Someone Might Need This Word from Calvin Smith

@AnswersCanada
The TRUTH About Fresh Water on the Ark
https://youtube.com/shorts/EIvXONRuy3Y

Three Questions on Quora

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Babel's Confusion was Not a Curse · Creation vs. Evolution: Three Questions on Quora

Usually the format "my answers to questions on quora" (with or without debates that follow up) would be on the blog Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere

But by theme, these belong here as well:

Q I

If I were a true blooded creationist to the bone, what would you say to me to try and convince me of evolution?
https://www.quora.com/If-I-were-a-true-blooded-creationist-to-the-bone-what-would-you-say-to-me-to-try-and-convince-me-of-evolution/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Blog : "http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com". Debating evolutionists for 15 years +.

6 years ago

*loook deeeeeeep into my eyyyyyes, sleeeeeeeep*

And even that would probably fail, since creationism makes good sense.

Q II

Who discovered Adam and Eve first?
https://www.quora.com/Who-discovered-Adam-and-Eve-first/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Self Employed at Writer and Composer

6 years ago

They did (God didn’t discover them, He knew all along He was creating them).

THEN their posterity preserved the record.

Q III

If creation has been proven false, why don't we bury it and put the matter to rest once and for all?
https://www.quora.com/If-creation-has-been-proven-false-why-dont-we-bury-it-and-put-the-matter-to-rest-once-and-for-all/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Blog : "http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com". Debating evolutionists for 15 years +.

6 years ago

"If creation has been proven false,"

It hasn't. But answering the rest, I'll suppose for a moment the truth were false and had been proven so.

"why don't we bury, put the matter to rest once and for all?"

Because there are those guys who actually will not believe those proofs to be definite. This means that there is no human social unanimity on how to treat the matter.

Also, among Evolutionists, who "know the truth", there is no unanimity on how to treat Creationists.

Some debate, some want to treat Creationists like people one could "section", a word I just learned and which I suppose means to put them in mental hospital.

So, the answer to the matter is, disunion among men.

Back to what I really believe : this disunion is predictable by Creationism, since it includes Tower of Babel (Genesis 11).

See also:

New blog on the kid: I Usually Would Have Taken This on Another Blog: How did the biblical story of creation survive the flood?
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2024/09/i-usually-would-have-taken-this-on.html

Science vs Fiction

Short review of:

Live Science: How fast does evolution happen?
By Marlowe Starling published 9.IX.2024
https://www.livescience.com/planet-earth/evolution/how-fast-does-evolution-happen

Citing a sentence of science:

To find out, Bonnet and an international team of researchers analyzed decades of genetic data for 19 bird and mammal species. They found that the rate of adaptive evolution was two to four times faster than previous estimates. More specifically, each generation increased its survival and reproduction by 18.5%, on average, under completely stable conditions.

(Wild Bighorn sheep got shorter horns in response to hunters, snow voles grew smaller, iguanas have become more tolerant of cold in a cold environment).

Citing a sentence of fiction:

Evidence shows that meat-eating theropod dinosaurs evolved into birds, but how fast does evolution normally take?

The answer would be that adaptive evolution and "revolutionary" evolution are very far from being the same thing. Adaptive evolutions tends to make birds into better adapted birds, and would equally tend to make meat-eating theropods into better meat-eating theropods./HGL

Damien Mackey Has His View on Shinar, Nimrod and Babel

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 · Sumeria, Damien Mackey, Intellectual Honour · Damien Mackey Has His View on Shinar, Nimrod and Babel

Land of Shinar, Nimrod, and the Tower of Babel
Damien Mackey, 9.IX.2024
https://www.academia.edu/123692973/Land_of_Shinar_Nimrod_and_the_Tower_of_Babel

First, Chronology:

“In order to determine the length of time from Adam’s creation to the flood we have only to add the ages of the antediluvian patriarchs--Adam, Seth, Enos, Cainan, Mahalaleel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, Noah--at the births of their first sons, and add to this the age of Shem at the flood, and we find that it was 1656 years” (Genesis 5:3-32 ; Genesis 7:6 ).

That was according to a source cited by Damien:

Bible Study Tools : Antediluvian Chronology
https://www.biblestudytools.com/encyclopedias/condensed-biblical-encyclopedia/antediluvian-chronology.html

Whether it really adds up to 1656 years or sth else, depends on the text version used. I would prefer the LXX, as this is the basis for the chronology given in the Roman Martyrology for Christmas Day. Nominally, as per most manuscripts now extant, that makes the pre-Flood era 2242 years long, though arguably this involves a scribal error on when Methuselah fathered Lamech, making the real timespan 2262 years instead.

Since Babel is post-Flood, the more relevant chronology question however would be, the chronology after the Flood. Damien Mackey doesn't mention which text he goes by here. The text versions giving Masoretic equivalent chronology would have not just Flood in 1656 after Adam, but also Abraham born in 292 after the Flood. Unsurprisingly, the Roman Martyrology disagrees, as it goes by a LXX based chronology. It's 942 years after the Flood that Abraham is born. LXX minus second Cainan = Peleg is born 51 years after the death of Noah.

Second, Locality, Broadly as Directionality:

“Now the whole world had one language and a common speech. As people moved eastward, they found a plain in Shinar and settled there”. Genesis 11:1-2

The Hebrew word miqqedem (מִקֶּ֑דֶם), translated here as “eastward”, can also mean “from the east”, so we don’t need to become too squeezed directionally. The word can even have the quite different meaning of “in ancient times”.

The quite different meaning is actually attested, Nehemiah and Psalms. But locally speaking, the most basic meaning is "from the east" and that is how old translations give Genesis 11:2. When a translation like "to the east" is correct, or even "eastward" is acceptable, the most literal meaning is "on the east side of" such and such a thing (Genesis 2:8, Genesis 12:8, Numbers 34:11).

The one exception would be Genesis 13:11, and one can see this as an extension of "on the east side of" since Abraham was staying in the place, we are dealing with choice between two directions, not simply a simple direction.

More Closely, the name Shinar:

The meaning of Shinar (שִׁנְעָ֖ר) can be disputed. It may mean “country of two rivers”. The “plain” (בִקְעָ֛ה), biq’ah, of Shinar may just as accurately be translated as “valley”.

It totally endorse the reasing of “country of two rivers”. But they didn't find "a plain of Shinar" or "a valley of Shinar", they found either a plain or a valley "in the land of Shinar" (בְּאֶ֥רֶץ שִׁנְעָ֖ר) — which would suggest we are dealing with a place where either a plain or a valley is between the two rivers, not around them.

Long tradition has Shinar connected with the name, Sumer, which is thought to have been the region of southern Mesopotamia (or ancient Sumeria), where Babylon is generally considered to have been situated.

I would not consider there is any long tradition about the name Sumer. It was discovered in Cuneiform in the 19th C. Less than 200 years ago. Just the last tenth (or less) of 2000 years. Perhaps this looks like "long tradition" to someone well integrated into modern Academia, but I tend to try to integrate at least my thoughts, if not all of my feelings or decisions, with St. Thomas and St. Augustine, to access them more than usual, even when I do extensively consult moderns for matters of observable fact, and so less than 200 years looks like a short tradition to me.

I would however agree there is an etymological identity between the names. This does not mean they are the same place or have the same limits. 42°21′37″N 71°3′28″W is called Boston, but so is 52°58′26″N 0°01′17″W. But Lincolnshire and Massachusetts are very separate, so they are two different places, even if you didn't catch that from the coordinates. Again, North and South America with the Caribbean archipelago is a very much broader limit than just United States, most of which is in North America. However, both are referred to as "America" ...

I do not think that the Bible ever mentioned directly "Sumer" by name. If Ur Kasdim is the Ur dug up by Woolley, the Bible would mention a city that is in Sumeria, but it does not mention Sumer in that connexion, not even as Shinar. When Joshua looks back at the family history of Abraham with idolatry, Shinar is not mentioned. There is a Shinar in Joshua, but that's in chapter 7, as origin of a textile merchandise.

20 And Achan answered Josue, and said to him: Indeed I have sinned against the Lord the God of Israel, and thus and thus have I done 21 For I saw among the spoils a scarlet garment exceeding good, and two hundred sicles of silver, and a golden rule of fifty sicles: and I coveted them, and I took them away, and hid them in the ground is the midst of my tent, and the silver I covered with the earth that I dug up
[Josue (Joshua) 7:20-21]

Hebrew has "of Shinar" rather than "scarlet." Now, Damien is going to quote Encyclopedia of the Bible again, then tweak it a little. I'll quote both, first Encyclopedia of the Bible:

I. Use. Shinar was used early to describe the land which included the cities of Babel (Babylon), Erech (Warka) and Accad (Agade) within the kingdom of Nimrod (Gen 10:10). This was the place where migrants from the E settled and built the city and tower of Babel (11:2). A king of Shinar (Amraphel) took part in the coalition which raided Sodom and Gomorrah (14:1) and was defeated by Abraham. A fine garment looted by Achan near Jericho was described as coming from Shinar (Josh 7:21, KJV “Babylonish”). It was to this land that Nebuchadnezzar took the captives from Jerusalem (Dan 1:2) and from it the prophet foresaw that the faithful remnant would be gathered (Isa 11:11). It was a distant and wicked place (Zech 5:11).

Very wisely, Encyclopedia of the Bible makes "II. Identification" a separate issue.

I'll quote from that too:

In this way the LXX read “Babylonia” in Isaiah 11:11 and “land of Babylon” in Zechariah 5:11.

By this time, Babylonia was the Seleucid Empire, to which also North West Mesopotamia belonged. Now for Damien's take:

One thing appears to be certain. Babylon was situated in the land of Shinar, because

(Daniel 1:2): “And the Lord delivered Jehoiakim king of Judah into [Nebuchednezzar, king of Babylon’s] hand, along with some of the articles from the Temple of God. These he carried off to the temple of his god in Shinar and put in the treasure house of his god”.

But, was the city of Babylon also situated in southern Mesopotamia?

I would actually argue, two different Babylons or Babels were both in Shinar. Nimrod's and Nebuchednezzar's. Like St. Botulf was not having a tea party in Iccanoe and the Colonists with the Tea Party weren't near the place which he had exorcised, so also Nimrod's and Nebuchadnezzar's Babel are two different places. That's why I consider all of Mesopotamia as the primary meaning of Shinar.

Dr. W. F. Albright, though a conventional scholar, defied tradition by identifying the land of Shinar in the region of Hana (“Shinar-Šanḡar and Its Monarch Amraphel”, AJSLL, Vol. 40, no. 2, 1924).

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

“The Kingdom of Khana or Kingdom of Hana (late 18th century BC – mid-17th century BC) was the Syrian kingdom from Hana Land in the middle Euphrates region north of Mari , which included the ancient city of Terqa ”.

The thing is, just because Terqa is in Mesopotamia, hence in Shinar, doesn't mean it is the actual city of Babylon. The dates given can be presumed to be carbon dates and are way too late for anything in Genesis 14. Genesis 14 carbon dates to 3500 BC. Amraphel did not reign in Terqa. Citing wiki on that city:

Based on ceramic and radiocarbon dating the inner wall was built c. 2900 B.C., the middle wall c. 2800 BC and the outer wall c. 2700 BC and the fortifications were in use until at least 2000 BC.

New blog on the kid: Mes plus récentes tables de carbone 14
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2024/05/mes-plus-recentes-tables-de-carbone-14.html

2900 BC 1756 BC 86.4346 pmC; dated 2956 BC 1734 BC 86.8913 pmC; dated 2884 BC (1756 + 1734 + 1734 + 1734) / 4 = 1740 BC (86.4346 + 86.8913 + 86.8913 + 86.8913) / 4 = 86.777125 pmC => 1150 1150 + 1740 = 2890 BC 2800 BC 1700 BC 87.575 pmC; dated 2800 BC

2700 BC 1700 BC 87.575 pmC; dated 2800 BC 1678 BC 89.4653 pmC; dated 2598 BC (1700 + 1678) / 2 = 1689 (87.575 + 89.4653) / 2 = 88.52015 pmC => 1000 0.5^(1000/5730) => 88.606 pmC 1000 + 1689 = 2689 BC 2000 BC 1610 BC 95.2011 pmC; dated 2020 BC

Terqa's walls start when the Israelites have not yet arrived in Egypt and the latest certain use of them was before the Exodus. Nothing is as old as Genesis 14.

Terqa was located near the mouth of the Khabur river, thus being a trade hub on the Euphrates and Khabur rivers.

This area I believe approximates to the land of Shinar, the “country of two rivers”.

I obviously believe that the two rivers were Euphrates and Tigris, not Euphrates and Khabur. Khabur is within the general limits of Shinar, but does not of itself define any limit.

Here is where Damien considers he has his silver bullet:

Now, we really appear to be getting somewhere.

For, when the Jews went into Babylonian Exile, the prophet Ezekiel encountered them at the Chebar river, as he tells at the beginning (Ezekiel 1:1; cf. 3:15): “In my thirtieth year, in the fourth month on the fifth day, while I was among the exiles by the Chebar River, the heavens were opened and I saw visions of God”.

Part of the exiles certainly went to Chobar, since Haydock says so:

Chobar, or Aboras, which runs westward into the Euphrates, above Thapsacus. (Strabo)

Yes, Haydock agrees, since the wiki for Khabur does mention the forms Aborrhas (Ἀβόρρας) and Aburas (Ἀβούρας).

I have no beef with Ezechiel being in the Khabur area. However, I have not seen Babylon in Ezechiel refer to the place where the prophet went. In the OT of the Douay Rheims, the mentions of Babylon 226 to 243 belong to Ezechiel, a total of 18, and most of them involve "king of Babylon" which, when I search it has mentions beginning Ezechiel on 118 and ending them on 129. A total of 12 mentions. The remaining six mentions of "Babylon" are also not referring to where Ezechiel was:

[Ezechiel 12:13]

And I will spread my net over him, and he shall be taken in my net: and I will bring him into Babylon, into the land of the Chaldeans, and he shall not see it, and there he shall die.

[Ezechiel 17:16]

As I live, saith the Lord God: In the place where the king dwelleth that made him king, whose oath he hath made void, and whose covenant he broke, even in the midst of Babylon shall he die.

[Ezechiel 17:20]

And I will spread my net over him, and he shall be taken in my net: and I will bring him into Babylon, and will judge him there for the transgression by which he hath despised me.

[Ezechiel 23:15]

And girded with girdles about their reins, and with dyed turbans on their heads, the resemblance of all the captains, the likeness of the sons of Babylon, and of the land of the Chaldeans wherein they were born,

[Ezechiel 23:17]

And when the sons of Babylon were come to her to the bed of love, they defiled her with their fornications, and she was polluted by them, and her soul was glutted with them.

[Ezechiel 23:23]

The children of Babylon, and all the Chaldeans, the nobles, and the kings, and princes, all the sons of the Assyrians, beautiful young men, all the captains, and rulers, the princes of princes, and the renowned horsemen.

When I make a search on Chobar, I only find hits in other chapters than 12, 17 and 23. There are 8 hits in the entire Bible, and all from Ezechiel.

"Now it came to pass in the thirtieth year, in the fourth month, on the fifth day of the month, when I was in the midst of the captives by the river Chobar, the heavens were opened, and I saw the visions of God.
[Ezechiel 1:1]
"The word of the Lord came to Ezechiel the priest the son of Buzi in the land of the Chaldeans, by the river Chobar: and the hand of the Lord was there upon him.
[Ezechiel 1:3]
"And I came to them of the captivity, to the heap of new corn, to them that dwelt by the river Chobar, and I sat where they sat: and I remained there seven days mourning in the midst of them.
[Ezechiel 3:15]
"And I rose up, and went forth into the plain: and behold the glory of the Lord stood there, like the glory which I saw by the river Chobar: and I fell upon my face.
[Ezechiel 3:23]
"And the cherubims were lifted up: this is the living creature that I had seen by the river Chobar.
[Ezechiel 10:15]
"This is the living creature, which I saw under the God of Israel by the river Chobar: and I understood that they were cherubims.
[Ezechiel 10:20]
"And as to the likeness of their faces, they were the same faces which I had seen by the river Chobar, and their looks, and the impulse of every one to go straight forward.
[Ezechiel 10:22]
"And I saw the vision according to the appearance which I had seen when he came to destroy the city: and the appearance was according to the vision which I had seen by the river Chobar: and I fell upon my face.
[Ezechiel 43:3]

All four chapters that include Chobar lack the word Babylon entirely.

I think we can conclude very safely that Ezechiel a) saw Chobar with his mortal eyes, and b) did not see Babylon with his mortal eyes.

Khabur is therefore pretty worthless as a location for Babylon, the city. Probably Damien concluded from the phrase "Babylonian captivity" that the Jews were all deported to the one single city of Babylon. On the contrary, it would make sense for the imperialist power to disperse them into different locations, so as to avoid too many Jews in any single place, just as with all the other minorities of conquered and deported peoples.

This gives us yet another reason to not believe that Protestant reading of Apocalypse 18, since "Get out of her" cannot refer to the Reformation, as in the already undoubtedly real example many Jews were never in Babylon in the first place, and never had to heed those words by Isaias and Jeremias. That includes Jeremias himself, in Jerusalem, but also Ezechiel, on the river Chobar, which is now called Khabur. Hence, any Reformer who suspected that Rome of the Renaissance Popes might be Babylon would have needed to ask "where are the faithful who never got involved in Roman Catholicism?"

But, Khabur per se is no clue as to the Shinar of Genesis 11. Nor any reason to doubt that the city of Nebuchadnezzar was the one that Claudius Rich, Sir Henry, 1st Baronet Rawlinson, Robert Koldewey and Walter Andrae dug at.

W. F. Albright ostensibly made easier the geographical task by reducing Nimrod’s early cities from four to three. While the biblical text, as it stands, reads (Genesis 10:10): “And the beginning of [Nimrod’s] kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar”, Dr. Albright, ingeniously, with a slight tweaking of the Masoretic, translated Calneh as “all of them”.

Now, all of Babel, Erech and Akkad (without any Calneh) were in the land of Shinar. Clever on the part of W.F. Albright, but wrong, I think.

For Calneh (Calno) is referred to several times in the Bible, its approximate location being fairly tightly circumscribed with it being linked by Ezekiel (27:23) to Haran; by Sennacherib (in Isaiah (10:9) to Carchemish,; and by Amos (6:2) to Hamath. (See next map for Haran, Carchemish and Hamath).

This is much better, and the corner of the map is closeish to the Turkish-Syrian border near which I place the actual Babel.

Person: Sargon of Akkad?

Damien Mackey gives a long discussion. I would rather agree with Ken Griffith and Darrell K. White that Sargon was the man who removed Babel from Subartu (in Eastern parts of modern Turkey) to the site formerly known as Akkad, renamed Babilu.

Archaeology:

As to the worrying lack of a stratigraphical culture, this may be due to chronological miscalculation. I have proposed that the brilliant Halaf culture (c. 6500-5500 BC, conventional dating), geographically most appropriate for the empire of Nimrod (including Nineveh, see map below) needs to be massively re-dated (lowered by some 4000 to 3000 years) to impact upon the Akkadian era (c. 2300 BC, conventional dating).

The dates for the Halaf culture would recalibrate as:

2386 BC

60.477 pmC; dated 6536 BC

...

2250 BC

67.323 pmC; dated 5500 BC

However Ham, Kush, Nimrod ~ Shem, Arphaxad, Saleh or Shem, Arphaxad, Cainan (II). In the latter case, Cainan died 595 after the Flood, 2363 BC. In the former case Saleh or Shela died 597 after the Flood, 2361 BC. The Halaf culture, according to my calculations would actually start twenty years before Nimrod dies.

In either case, this is well after the birth of Peleg BECAUSE I calibrated that one onto the end of GÖbekli Tepe.

Now, was there a Nineveh in the times when I propose Nimrod was active? Well, yes. Qermez Dere.

Radiocarbon dating has estimated that Qermez Dere was built between c. 8500 BC and 7900 BC.

8500 BC 2573 BC 48.992 pmC; dated 8473 BC 7900 BC 2556 BC 51.76 pmC; dated 8006 BC

2539 BC 52.64 pmC; dated 7839 BC (2556 + 2539) / 2 = 2547 BC (51.76 + 52.64) / 2 = 52.2 pmC => 5350 5350 + 2547 = 7897 BC

It covers an area of about 100 metres (330 ft) x 60 metres (200 ft) and forms a 2 metres (6.6 ft) tall tell. The buildings were made of primitive Mudbricks, which is not a perennial material, and are mostly destroyed, however archaeologists have excavated a one-room structure in good shape.

I am noting, while the persons involved in Genesis 11:3 wanted to do baked bricks, the author just says they had bricks. Perhaps the mudbricks are due to a failure to actually produce bricks baked in fire.

Globality:

Conservative scholars have a tendency to globalise the Flood and Babel incidents, with phrases such as “the whole earth” meaning for them the globe, and including everybody. The biblical scribes tended to think more locally. The whole earth, in the case of the Babel incident, for instance, could simply mean the whole region of Shinar.

Nor is Babel probably all about language as tends to be concluded.

Lots of things can be said about Graham Hancock's actual beliefs and conclusions, but one thing he gets right: Göbekli Tepe actually has global connexions. Birdmen in Oceania and horizontal figure eights in Australia. I'd add (based on other researchers in Göbekli Tepe's bloody régime) the belief of punishing Condors in the Andes. Damien refers to Sam Boyd, whom I'll have to look up later.

For globality of the Flood, I have probably figured out what Damien meant by pretending the limpit of waters precludes the globality of the Flood:

When he compassed the sea with its bounds, and set a law to the waters that they should not pass their limits: when he balanced the foundations of the earth;
[Proverbs 8:29]

Damien reads this (or a parallel verse in Psalms) as implying the waters of Noah's flood had a limit they couldn't pass. I consider the verse refers to what happened after the Flood, the limit of the waters is a synonym with the promise in Genesis 9:11 after the Flood. If this is true, then the balancing of the foundations refers to tectonic movements after the Flood, or to folding of mountains after the Flood.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Omer of Therouanne
9.IX.2024

In territorio Tarvanensi, in Gallia, sancti Audomari Episcopi.

4.5 Billion Years Worth of Nuclear Decay, Before the End of Day Three?

HGL's F.B. writings: Debate on Geology — Creation vs. Evolution: 4.5 Billion Years Worth of Nuclear Decay, Before the End of Day Three?

The heat from that could have helped to light the stars created on day IV.

Here is a video, at the beginning of which the idea is cited:

Is the Heat-Problem REALLY the Death of Creation Science? Responding to Gutsick Gibbon
Standing For Truth | 5—6.IX.2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r08o4TQIOJE

Dates for Scandinavian Prehistory, Revisited, Most Recent Tables

Has Kristian Kristiansen at Gothenburg University Disproven My Calibration? · A Reminder to Kristian Kristiansen · Dates for Scandinavian Prehistory, Revisited, Most Recent Tables

Quoting the Dates Parts of Three Articles

The Scandinavian Peninsula became ice-free around the end of the last ice age. The Nordic Stone Age begins at that time, with the Upper Paleolithic Ahrensburg culture, giving way to the Mesolithic hunter-gatherers by the 7th millennium BC (Maglemosian culture c. 7500–6000 BC, Kongemose culture c. 6000–5200 BC, Ertebølle culture c. 5300–3950 BC). The Neolithic stage is marked by the Funnelbeaker culture (4000–2700 BC), followed by the Pitted Ware culture (3200–2300 BC).

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

The Nordic Stone Age refers to the Stone Age of Scandinavia. During the Weichselian glaciation (115,000 – 11,700 years ago), almost all of Scandinavia was buried beneath a thick permanent ice cover, thus, the Stone Age came rather late to this region. As the climate slowly warmed up by the end of the ice age, nomadic hunters from central Europe sporadically visited the region. However, it was not until around 12,000 BCE that permanent, but nomadic, habitation in the region took root.

Around 11,400 BCE, the Bromme culture emerged in Southern Scandinavia. This was a more rapidly warming era providing opportunity for other substantial hunting game animals than the ubiquitous reindeer. As former hunter-gather cultures, the Bromme culture was still largely dependent on reindeer and lived a nomadic life, but their camps diversified significantly and they were the first people to settle Southern Scandinavia (and the Southern Baltic area) on a permanent, yet still nomadic, basis.

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

The Ahrensburg culture or Ahrensburgian (c. 12,900 to 11,700 BP[1]) was a late Upper Paleolithic nomadic hunter culture (or technocomplex) in north-central Europe during the Younger Dryas, the last spell of cold at the end of the Weichsel glaciation resulting in deforestation and the formation of a tundra with bushy arctic white birch and rowan. The most important prey was the wild reindeer. The earliest definite finds of arrow and bow date to this culture, though these weapons might have been invented earlier. The Ahrensburgian was preceded by the Hamburg and Federmesser cultures and superseded by the Maglemosian and Swiderian cultures. Ahrensburgian finds were made in southern and western Scandinavia, the North German plain and western Poland. The Ahrensburgian area also included vast stretches of land now at the bottom of the North and Baltic Sea, since during the Younger Dryas the coastline took a much more northern course than today.

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

My Latest Tables, in French:

New blog on the kid : Mes plus récentes tables de carbone 14
Wednesday 1 May 2024 | Posted by Hans Georg Lundahl at 09:28
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2024/05/mes-plus-recentes-tables-de-carbone-14.html

Let's do it.

However, it was not until around 12,000 BCE that permanent, but nomadic, habitation in the region took root.

2659 av. J.-Chr.

30,528 pcm, donc daté à 12 459 av. J.-Chr.

2633 av. J.-Chr.

36,973 pcm , donc daté à 10 883 av. J.-Chr.

(2659 + 2633) / 2 = 2646 BC

(30.528 + 36.973) / 2 = 33.7505 pmC => 9000

9000 + 2646 = 11646 BC, no, too late

(2659 + 2659 + 2633) / 3 = 2650 BC

(30.528 + 30.528 + 36.973) / 3 = 32.676 pmC => 9250

9250 + 2650 = 11900 BC, still too late, but better

(2659 + 2659 + 2659 + 2633) / 4 = 2653 BC

(30.528 + 30.528 + 30.528 + 36.973) / 4 = 32.13925 pmC => 9400

9400 + 2653 = 12053 a bit too early, better still.

Around 11,400 BCE, the Bromme culture emerged in Southern Scandinavia.

(2659 + 2633 + 2633) / 3 = 2642 BC

(30.528 + 36.973 + 36.973) / 3 = 34.825 pmC => 8700

8700 + 2642 = 11342, a bit too late, but tolerable

The Ahrensburg culture or Ahrensburgian (c. 12,900 to ...) [= 10 900 BC to ...]

2633 av. J.-Chr.

36,973 pcm , donc daté à 10 883 av. J.-Chr.

The Ahrensburg culture or Ahrensburgian (c. ... to 11,700 BP[1]) [= ... to 9 700 BC]

2633 av. J.-Chr.

36,973 pcm , donc daté à 10 883 av. J.-Chr.

2607 av. J.-Chr.

43,398 / 43,438 pcm, donc daté à 9507 av. J.-Chr.

9507 - 2607 = 6900, .5^(6900/5730) => 43.401 pmC

(2633 + 2607 + 2607 + 2607 + 2607 + 2607) / 6 = 2611 BC

(36.973 + 43.401 + 43.401 + 43.401 + 43.401 + 43.401) / 6 = 42.33 pmC => 7100

7100 + 2611 = 9711 BC

Oldest permanent, Bromme, Ahrensberg = 2653 to 2611 BC, 42 years. (Not 2300!)

I'm noting, between Ahrensberg and Maglemosian, there seems to be a gap of 2200 years ... which surround the 1500 years of carbon dates that I attribute to the 40 years of Babel (Göbekli Tepe). Were people being drafted from Scandinavia, and coming back when they no longer spoke Hebrew like everyone else, and there was no work to be extracted from them other than between them?

Maglemosian culture c. 7500–6000

2505 av. J.-Chr.

54,394 pcm, donc daté à 7555 av. J.-Chr.

2488 av. J.-Chr.

55,268 pcm, donc daté à 7388 av. J.-Chr.

(2505 + 2505 + 2488) / 3 = 2499 BC

(54.394 + 54.394 + 55.268) / 3 = 54.685 pmC => 5000

5000 + 2499 = 7499 BC

2318 av. J.-Chr.

63,914 pcm, donc daté à 6018 av. J.-Chr.

Maglemosian, 2499 to 2318 BC. The latter year is also when Kongemose starts.

Kongemose culture c. 6000–5200 BC

2216 av. J.-Chr.

69,017 pcm, donc daté à 5266 av. J.-Chr.

2199 av. J.-Chr.

69,861 pcm, donc daté à 5149 av. J.-Chr.

(2216 + 2199) / 2 = 2208 BC

(69.017 + 69.861) / 2 = 69.439 pmC => 3000

3000 + 2208 = 5208 BC.

So, Kongemose from 2318 to 2208. It overlaps with the following, that therefore starts a bit earlier.

Ertebølle culture c. 5300–3950 BC

2233 av. J.-Chr.

68,17 pcm, donc daté à 5383 av. J.-Chr.

2216 av. J.-Chr.

69,017 pcm, donc daté à 5266 av. J.-Chr.

(2233 + 2216 + 2216 + 2216 + 2216 + 2216) / 6 = 2219 BC

(68.17 + 69.017 + 69.017 + 69.017 + 69.017 + 69.017) / 6 = 68.876 pmC => 3100

3100 + 2219 = 5319 BC

(2233 + 2216 + 2216 + 2216 + 2216 + 2216 + 2216) / 7 = 2218 BC

(68.17 + 69.017 + 69.017 + 69.017 + 69.017 + 69.017 + 69.017) / 7 = 68.896 pmC => 3100 ... no

0.5^(3080/5730) => 68.895 pmC

2218 BC + 3080 = 5298 BC

So, this is the point at which I think that intercalations from my table and using the carbon 14 dating calculator which just have "3100 years" instead of 3080, becomes too clumsy. That's why I have asked a technician for help finding a more finetuned, yet "no special tools" method. As per previous, I wouldn't normally bother about 20 years, but when the overlap of two cultures is just 100 years, making it 120 instead becomes a bit significant. With the next one, I'm either lucky or lazy or both.

2022 av. J.-Chr.

79,035 pcm, donc daté à 3972 av. J.-Chr.

So, Ertebølle from 2218 to 2022 BC.

Funnelbeaker culture (4000–2700 BC)

2039 av. J.-Chr.

78,209 pcm, donc daté à 4089 av. J.-Chr.

2022 av. J.-Chr.

79,035 pcm, donc daté à 3972 av. J.-Chr.

(2039 + 2022) / 2 = 2031 BC

(78.209 + 79.035) / 2 = 78.622 pmC => 2000

2000 + 2031 = 4031 BC (as long before 4000 as 3972 is after it)

(2039 + 2022 + 2022 + 2022) / 4 = 2026 BC

(78.209 + 79.035 + 79.035 + 79.035) / 4 = 78.8285 => 1950

1950 + 2026 = 3976 (basically 3972)

(2039 + 2022 + 2022) / 3 = 2028 BC

(78.209 + 79.035 + 79.035) / 3 = 78.76 pmC => 1950

1950 + 2028 = 3978

0.5^(1970/5730) => 78.796 pmC ... ah

2027 BC

78.796 pmC => 1970

1970 + 2027 = 3997 BC

1700 av. J.-Chr.

87,575 pcm, donc daté à 2800 av. J.-Chr.

1678 av. J.-Chr.

89,4653 pcm, donc daté à 2598 av. J.-Chr.

(1700 + 1678) / 2 = 1689 BC

(87.575 + 89.4653) / 2 = 88.52015 pmC => 1000

1000 + 1689 = 2689 BC

Funnelbeaker, from 2027 to 1689 BC.

Pitted Ware culture (3200–2300 BC)

1845 av. J.-Chr.

84,5892 pcm, donc daté à 3245 av. J.-Chr.

1823 av. J.-Chr.

85,0509 pcm, donc daté à 3173 av. J.-Chr.

(1845 + 1823) / 2 = 1834 BC

(84.5892 + 85.0509) / 2 = 84.82 pmC => 1350

1350 + 1834 = 3184 BC

1655 av. J.-Chr.

91,4498 pcm, donc daté à 2395 av. J.-Chr.

1633 av. J.-Chr.

93,3283 pcm, donc daté à 2203 av. J.-Chr.

(1654 + 1633) / 2 = 1644

(91.4498 + 93.3283) / 2 = 92.389 pmC => 650

650 + 1644 = 2294 BC

Pitted Ware, from 1834 to 1644 BC.

So, pre-Babel, 42 years.

Post-Babel divides into Maglemosian, roughly 200 years, Kongemose, a bit over 100 years, Ertebølle, roughly 200 years, Funnelbeaker, a bit more than 300 years, Pitted Ware, a bit less than 200 years.

I will be reminding Kristian Kristiansen, to check whether for instance the 42 years pre-Babel would involve cramming 3 generations into 15 years or sth ...

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Bertin, Abbot
5.IX.2024

In pago Tarvanensi, monasterio Sithinensi, in Gallia, sancti Bertini Abbatis.

Sumeria, Damien Mackey, Intellectual Honour

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 · Sumeria, Damien Mackey, Intellectual Honour · Damien Mackey Has His View on Shinar, Nimrod and Babel

First, before we get to anything other, it has been pointed out to me (who place Babel in Göbekli Tepe) and it has also been answered by me:

a, to me:

that Sumer and Sennaar is the same word;

b, by me:

that Murrica and América, Murrican and Americano is also the same word, and Sennaar is no more limited to what archaeologists consider (and as I presumed Sumerians considered) as Sumer than the Americas are limited to the Contiguous (and Alaskan) territory of the US.

To those that have been following my Creationist blog for some time, this should already be old news.

Sometimes however newcomers will only glance the last page of the blog, the uppermost posts that are the ones visible at first glance, and were written last. Currently, that's these seven posts (up to when I publish this one), namely:

1 For those who pretend there were several tens of thousands of years between Adam and Abraham 2 Was the Drainage System of the Rhine There in the Preflood World? 3 Accelerated Decay After All? 4 For Those Who Still Attribute Göbekli Tepe to Noah 5 A "Dominican" Was Wrong 6 Is Armenia East of Babylonia? 7 CMI Seems to Have a Will to Hammer Away Geocentrism

That's lazy. There are (again prior to this one), how many posts on this blog?

68 + 65 + 113 + 60 + 85 + 81 + 78 + 113 + 67 + 36 + 45 + 68 + 47 + 15 + 15 + 8 = 964

7 / 964 = 0.726 %.

You could have gone to the right hand menu and clicked years and months, or you could have gone to the search bar:

Some seem to have been going to sth else near the search bar ("more" -> "report an abuse"). But few seem to have thought they could actually look up old articles. Even if those in the top seven actually linked to some of them.

Is ICR Making a Case for Geocentrism? · Setterfield · Accelerated Decay After All?

New blog on the kid: Heliocentrism aggravates the wound of ignorance? · Creation vs. Evolution: Sigh. There Are People Who Consider Me a Conspiracy Theorist Already · CMI Seems to Have a Will to Hammer Away Geocentrism

So, some of these lazy bunch missed to find out I had already answered that Sumer (if identic to what mainstream archaeology calls Sumeria) is smaller than Shinear / Sennaar, even if the name is the same.

In this context, I'll now introduce three links by two other people:

The Collector: The Sumerian Problem(s): Did the Sumerians Exist?
Dec 6, 2023 • By Nita Gleimius, BA Ancient Near Eastern Cultures & Biblical Archaeology
https://www.thecollector.com/sumerian-problem/

Academia : Called Sumerian History, but isn’t.
Damien Mackey | 26.VIII.2024 ?
https://www.academia.edu/123272234/Called_Sumerian_History_but_isn_t

Academia : Shock effect of my Sumerian deconstruction
Damien Mackey | 28.VIII.2024 ?
https://www.academia.edu/123336732/Shock_effect_of_my_Sumerian_deconstruction

Long story short: the archaeology, namely a homely, nearly hippie, version of Babylonian culture, with statuary exhibiting eyes like in comic books, the language, and the term Sumer may not be as closely associated as usually thought. I'm now going to make an own assessment of the doubts, without closely following Mackey.

In Sumerian, Sumer is Kengir.

In their inscriptions, the Sumerians called their land "Kengir", the "Country of the noble lords" (Sumerian: 𒆠𒂗𒄀, romanized: ki-en-gi(-r), lit. ''country" + "lords" + "noble''), and their language "Emegir" (Sumerian: 𒅴𒂠, romanized: eme-g̃ir or 𒅴𒄀 eme-gi15).

I looked up when we see Sumerian as a language documented from. Pure pictograms featuring merchandise and numerals and value, that won't tell us if the writer of them spoke Sumerian or Croatian. Only when some kind of phonograms, usually syllable signs, get showing, only then can we say with some confidence that such and such a name and such a such a sentence is Sumerian. I'm not even positive that the earliest god names in tables from Sumer have Sumerian etymologies. The Sumerian that was a spoken and not yet the kind of language some call "dead" and some (including me) "classical" (before it went what I'd like to call "dead" and others call "extinct"), is documented in dates ranging from 2900 BC to 1700 BC. At the utmost from 3200 to 1600 BC.

The pictographic writing system used during the Proto-literate period (3200 BC – 3000 BC), corresponding to the Uruk III and Uruk IV periods in archeology, was still so rudimentary that there remains some scholarly disagreement about whether the language written with it is Sumerian at all, although it has been argued that there are some, albeit still very rare, cases of phonetic indicators and spelling that show this to be the case.[14] The texts from this period are mostly administrative; there are also a number of sign lists, which were apparently used for the training of scribes.[10][15]

As some of the dates involved are carbon dates (clay tablets were covered in wool, which is sometimes preserved and can be carbon dated), or associated with carbon dates (clay tablet found in a house with a wooden beam that can be carbon dated, or a house with an architectonic and artistic style close to that of another house that has a wooden beam), and presumably none of the dates are obtained by historic attestation (Sumerians weren't saying "this is 4000 BC, and we have just founded Ur" and they were also not saying in AD 33 "King Abgar received an image of Christ 4033 years after the founding of Ur"), the dates can be crammed. I'll do so:

1845 BC 84.5892 pmC, so dated 3245 BC 1823 BC 85.0509 pmC, so dated 3173 BC ... 1734 BC 86.8913 pmC, so dated 2884 BC

... 1543 BC 97.813 pmC, so dated 1723 BC 1521 BC 98.184 pmC, so dated 1671 BC 1498 BC 98.555 pmC, so dated 1618 BC

The utmost extent, 3200 BC to 1600 BC, is between when Isaac was getting old and when the Exodus happened. The other assessment would be 2900 BC to 1700 BC, when Joseph was already in Egypt, but before he was promoted, and ending when Moses was early on in the exile. Either way, it started after Genesis 14 (carbon dated 3500 BC, which is not the real date, that being c. 1935 BC, which means the Amorrhites had already quit Asason Tamar. I start to tentatively ask myself if Sumerian could have been a pre-Semitic language in Canaan, like maybe Hattic speakers came from Heth son of Canaan, also not a Semitic language. And if it was imported into Mesopotamia by Amorrheans, the same who also constructed Babylon.

Let's return to Damien Mackey, who set me on this track. What does he have to say in the last essay:

Here is where my point about intellectual honour comes in. Buying myself praise as a wise man by conforming is an option that disgusts me. I would be far less disgusted to see someone message me sth like

you are at least an uneducated and indoctrinated individual, or the worst and more plausible possibility, you are a liar who manipulate gullible people.

The only real problem I have with people who react like that to what I write is, if they should be able to take power over my life or activity as a writer, and continue to offer me the alternative of getting "educated" by their bad education (what they mean by "indoctrination") or getting isolated for refusing to comply. Simply getting such a message, well, I'd take that as a badge of honour. Of intellectual honour.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Pope St. Pius X
3.IX.2024

(20.VIII) Et alibi aliorum plurimorum sanctorum Martyrum et Confessorum, atque sanctarum Virginum. R. Deo gratias.
(3.IX) Sancti Pii Papae Decimi, cujus natalis dies tertiodecimo Kalendas Septembris recensetur.

PS, it seems I have received some unexpected support:

Sumerian: The Descendant of a Proto-Historical Creole? An Alternative Approach to the «Sumerian Problem»
Jens Hoyrup [originally published in 1992, in AIΩN
https://www.academia.edu/30302776/Sumerian_The_Descendant_of_a_Proto_Historical_Creole_An_Alternative_Approach_to_the_Sumerian_Problem_

PPS, not sure yet of how much this one supports me:

The Sumerian Question - Reviewing the Issues
Gordon Whittaker | van Soldt, 2005
https://www.academia.edu/1869564/The_Sumerian_Question_Reviewing_the_Issues

PPPS, Hoyrup's paper better readable:

SUMERIAN: THE DESCENDANT OF A PROTO-HISTORICAL CREOLE?
Jens Hoyrup, 1992, An Alternative Approach to the Sumerian Problem
https://www.academia.edu/3131610/SUMERIAN_THE_DESCENDANT_OF_A_PROTO_HISTORICAL_CREOLE

For those who pretend there were several tens of thousands of years between Adam and Abraham

... and especially, if they don't attach this to any lost Civilisation, but believe everyone prior to the Neolithic was hunter-gatherer:

Independent researcher debunks sensationalism surrounding residential schools, claims of 'genocide'
Rebel News | 2 Sept. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSGzy8v2VDM

What Michelle Stirling says would be pretty likely for an existence of hunter-gatherers when it's immemorial. For me, the pre-Flood hunter-gatherers were a local condition, perhaps triggered by the separation from the Nodian civilisation, much like the Amerindians are a result of separating from the Babelian one in the Neolithic.

Or, it may even owe some cruelties to the Babel times.

If possible, even worse, is the idea that pre-human near-people, anatomically human, lived this way, until Adam was created human when born to some of these. Pretending that Adam could well distinguish between himself and creatures looking much like him doesn't help, it involves him in a kind of superciliousness.

The only possible view (for a Christian) on people living like this is:

• they are human
• they are fallen
• for both of these reasons they come after Adam
• and they cannot have been the universal condition of mankind any time between Adam and Abraham.

This could only happen on two alternative conditions:

• the Biblical timeline holds
• there is a huge gap in the Biblical timeline, corresponding to a lost Civilisation.

The problem with this is, we already do have a lost Civilisation, the Nodian one. The simple loss of a civilisation, even in dire punishment (like the Flood) is not enough for God to exclude that one from the Bible. If it had lasted longer, there is no reason why God wouldn't have preserved a longer record about it (like a Genesis 5 with twenty of thirty generations instead of ten), and since the Nodian Civilisation is not excluded, there is no reason why some other pre- or post-Flood Civilisation in the line of Abraham would have been excluded.

So, basically, God's goodness (as avoiding to involve all men in such practises as described) and truthfulness (as ultimate author of the Bible) logically demand that the Biblical timeline holds, from the Creation of Adam, and that being the actual first being to look human.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Stephen of Hungary
2.IX.2024

(15.VIII) Apud Albam Regalem, in Pannonia, item natalis sancti Stephani, Regis Hungarorum et Confessoris; qui, divinis virtutibus exornatus, primus Hungaros ad Christi fidem convertit, et a Deipara Virgine, ipso die Assumptionis suae, in caelum receptus fuit. Ejus vero festivitas quarto Nonas Septembris, quo die munitissima Budae arx, sancti Regis ope, ab exercitu Christiano strenue recuperata fuit, potissimum recolitur, ex dispositione Innocentii Papae Undecimi.
(2.IX) Sancti Stephani, Regis Hungarorum et Confessoris; qui decimo octavo Kalendas Septembris obdormivit in Domino.