Some CMI Classics Aren't Classic

Creation vs. Evolution: Some CMI Classics Aren't Classic · Tas Walker 2015 vs Tas Walker 2008 · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Tas Has Sth to Say About the K-Ar Date of a Rock

In the days of Peleg
by Larry Pierce, This article is from
Creation 22(1):46–49, December 1999
https://creation.com/in-the-days-of-peleg

There are three errors common in biblical chronology today. ... Third, there are those who would lengthen the biblical chronology. One of the earliest were those rabbis in Egypt who translated the Hebrew Bible into Greek to produce the Septuagint (LXX) in the third century BC. They arbitrarily added about 700 years to the biblical chronology for the period between Noah and Abraham, to make it agree with the works of Manetho. If what they had done was correct, then Peleg would be dead and gone (as would most of the leaders of the division of the nations) before the Tower of Babel happened.

Strawman.

Many modern biblical archaeologists, like the translators of the LXX, are just as guilty of the same thing today. Just as the LXX’ translators listened to the fairy tales the Egyptian priests told them, most modern biblical scholars follow the just so stories told by secular historians and archaeologists who push the founding of Babylon and Egypt back thousands of years.

Bad comparison.

Why is the comparison bad? Why is it a strawman?

First, why do I answer this in the first place? I have often linked to CMI, as their work is partly parallel and mainly complementary to mine, despite them being Protestants. Also, they were in the field before me. Also, the views per day would be more numerous than mine. Much of my readership has for all three reasons a probability to consult them about what I write. If they are stating sth which would if taken seriously make me look bad, my readers are likely to be aware of it. CMI are aware of it, they have classified me as a spammer who needs no response. The problem with that approach is, it precludes debate. Either way, they are beyond reasonable doubt aware of it.

A few days ago, I actually sent them an article which I gave them the right to use.

It involved the "admission" or rather explanation that my Biblical chronology followed the Roman Martyrology for Christmas Day. The samples I gave in it made it clear, this is a LXX based chronology. I also made a claim that carbon dates can be accurately calibrated to Biblical chronology (it could be made with Ussher chronology too, I suppose, but the problem is this would need a faster carbon 14 rise, which would need more radioactivity to achieve). It also involved as a conclusion from the recalibrated carbon dates, as opposed to the uniformitarian ones, that Yamnaya culture was too late to be the common ancestor of all Indo-European languages, if that is what happened.

The article immediately brought to sight was not the one above, but another retake of an article from the same issue, which made me look up this article. It is Radioactive ‘dating’ failure The problem is, this is worded in the title as if the unreliability basically totally of K-Ar (and it really is unreliable) disproved any and all radioactive dating methods, even carbon 14 in a modified shape. But back to the claim of Larry Pierce that this would contradict the lifespan of Peleg.

10 And these [are] the generations of Sem: and Sem was a hundred years old when he begot Arphaxad, the second year after the flood. 11 And Sem lived, after he had begotten Arphaxad, five hundred years, and begot sons and daughters, and died. 12 And Arphaxad lived a hundred and thirty-five years, and begot Cainan. 13 And Arphaxad lived after he had begotten Cainan, four hundred years, and begot sons and daughters, and died. And Cainan lived a hundred and thirty years and begot Sala; and Cainan lived after he had begotten Sala, three hundred and thirty years, and begot sons and daughters, and died. 14 And Sala lived an hundred and thirty years, and begot Heber. 15 And Sala lived after he had begotten Heber, three hundred and thirty years, and begot sons and daughters, and died. 16 And Heber lived an hundred and thirty-four years, and begot Phaleg. 17 And Heber lived after he had begotten Phaleg two hundred and seventy years, and begot sons and daughters, and died. 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.		10 Καὶ αὗται αἱ γενέσεις Σήμ. καί ἦν Σὴμ υἱὸς ἑκατὸν ἐτῶν, ὅτε ἐγέννησε τὸν ᾿Αρφαξάδ, δευτέρου ἔτους μετὰ τὸν κατακλυσμόν. 11 καὶ ἔζησε Σὴμ μετὰ τὸ γεννῆσαι αὐτὸν τὸν ᾿Αρφαξὰδ ἔτη πεντακόσια καὶ ἐγέννησεν υἱοὺς καὶ θυγατέρας καὶ ἀπέθανε. 12 Καὶ ἔζησεν ᾿Αρφαξὰδ ἑκατὸν τριάκοντα πέντε ἔτη καὶ ἐγέννησε τὸν Καϊνᾶν. 13 καὶ ἔζησεν ᾿Αρφαξὰδ μετὰ τὸ γεννῆσαι αὐτὸν τὸν Καϊνᾶν ἔτη τετρακόσια καὶ ἐγέννησεν υἱοὺς καὶ θυγατέρας καὶ ἀπέθανε. Καὶ ἔζησε Καϊνᾶν ἑκατὸν καὶ τριάκοντα ἔτη καὶ ἐγέννησε τὸν Σαλά. καὶ ἔζησε Καϊνᾶν μετὰ τὸ γεννῆσαι αὐτὸν τόν Σαλὰ ἔτη τριακόσια τριάκοντα καὶ ἐγέννησεν υἱοὺς καὶ θυγατέρας καὶ ἀπέθανε. 14 Καὶ ἔζησε Σαλὰ ἑκατὸν τριάκοντα ἔτη καὶ ἐγέννησε τὸν ῞Εβερ. 15 καὶ ἔζησε Σαλὰ μετὰ τὸ γεννῆσαι αὐτὸν τὸν ῞Εβερ τριακόσια τριάκοντα ἔτη καὶ ἐγέννησεν υἱοὺς καὶ θυγατέρας καὶ ἀπέθανε. 16 Καὶ ἔζησεν ῞Εβερ ἑκατὸν τριάκοντα τέσσαρα ἔτη καὶ ἐγέννησε τὸν Φαλέγ. 17 καὶ ἔζησεν ῞Εβερ μετὰ τὸ γεννῆσαι αὐτὸν τὸν Φαλὲγ ἔτη διακόσια ἑβδομήκοντα καὶ ἐγέννησεν υἱοὺς καὶ θυγατέρας καὶ ἀπέθανε. 18 Καὶ ἔζησε Φαλὲγ τριάκοντα καὶ ἑκατὸν ἔτη καὶ ἐγέννησε τὸν Ραγαῦ. 19 καὶ ἔζησε Φαλὲγ μετὰ τὸ γεννῆσαι αὐτὸν τὸν Ραγαῦ ἐννέα καὶ διακόσια ἔτη καὶ ἐγέννησεν υἱούς καὶ θυγατέρας καὶ ἀπέθανε. 20 Καὶ ἔζησε Ραγαῦ ἑκατὸν τριάκοντα καὶ δύο ἔτη καὶ ἐγέννησε τὸν Σερούχ.
Genesis 11 page 1 and page 2, LXX with English translation.
Arph. 2 to 537 AF (after the Flood) Cainan 137 to 597 AF		Sala 267 to 727 AF Heber 397 to 801 AF Phaleg 531 to 870 AF

In the graph, I see "2242 BC Tower of Babel (Manetho)" ... without much explanation. So, lets assume the Tower of Babel had been mentioned as such by Manetho, and given a time reference which adds up with its relation to his time to 2242 BC, in and of itself possible, Peleg would at least have been pretty old when it came to be. Let's see, Creation* 5500 BC, minus 2242 = Flood* in 3258 BC, minus 870 after Flood, sure enough, in this case, yes, Peleg would have been already dead when it happened, a total counterintuitive oxymoron.

But I have verified, this is not what happened. Manetho's Book of Sothis is not independently available, it is cited in George Syncellus who made an Ussher method based Biblical chronology, but one based on the LXX. So, arguably, if Manetho had claimed the tower of Babel was in 2242 BC, this would preclude this agreeing with Pelegs placement in George Syncellus' chronology. But that would have meant that Syncellus was disagreeing with Manetho.

In fact, Manetho's Book of Sothis is a fragment, that is only available in the citation it gets in Syncellus.** Let's first see a footnote on it.

The Book of Sôthis which Syncellus believed to be the genuine Manetho, but which in its original form was based upon Eusebius and Josephus, is dated by Gutschmid to the third century after Christ. It is not possible to divide the kings of this "Cycle" into dynasties, for their sequence is unchronological: e.g. 18‑24 belong to Dynasties XIX and XX, 26‑29, 32 to the Hyksôs period, 33‑48 to Dynasty XVIII, 49, 58 to Dynasty XIX, 50, 51 to Dynasty XXVI, 59‑61 to Dynasty I, 63‑67 to Dynasty XXI, 68‑70 to Dynasty XXIII, 74 to Dynasty XXIV, 75‑77 to Dynasty XXV, and 79‑86 to Dynasty XXVI.

The Book of Sôthis includes names taken from another source than Manetho.

Hardly likely, if the book of Sothis had given us an indication for 2242 BC, that this would be better proof than the LXX. But if we look at the content of the actual page, it is mainly a series of king names. And the mention of the Tower of Babel is in a comment by Manetho under name 25. Here are that name 25 as well as Syncellus comment.

25. Concharis, 5 years.

In this 5th year of Concharis, the 25th king of Egypt, during the Sixteenth p239 Dynasty of the Sôthic Cycle as it is called in Manetho, the total of years from the first king and founder of Egypt, Mestraïm, is 700 belonging to 25 kings, i.e. from the general cosmic year 2776, in which the Dispersion took place in the 34th year of the rule of Arphaxad 7 and the 5th year of Phalec. 8 Next in the succession were 4 kings of Tanis, who ruled Egypt in the Seventeenth Dynasty for 254 [259] years, according to the following computation.

As you may have noticed, the Biblical mentions are only in Syncellus' comment. Manetho is no independent source for Menes' real name being Mestraim, alias Mitsraim, nor for the Tower of Babel, nor for its relation to Arphaxad (somewhat obscure, a kind of thought lapse?) and to Phaleg. And, even more, no mention of the Tower of Babel being in 2242 BC. He places it in Anno Mundi 2776. In order to translate this to BC, you need to know that Syncellus considered Christ as born some time between 5500 and 5509 Anno Mundi.

5500 BC = 0 AM
2776 AM =
2724 BC

What would be the age of Phaleg in this year?

2242 AM (Flood)
+531 AF
2773 AM

He would have been three years old.

To be fair, there really were authors who (seemingly at least) placed Tower of Babel in the ballpark of 2242 (or nine years later 2234) BC.

The year was 331 BC. After Alexander the Great had defeated Darius at Gaugmela near Arbela, he journeyed to Babylon. Here he received 1903 years of astronomical observations from the Chaldeans, which they claimed dated back to the founding of Babylon. If this was so, then that would place the founding of Babylon in 2234 BC, or about thirteen years after the birth of Peleg. This was recorded in the sixth book of De Caelo (‘About the heavens’) by Simplicius, a Latin writer in the 6th century AD. Porphyry (an anti-Christian Greek philosopher, c. 234–305 AD) also deduced the same number.

But the problem is, does this "founding of Babylon" correspond to Tower of Babel? I would say no. But even over and above that, Syncellus used Manetho and LXX, Simplicius and Porphyry used neither. I cannot locate the sixth book of Simplicius, and the Aristotelic work he comments on has only four books ... Syncellus obviously did not use Aristotle. But if he had, he might have concluded for the date being about the founding of Classical Babylon, not the Nimrodian one. Yes, I think there is a distinction, and since some time back, I think*** Classical Babylon was originally called Agade, was Sargon's capital before he "founded Babylon" and also after he did so, namely by renaming Agade, after conquering a location in Turkey, Sinjar province, which before his time (and I would argue only from some time after Peleg's birth) had been the location known as Bab-ilu or Hebrew Babel. So, 2234 BC could be referring to Sargon rather than Nimrod.

So, while the article seems to throw a bad light on my view of Göbekli Tepe being Babel and LXX being a good chronology, unjustifiedly so.

Now, I found this as said via an article on Radioactive ‘dating’ failure, while this is technically correct, this old article glosses over (or rather hadn't begun to notice) that there could be a difference between K-Ar (what the article actually talks about) and C14.

The reason I got to making a Biblical recalibration for C14 is I had a kind of trust in that one, which someone on FB seemingly independently put to the test. Not sure if he wants credit on my blog, I'll for now just cite the responses I made to him, which include minimal quotations from his comments.

"Also, C14 has not reached equilibrium. It's been calculated by Creation scientists to take 30,000 years to reach equilibrium, making the Earth less than 30,000 years old."

I think "has not reached equilibrium" is wrong, what we see now is variation around it (up to recent emissions of old carbon).

If C14 hadn't reached equilibrium, why would C14 dating work pretty well and in accordance with known history around known historic objects for past centuries back to Christ and beyond to fall of Troy (greatest deviation from 100 pmC being in the times of the Hallstatt plateau)?

"The point is, the C-14 dating method is junk science. It can't be accurate, because other science disproves it."

There is in fact no other science, including theology, that disproves it.

Theology proves it needs recalibration after Biblical events rather than continuing with dendro-chronological calibration after that becomes insecure (further back then etc).

But theology doesn't disprove the method as such. Nor does any natural science.

By theology, I don't mean anything else than Biblical history, its chronology, and potentially theological ramifications of the chronology. Note, I said it doesn't disprove the method as such, but it certainly disproves the older dates in the currently most often used calibration. I e, theology proves a need for this to be recalibrated.

Now, why would I have any kind of trust in just this one radiometric method? Well, for one it works in relation to recent three millennia.

For another, one of the Creationist classics about this one, namely the "still ongoing" rise in it, gave me the hunch that it could be and most importantly for a Biblical recalibration, formerly have been, rising. A rising C14 level would mean the successive real dates are put into successive datings by two processes:

• as even now, and imperfectly, by older samples having decayed more of its initial carbon 14
• but on top of that, to even out the imperfections or swings, by older samples having less and less initial content the further back you go.

This is how 2958 BC, 2557 BC, 1936 BC° carbon date°° to 37 000, 8600, 3500 BC, i e a much wider span of time than in reality.

I could suspect that CMI looked for an old issue which had two articles contradicting me, and then just in case I should miss it also sent someone to the FB group where I am known to make the points there.

But it could also be, they simply prayed, and God answered their prayer in a way that unexpectedly gave me the opportunity to justify my position, rather than retract it. Whether they were devious in the way first suggested or simply "cautious" and then prayed as suggested this paragraph, I think I can thank God for the opportunity.

It remains that Larry Pierce did a far from professional job. Per se fine, but doesn't really put CMI in a position to boycott me for my (real or at least culturally perceived) lack of professionality. I suspect he did some face to face seeking for feedback numbers could have tumbled over each other to his ears, and he could have inserted one year which was a numeral for a time span, not a date, and misunderstood what was Manetho and what wasn't Manetho.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
XXI Lord's Day after Pentecost
22.X.2023

PS, it seems the guy I stumbled on was a documentarist, which means, he would very arguably like the publicity even if I think he's wrong on detail.

Here's a sneak peek at my upcoming documentary, where I will prove the Book of 1 Enoch was written by Noah's great grandfather, and I will provide archaeological evidence, matching astronomical movements, matching the text of Enoch, that shows it is the most significant eye witness evidence of a young Earth

The Mystery of Enoch - Sneak Preview
David Willhite, 21 Dec. 2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=tLp6VgTkbE0

To which I responded by looking up Josephus (mentioned in video) and commenting:

// ...Now this Seth...did leave children behind him who imitated his virtues.... They also were the inventors of that peculiar sort of wisdom which is concerned with the heavenly bodies, and their order. And that their inventions might not be lost before they were sufficiently known, upon Adam's prediction that the world was to be destroyed at one time by the force of fire, and at another time by the violence and quantity of water, they made two pillars; the one of brick, the other of stone: they inscribed their discoveries on them both, that in case the pillar of brick should be destroyed by the flood, the pillar of stone might remain, and exhibit those discoveries to mankind; and also inform them that there was another pillar of brick erected by them. Now this remains in the land of Siriad to this day. //

I will not deny that sons of Seth could well have done this before the Flood, but I think Noah could have brought a model on the Ark, and Göbekli Tepe is a copy of that model by Nimrod.

A k a Babel.

It could also be, Nimrod was more of an astrologer than the sons of Seth, and Josephus being that too but having a negative view of Nimrod (correctly so) replaced that into the pre-Flood world, so as to exonerate it from being by Nimrod (who was obviously a son of Seth by the way) — or some of his predecessors did so.

PPS, same FB group started to get 2 more posts of videos debunking radiometric dating in general. For the one we see an enumeration of methods in the time stamp, it doesn't cover C14. For the other I'm basically verifying it halfways through or a third through, it seemingly wants to give the impression carbon 14 isn't any good either, without actually stating so and without adressing its specificities. The fact that carbon 14 has been found in fossils supposed to be millions of years old doesn't prove the method is fundamentally flawed. The fact it gives in the first instance ages that are inflated beyond Biblical, a k a real timeline shows there needs to be a recalibration. This I have already done, and it's kind of being cancelled./HGL

PPPS, if anyone wonders why I follow CMI at all, some of their classics really are classic. Here is one:

Is Jesus Christ the Creator God?
by Russell Grigg, This article is from
Creation 13(3):43–45, July 1991
https://creation.com/is-jesus-christ-the-creator-god

* Syncellus' chronology involves a few more centuries than that of the Roman martyrology. In the latter, creation is in 5199 and Flood in 2957 BC (or 5200 and 2958 BC, since Christ is not born in "year zero" but in "year 1 BC" = most of the year was before He was born), this also makes 2242 years in the Genesis 5 genealogy.

** Appendix IV The Book of Sôthis or The Sôthic Cycle
This webpage reproduces a section of The Fragments of Manetho
https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Manetho/Appendices/4*.html

*** And here I looked up my source:

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

° Flood, Babel dispersion (end of Babel occupation), Genesis 14.
°° By tephra from a supervolcano, considering these belong to the Flood, by charcoal layer uppermost in Göbekli Tepe, by reed mats for evacuation of temple treasures from Amorrhaean En-Geddi.