:

[9] Babel: the Hebrew form of the name "Babylon"; the native name, Bab-ili, means "gate of the gods." The Hebrew word balil, "he confused," has a similar sound. Apparently the name referred originally only to a certain part of the city, the district near the gate that led to the temple area.

With Nimrod planning to reach angels and the God they adore by rocketry, he would also have reason to call it "gate of the gods" or "of God" (bab-El?) and the punster would also have had reason to restate it as Babil from confusion being the "real name" (as in real essence) of the project. If you know what Graham Hancock states about Göbekli Tepe, he thinks it looks like a rocket ramp take off area. I think so too. He thinks it served aliens coming as astronauts. I think it was meant to serve a man alienating himself from God who was aspiring to be an astronaut. Nimrod.

He would not yet have been a believer in Babylonian mythology or in polytheism since idolatry arose after his time.

Verse 10.

This is the record of the descendants of Shem. When Shem was one hundred years old, he became the father of Arpachshad, two years after the flood.

[10-26] This section is a continuation of the genealogical record given in ⇒ Genesis 5:1-32; see note there. Although the ages of the patriarchs in this list are much lower than those of the antediluvian patriarchs, they are still artificial and devoid of historical value. The ages given here are from the current Hebrew text; the Samaritan and Greek texts have divergent sets of numbers in most cases.

The last sentence is correct. The Vulgate agrees with the current Hebrew or Masoretic text. The Roman martyrology agrees with a version of the Greek text (LXX, Septuagint) that lacks the second Kenan. This in turn agrees with the Samaritan text. For the Genesis 5, the Roman martyrology agrees with LXX and not with Masoretic text, nor with Samaritan text since posing 2242 years from Creation to Flood.

Now, devoid of historic value is absolutely NOT what the Catholic Church hath held and holds since 2000 years. The fact that The New American Bible can be found on the site of the Vatican, in and of itself shows that these guys are not promoting the faith of previous centuries.

But let's go to Genesis 5 ... verse 1 is:

This is the record of the descendants of Adam. When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God;

Footnote 1 reads:

[1-32] Although this chapter, with its highly schematic form, belongs to the relatively late "Priestly document," it is based on very ancient traditions. Together with ⇒ Genesis 11:10-26, its primary purpose is to bridge the genealogical gap between Adam and Abraham. Adam's line is traced through Seth, but several names in the series are the same as, or similar to, certain names in Cain's line (⇒ Genesis 4:17-19). The long lifespans attributed to these ten antediluvian patriarchs have a symbolic rather than a historical value. Babylonian tradition also recorded ten kings with fantastically high ages who reigned successively before the flood.

So, a) there was a genealogical gap between Adam and Abraham - contrary to § 3 of Dei Verbum! - and b) the passages were invented to fill it. Or to bridge it. Total denial of even the possibility of historic accuracy - which is contrary to "qui locutus est per prophetas" and to Trent Session IV.

"The long lifespans attributed to these ten antediluvian patriarchs have a symbolic rather than a historical value."

That is definitely not what either St. Augustine or the Roman Martyrology consider, as we have City of God book 15 chapter 9 stating, yes, the lifespans were longer, and since we have before the part quoted above:

Anno a creatione mundi, quando in principio Deus creavit caelum et terram, quinquies millesimo centesimo nonagesimo nono; a diluvio autem, anno bis millesimo nongentesimo quinquagesimo septimo;

Or, the world was created in 5199 BC and the Deluge was in 2957 BC = a distance of 2242 years, what the ages add up to if you use age of father at birth of son according to LXX text.

It can be added that the lifespans are so irregular that symbolic value seems very far fetched, except the one who lived 777 years.

Babylonian tradition also recorded ten kings with fantastically high ages who reigned successively before the flood.

And eight of them have lifespans which, if divided by 60, are very close to the sequence given in Genesis 5 - as if the thing happened, and Babylonians mixed up the numbers by misusing a position system without a zero. With 60 rather than 10 as the base.

Interestingly, at verse 24 we have:

Then Enoch walked with God, and he was no longer here, for God took him.

With footnote 2 saying:

[24] In place of the usual formula, Then he died, the change to Enoch walked with God clearly implies that he did not die, but like Elijah (⇒ 2 Kings 2:11, ⇒ 12) was taken alive to God's abode.

Oh, suddenly the thing is historic, after all? Let's check 2 Kings ...

As they walked on conversing, a flaming chariot and flaming horses came between them, and Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind.

When Elisha saw it happen he cried out, "My father! my father! Israel's chariots and drivers!" But when he could no longer see him, Elisha gripped his own garment and tore it in two.

It can be noted, Elisha is contradicting the extreme Protestant exegesis of Matthew 23:9. But what does footnote 3 say?

[12] My father: a religious title accorded prophetic leaders; cf ⇒ 2 Kings 6:21; ⇒ 8:9. Israel's chariots and drivers: Elijah was worth more than a whole army in defending Israel and the true religion. King Joash of Israel uses the same phrase of Elisha himself (⇒ 2 Kings 13:14).

Nothing in relation to historicity. However, footnote 4:

[23-24] This story, like the one about Elijah and the captains (2 Kings 1), is preserved for us in Scripture to convey a popular understanding of the dignity of the prophet. Told in popular vein, it becomes a caricature, in which neither Elisha nor the bears behave in character. See note on ⇒ 2 Kings 1:12 and the contrasting narrative in 2 Kings 4.

In other words, the footnote authors do not rely on the full historicity of the Bible even as late as just after Elijah left Elisha. In 2 Kings.

So, back to footnotes in Genesis 11. Verse 12:

When Arpachshad was thirty-five years old, he became the father of Shelah.

[12] The Greek text has a certain Kenan (cf ⇒ Genesis 5:9-10) between Arpachshad and Shelah. This text is followed in ⇒ Luke 3:36.

A minority of manuscripts of Luke as well as of the LXX do not have this second Kenan here. Verse 16:

When Eber was thirty-four years old, he became the father of Peleg.

Footnote 7:

[16] Eber: the eponymous ancestor of the Hebrews, "descendants of Eber" (⇒ Genesis 10:21, ⇒ 24-30); see note on ⇒ Genesis 14:13.

No problem. Wait ... let's check Genesis 14 ... verse 13.

A fugitive came and brought the news to Abram the Hebrew, who was camping at the terebinth of Mamre the Amorite, a kinsman of Eshcol and Aner; these were in league with Abram.

Footnote 4

[13] Abram the Hebrew: elsewhere in the Old Testament, until the last pre-Christian centuries, the term "Hebrew" is used only by non-Israelites, or by Israelites in speaking to foreigners, since it evidently had a disparaging connotation - something like "immigrant." The account in this chapter may, therefore, have been taken originally from a non-Israelite source, in which Abraham, a warlike sheik of Palestine, appears as a truly historical figure of profane history.

Oh, it is only profane history that has truly historical figures? Again ... no, the footnoters are not Catholics. The responsible for the Libreria Editrice Vaticana and the Vatican website are not Catholics. But let's get on to verse 28:

Haran died before his father Terah, in his native land, in Ur of the Chaldeans.

Footnote 8:

[28] Ur of the Chaldeans: Ur was an extremely ancient city of the Sumerians (later, of the Babylonians) in southern Mesopotamia. The Greek text has "the land of the Chaldeans." In either case, the term Chaldeans is an anachronism, because the Chaldeans were not known to history until approximately a thousand years after Abraham's time.

Nevertheless, let's recall what it means - it means speakers of Aramaic, possibly also of Akkadian. This is a definitely different language to Sumerian, either of them. This means, Abraham is more likely to have come from Edessa, North-West Mesopotamia, than from Woolley's Ur in Sumeria, South-East Mesopotamia. In the time of the Chaldaeans, approx a thousand years after Abraham's time (approx in King David's time) ... Woolley's Ur was there (abandoned after 500 AD) ...

Wikipedia : Ur
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ur

... and as for Urfa or its part Balıklıgöl, "it appears to have been a venerated site long before the time of Abraham, as a statue was found there which dates to the Pre-Pottery Neolithic period (roughly 8000 B.C.).[1] Like the city of Urfa itself, the subsequent history of the site is uncertain until the Hellenistic period, when the city was conquered by Macedonian forces under Alexander the Great, and it was renamed Edessa by the general Seleucus I."

Wikipedia : Balıklıgöl
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bal%C4%B1kl%C4%B1g%C3%B6l

... so, presumably Urfa was also there in the time of the Chaldees.

I don't think either city was mentioned all that much by Babylonians in the time of the captivity ...

Verses 31 and 32, with a footnote to each:

Terah took his son Abram, his grandson Lot, son of Haran, and his daughter-in-law Sarai, the wife of his son Abram, and brought them out of Ur of the Chaldeans, to go to the land of Canaan. But when they reached Haran, they settled there.

The lifetime of Terah was two hundred and five years; then Terah died in Haran.

Footnotes 9 and 10:

[31] The Samaritan and Greek texts include Nahor and his wife in Terah's migration to Haran. Although this is probably due to scribal harmonization, Nahor's family actually did migrate to Haran; cf ⇒ Genesis 24:10; ⇒ 27:43.

[32] Since Terah was seventy years old when his son Abraham was born (⇒ Genesis 11:26), and Abraham was seventy-five when he left Haran (⇒ Genesis 12:4), Terah lived in Haran for sixty years after Abraham's departure. According to the tradition in the Samaritan text, Terah died when he was one hundred and forty-five years old, therefore, in the same year in which Abraham left Haran. This is the tradition followed in St. Stephen's speech: Abraham left Haran "after his father's death" (⇒ Acts 7:4).

None of these two contradict historicity of the text, but neither do they strongly affirm it in face of footnote 5 to verse 10. They don't add to apostatic nature of certain other footnotes, but neither do they nullify it.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Silvia of Rome
3.XI.2022

Romae sanctae Silviae, matris sancti Gregorii Papae.

PS - if there had been no miracle, but first conlanging and then forgetting of the common language, the most realistic moment for forgetting would be a decision to use conlangs instead of old mother tongue in precisely an attempt to shirk from global collaboration - the most probable provocation for that being in its turn precisely the kind of hairbrained project decided by an élite that Genesis 11:1 to 9 is describing./HGL

* Check my signature and see if it matches this spelling in Ukrainean Cyrillic : ГАНС ҐEOPҐ ЛУHДAЛ (the "h" in Lundahl is silent and only means the preceding "a" is long - the "H" in Hans is pronounced). German pronunciation however ГАНС ҐEOPK ЛУHДAЛ and Swedish pronunciation ГАНС ЙEOPЙ ЛУHДAЛ / ЛЮHДAЛ, with Swedish "u" between [u] and [ü], so either spelling could work.