There Was a Time When Young Earth Creationists Wanted This Kind of Stuff

What If Exodus was 18th Dynasty and not 13th? · Testing for Pharao of Exodus = Amenophis II, with Three Alternative's for Joseph's Pharao · Advice, perhaps? · There Was a Time When Young Earth Creationists Wanted This Kind of Stuff

CARBON-14 Dating Models and Experimental Implications
By Paul Giem | Published 2006
https://www.academia.edu/127215895/CARBON_14_Dating_Models_and_Experimental_Implications

Any model of carbon-14 dating must satisfy certain constraints. First, since carbon-14 dating is objective and reproducible, it cannot be ignored. One cannot simply dismiss it out of hand; there should be an explanatory model for the data. Second, it has been validated at least back to 300 B.C. by comparison with many other reliable dating methods. 1 Therefore, any model must account for this data, and it is not reasonable to consider carbon-14 dating completely unreliable before that point, particularly when used as a relative dating method.

I started providing my take in 2015, Correction de la table, taux de C14, et implications. I made major updates pretty quickly. I did an overhaul with a few updates this Christmas. Newer Tables: Preliminaries · Flood to Joseph in Egypt · Joseph in Egypt to Fall of Troy.

My explanation model is simple:

1) In the Flood year, Carbon 14 was very low. Before the Flood it wasn't higher, and as a percentage, whatever the case with absolute quantities, but arguably in absolute quantities too, it had been produced at a lower rate than now.

2) From the Flood to a certain point, Carbon 14 started rising with a more than 10 times quicker production of Carbon 14 than now in some early post-Flood times. This would have been acted out by angelic movers of Sun and other celestial bodies emitting cosmic radiation, as part of God's intention of reducing human lifespans, and its side effects were a quicker rise of Carbon 14 as well as at least part of the explanation for the Ice Age. I do not dispute the validity of Michael Oard's model about heated water after the Flood, as far as the explanation is valid, I just think the Cosmic Radiation speeded up the process. Yes, ionising particles in the atmosphere will cool the weather.*

3) This has not continued, we can be fairly certain that Carbon 14 has already reached an equilibrium. That's why Carbon 14 works for "at least back to 300 BC" (I started out putting that point at c. 500 BC, taking of Jerusalem by Babylonians, I pushed it back to Fall of Troy).**

4) There may have been or not been a point where Carbon 14 was higher than 100 pmC, before 750 BC (notably founding of Rome) was dated as 550 BC in the Hallstatt plateau.

5) By nodes between Bible and archaeology, the rise can be figured out.

This explanation model remains the same when I mistook the carbon date for Genesis 14 as "3200 BC" (as per end of chalcolithic overall) and when I corrected it to "3500 BC" (carbon dates of reed mats evacuated from Asason-Tamar / En-Geddi, yes, this has been excavated and dated). If I now were to change a 13th Dynasty Pharao for Amenophis II as Pharao of the Exodus, this would change my calibration, but not my explanation model.

Changing the point of reached equilibrium from 1179 BC (fall of Troy) to Exodus, with real date 1446 BC, dated between 1457 and 1424 BC, would change my calibration and my Biblical chronology (I could also say that it's really 1510 BC that dates as 1457 / 1424, that's what I was asking advice about ... that would be a "higher than 100 pmC point" if that were the case, see point 4). It would still not change my explanation model.

For some reason, once I started providing, interest is not the way it was when Paul Giem made the statement in 2006. Perhaps because I'm Catholic. Perhaps because I use a Biblical Chronology codified in the Roman Martyrology reading for Christmas Day, sometimes referred to as the Christmas Proclamation***. Or perhaps because I use Göbekli Tepe as calibration points for Babel (beginning after Noah died, ending when Peleg was later born, the LXX chronology nearly fits a tradition of it being 40 years if there is no Second Cainan, if on the other hand there is, the beginning must be calibrated as way after Noah died). Or perhaps both.

Paul Giem seems to be a Seventh Day Adventist.° Not the most Catholic friendly denomination there is on the Protestant spectrum. To the point that my maternal grandmother, an agnostic verging on atheist, when I converted to Catholicism in 1988 asked me specifically to not tell my paternal grandmother, who was still a Seventh Day Adventist. I obeyed because I lived with my maternal grandmother. Also a good point in case anyone pretends I'm incel because of my faith hampering my sexual daring, my living with granny was very hampering irrespective of my religion. Yes, my Atheist (or on and off Theist but mostly Atheist) granny made the social life impossible which I would have needed to get a fiancée.

So, part of the problem could be, CMI and others might lose a huge chunk of their support if they offended SDA. This could be both about LXX (Jack Rand / RnJ answering my comments, see Agreeing with Robert Carter on Skeleta, Disagreeing on LXX) and about Göbekli Tepe (SDA could be so ignorant of geography as to say "Babel was in Mesopotamia, which is Iraq, not Turkey" ...). So, it's not too improbable that SDA and some others are waiting for me to get around to SDA positions. Not likely. No, YEC isn't specifically an SDA position, while they were unique among Protestants, Catholics were still very commonly YEC.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Deposition of Abbot
St. Eustace of Luxeuil
29.III.2025

In monasterio Luxoviensi, in Gallia, depositio sancti Eustasii Abbatis, qui sancti Columbani discipulus et ferme sexcentorum Monachorum Pater fuit; ac, vitae sanctitate conspicuus, etiam miraculis claruit.

* The Little Ice Age was missing from the Southern Hemisphere, which I put down to there being less land and more water there, but in the Northern Hemisphere it coincided with a rise in pmC values. 1750 carbon dates (uncalibrated raw dates) as 1950, 1850 as 1850 and 1950 as 1750. Back in the Little Ice Age, Charles X Gustav could cross the Belt on the ice sheet with the whole army, today it's unlikely to be even covered with ice in winter.

** If the pmC has risen from 80 to 100 since Fall of Troy, that corresponds to the halflife being twice as long as 5730 years, namely 11460 years. If the halflife is 5730 but the pmC is rising, the apparent halflife will be shorter than 5730 years. So, if the pmC is rising and the apparent halflife is 5730 years, the real halflife must be longer. It's more economic to assume the actual and apparent halflife are both 5730 years and so stability has been reached since quite a long time ago.

*** It was originally left out from Novus Ordo it would seem, and then in the 1990's they created a new version, the first translation by the USCBC starting "unknowing ages" ...

° Paul A. Giem, MD
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Emergency Medicine
https://llu.edu/academics/faculty/giem-paul/education

Loma Linda University is "A Seventh-day Adventist Organization"

Advice, perhaps?

What If Exodus was 18th Dynasty and not 13th? · Testing for Pharao of Exodus = Amenophis II, with Three Alternative's for Joseph's Pharao · Advice, perhaps? · There Was a Time When Young Earth Creationists Wanted This Kind of Stuff

Before I could replace Newer Tables partly (from IV—V on) with taking Amenophis II instead of a 13th Dynasty Pharao, I'd need to consider whether I'd take the carbon date 1457 as basically 1446 (as per Assyrian chronology and 480 years in III Kings 6 being exact) or whether I take it as an alias for the real year 1510 BC, as the Exodus is dated in the Roman Martyrology.

III Kings 6:1 And *it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel came out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of the reign of Solomon over Israel, in the month Zio, (the same is the second month) he began to build a house to the Lord.

Ver. 1. Eightieth year. This chronology meets with the approbation of most people. See Usher. (Chap. xii.) Some, however, find a difficulty in reconciling it with Acts xiii. 20., which seems to attribute 450 years to the government of the judges. (Calmet) --- Septuagint have 440; Josephus 592, though Ruffin neglects the 90 in his version; Petau 520; Severus 582; Clement of Alexandria 566; Vossius 580; Cano 590; Serarius 680. --- Houbigant would read 350 in the Acts. But Capellus would add 100 here, &c. (Haydock) --- Second of the sacred year, corresponding with our April. Syriac, Chaldean styles it "of the splendour of flowers." (Menochius) --- The Hurons, and other nations of America, call this "the moon of plants;" the Flemings, "the month for mowing," Grasmaand. Our Saxon ancestors gave descriptive names to the months. See Verstegan. (Haydock) --- At first, the Hebrews only described the months by their order; "first, second," &c. In Solomon's time we begin to find other names, taken from the Phenicians, (Scaliger) Chaldean names were adopted; (Haydock) 1. Nisan; 2. Jar; 3. Sivan; 4. Tammus; 5. Ab; 6. Elul; 7. Tisri; 8. Marshevan; 9. Casleu; 10. Thebet; 11. Schebet; 12. Adar; (Calmet) 13. Veadar, the intercalary month, when requisite, according to the lunar system, which was not perhaps yet adopted. Each of these months generally corresponded with two of ours; Nisan with the end of March and the beginning of April, &c. Septuagint here take no notice of Zio, though they do, ver. 37. (Haydock) --- The temple was begun on Monday, May 21, in the year of the world 2992. (Usher) --- It was finished in the year of the world 3000, or in the following year, when it was solemnly dedicated. (Button.)

In the former case, I'd have to make a remake of the chronology. I'd immediately get the pre-Flood time corrected to 2262 years instead of 2242. I could chose between two different LXX readings of Genesis 11, without or with the II Cainan. Most parts of the table would be the same.

		without II Cainan		with II Cainan
Temple		966		966
King David		915		915
Jericho		1406		1406
Exodus		1446		1446
Genesis 14		1870		1870
Promise		1876		1876
Birth of Abraham		1950		1950
Babel		2491		2491
Flood		2892		3020
Creation		5154		5282

Of these years, I'd only make tables for:

		without II Cainan		with II Cainan
Exodus		1446		1446
Genesis 14		1870		1870
(Promise)		1876		1876
(Birth of Abraham)		1950		1950
Babel		2491		2491
Flood		2892		3020
Creation		5154		5282

The items in brackets would not be nodes.

On the other hand, if I stick to the Roman martyrology, and I accept Amenophis II, I'm obliged to argue that the bases of conventional Egyptian chronology after his time have been shortened, but only to the time of the fall of Troy:

1179 BC

dated as 1179 BC

1510 BC

dated as 1424 BC

dated as 1457 BC

331 actual years would be conventionally dated as only 278 or even as 245 years. Here is where the advice comes in. Is this possible? I don't know.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Annunciation of Our Lady
25.III.2025

Annuntiatio beatissimae Virginis Genitricis Dei Mariae.

I Just Saw a Breakdown of Neo-Nazi Groups, Looked Up Nordfront, and Found Wernher von Braun

Wernher von Braun föddes den 23 mars 1912 i den tyska provinsen Posen (som etniskt rensades på tyskar efter kriget och nu är en del av Polen). Han anses som raketforskningens fader och mannen som förde människan till månen.

Nordfront: Wernher von Braun – mannen som förde människan till månen
Publicerad: 2018-03-23 00:00
https://nordfront.se/wernher-von-braun-mannen-som-forde-manniskan-till-manen

The Neo-Nazi group that is fairly close to Nordfront (but separate entities) is the Nordic Resistance Movement. I'm not totally happy with members bombing a refugee shelter and seriously injuring one, I'd have preferred no serious violence at all (they think the violence is a necessity, I hope they are wrong). But I am happy that they didn't actually kill anyone. Meanwhile, Nordfront is a journalistic enterprise. This article is probably refeatured every 23 of March since 2018 when it was published, since it's Wernher von Braun's birthday, back in 1912 (one week before the death of Karl May, and no, he wasn't racist, he was pretty pro-German chauvinist, but not a racist), and the first point they make is, Wernher von Braun was born in Posen, not present Poznań, but retrospectively called Prowincja Poznańska. The particular division of country around the city of Posen or Poznań has been reorganised, as Germans were subject to ethnic cleansing after WW-II. However, Wernher von Braun was in fact not just a German patriot, but also an official in the Nazi Era German Reich, and a member of the party and of the SS.

After the war, he came to the US.

He actually constructed useable rockets, including space rockets.

Now, in so far as spacecraft are a parallel to airplanes in getting off the ground, Wernher von Braun would be parallel to Orville and Wilbur Wright. Meanwhile, the air plane paper constructions of Leonardo da Vinci are pretty useless. However, he was a precursor to Orville and Wilbur.

Readers of my blog will be aware that I consider Wernher von Braun had a similar precursor, who absolutely couldn't have pulled it off. And that he was sth far worse than a National Socialist, bad as that on occasion may be, namely Nimrod Ben Kush. Based on what?

a) Graham Hancock, who believed in Ancient Alien Astronauts and maybe still does, considered Göbekli Tepe looks as if it were constructed as a landing place for alien spacecraft.
b) I do not believe in Aliens, but I cannot preclude Ancient Aspiring Austronauts, and GMr. Hancock's remark set me looking things up. Tower described in ways compatible with rocket, check. Göbekli Tepe fits the Geography, check. Göbekli Tepe is preceded by linguistic or at least cultural unity from Indonesia to Spain, check. Göbekli Tepe is followed by blatant cultural and obviously even linguistic diversity, check. Göbekli Tepe, like Babel, comes somewhere midway between Flood and Genesis 14, check.

And Nimrod wanted to get into heaven. I e into outer space. And God's remark doesn't include the word "lest" in English:

And he said: Behold, it is one people, and all have one tongue: and they have begun to do this, neither will they leave off from their designs, till they accomplish them in deed Come ye, therefore, let us go down, and there confound their tongue, that they may not understand one another's speech
[Genesis 11:6-7]

Compare:

And he said: Behold Adam is become as one of us, knowing good and evil: now, therefore, lest perhaps he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever
[Genesis 3:22]

There are two "lest" in Genesis 3, verses 3 and 22. It's the Hebrew conjunction "pen-" ... but there is only one "lest" or "pen-" in Genesis 11, verse 4.

God is not stating He tries to avoid men accomplishing what they had undertaken.

We must see the confusion of their language, the halting of their project, as a temporary halt, meant to allow knowledge to accumulate, since Wernher von Braun was just a little bit better equipped in know-how and applicable knowledge than Nimrod back in the Neolithic. This also answers an Atheist talking point: "if God was angry at a tower, why has He allowed skyscrapers and even spacecraft now" ... the text in Genesis 11 actually doesn't state that God is angry. If someone's mummy wags her head, takes a nearly just toddler away from the stove and tells him to put on an oven glove before taking out the cookie he baked, doesn't mean she is angry with him, just that she cares for his safety.

On this view, Wernher von Braun is actually prophecied in this chapter of the Bible. Another prophecy of the Bible was accomplished last week.

Though thou be exalted as an eagle, and though thou set thy nest among the stars: thence will I bring thee down, saith the Lord
[Abdias (Obadiah) 1:4]

And some spacemen were safely brought down:

'Stranded' Astronauts Spent 9 Months in Space. Here's How Much They Might Earn – and Why It Doesn't Include Overtime
David Chiu Wed, March 19, 2025 at 6:56 PM GMT+1
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/stranded-astronauts-spent-9-months-175623510.html

I would say at nine months they can be said to have nested among the stars. Nests being to egg hatching what nine months are to pregnancies. Hat tip to Allie Beth Stuckey for mentioning this fact.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Oculi LD
23.III.2025

Testing for Pharao of Exodus = Amenophis II, with Three Alternative's for Joseph's Pharao

What If Exodus was 18th Dynasty and not 13th? · Testing for Pharao of Exodus = Amenophis II, with Three Alternative's for Joseph's Pharao · Advice, perhaps? · There Was a Time When Young Earth Creationists Wanted This Kind of Stuff

The three possible Pharaos are: Djoser (whom I have favoured so far), Senusret III (whom I have so far taken to be the pharao who died when Moses was very young), and what was the alternative by Damien Mackey again ... here we are:

Mentuhotpe [Mentuhotep] II ... came to the Theban throne under the name S'ankhibtawy ... his domain stretched from the First Cataract to the tenth nome of Upper Egypt; in other words, it was still curtailed to the north by the territory of the princes of Asyut. A hostile peace was maintained between the two kingdoms, but this was disrupted when the Thinite nome, suffering grievously from famine, revolted against the Herakleopolitan clan. Mentuhotpe captured Asyut and passed through the fifteenth nome without encountering resistance - this was effectively the fall of the Herakleapolitan dynasty.

Joseph in Egypt’s Eleventh Dynasty, Moses in Egypt’s Twelfth Dynasty
Part One: Joseph ruled like Pharaoh in ancient Egypt
by Damien F. Mackey
https://www.academia.edu/125338500/Joseph_in_Egypt_s_Eleventh_Dynasty_Moses_in_Egypts_Twelfth_Dynasty

Table 3: Amarna and Thebes
Mentuhotep II, Dyn. 11, N° 9, Capital Thebes, Provenance Deir el-Bahri
Historical Median 2032, BR 2010 model 2059+/-2, calibrated 2004+/-20

Radiocarbon Chronology for Dynastic Egypt and the Tell el Dab^Ca debate: a regional hypothesis
By Graham Hagens
https://austriaca.at/0xc1aa5572%200x00321daa.pdf

Let's calculate the time from Genesis 14 to Exodus with the three different pharaos, and I'll put each at the head of the calculation:

Djoser

1935 BC

82.753 pmC, so dated 3500 BC

1700 BC

87.541 pmC, dated as 2800 BC

1510 BC

100.655 pmC so dated as 1457 BC

The path between Genesis 14 and c. death of Joseph's pharao is the same as in IV—V in Newer Tables, Flood to Joseph in Egypt. What remains is the change between Joseph's pharao and Exodus.

190 years, 0.977278, 0.02272

87.541 pmC * 0.977278 + 2.272 pmC = 87.824 pmC
100.655 pmC - 87.824 pmC = 12.831 pmC
12.831 + 2.272 = 15.103 pmC
15.103 pmC / 2.272 pmC = 6.647 times as fast

Mentuhotep II

1935 BC

82.753 pmC, so dated 3500 BC

1700 BC

95.75 pmC, so dated 2059 BC

1510 BC

100.655 pmC so dated as 1457 BC

235 years, 0.97197, 0.02803

82.753 pmC * 0.97197 + 2.803 pmC = 83.236 pmC
95.75 pmC - 83.236 pmC = 12.514 pmC
12.514 pmC + 2.803 pmC = 15.316 pmC
15.316 pmC / 2.803 pmC = 5.465 times as fast

190 years, 0.977278, 0.02272

95.75 pmC * 0.977278 + 2.272 pmC = 95.847 pmC
100.655 - 95.847 pmC = 4.808 pmC
4.808 pmC + 2.272 pmC = 7.081 pmC
7.081 pmC / 2.272 pmC = 3.116 times as fast

Senusret III

1935 BC

82.753 pmC, so dated 3500 BC

1700 BC

98.344 pmC, so dated 1838 BC

1510 BC

100.655 pmC so dated as 1457 BC

235 years, 0.97197, 0.02803

82.753 pmC * 0.97197 + 2.803 pmC = 83.236 pmC
98.344 pmC - 83.236 pmC = 15.108 pmC
15.108 pmC + 2.803 pmC = 17.91 pmC
17.91 pmC / 2.803 pmC = 6.39 times as fast

190 years, 0.977278, 0.02272

98.344 pmC * 0.977278 + 2.272 pmC = 98.382 pmC
100.655 - 98.382 pmC = 2.273 pmC
2.273 pmC + 2.272 pmC = 4.546 pmC
4.546 pmC / 2.272 pmC = 2 times as fast

Djoser in the Middle

1841 BC

Abraham died

1838 BC

84.77 pmC, dated as 3204 BC

From my table IV—V, but for the following:

94 years, 0.98869, 1.131 pmC

Mentuhotep II in the Middle

1841 BC

Abraham died

87.996 pmC, so dated 2898 BC

1.131 pmC * 5.465 = 6.179 pmC
82.753 pmC * 0.98869 + 6.179 pmC = 87.996 pmC
5730 * log(0.87996)/log(0.5) + 1841 = 2898 BC

Senusret III in the Middle

1841 BC

Abraham died

89.043 pmC, so dated 2800 BC

1.131 pmC * 6.39 = 7.225 pmC
82.753 pmC * 0.98869 + 7.225 pmC = 89.043 pmC
5730 * log(0.89043)/log(0.5) + 1841 = 2800 BC

Both with Mentuhotep and Senusret in the middle, it is credible that the pharao he met could have died between Genesis 14 and his own death and be Hor Aha or even Narmer. With Senusret in the middle, Abraham would have had occasion to see Djoser, them dying about the same time.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Oculi LD
23.III.2025

What If Exodus was 18th Dynasty and not 13th?

What If Exodus was 18th Dynasty and not 13th? · Testing for Pharao of Exodus = Amenophis II, with Three Alternative's for Joseph's Pharao · Advice, perhaps? · There Was a Time When Young Earth Creationists Wanted This Kind of Stuff

RADIOCARBON, WINE JARS AND NEW KINGDOM CHRONOLOGY*
By David Aston
https://www.academia.edu/39997434/Radiocarbon_Wine_Jars_And_New_Kingdom_Chronology

I'll not give his full list of radiocarbon dates, but here are those of Amenophis II, also known as Amenhotep II.

Radiocarbon dates 2010
King		68%		95%
Amenophis II		btw 1441 & 1431 BC		btw 1445 & 1423 BC
Radiocarbon dates 2013
King		68%		95%
Amenophis II		btw 1451 & 1434 BC		btw 1456 & 1419 BC

I'll make two radio carbon views on this one.

A) I use my calibration, where, as in David Down, Moses was Amenemhet IV, up to his fortieth year, his sister (formerly adoptive mother) the next pharao, and the pharao of the Exodus by consequence a little known pharao of the 13th dynasty. When in Biblical chronology does this land?
B) I'll use Amenophis II as pharao of Exodus, i) with Exodus in 1510 BC, as per Roman Martyrology, ij) with Exodus in 1446 BC, as per the idea of exactly (not at least but exactly) 480 years before 966 BC. I'll also check where this lands the carbon levels sinking from Exodus to Take of Jericho.

A) Amenophis II would have died in early 14th C. BC:

1398 BC

99.29 pmC, dated as 1457 BC

1374 BC

99.37 pmC, dated as 1426 BC

1510 - 1398 = 112 years after the Exodus, in the Judges period.

1510 - 1374 = 136 years after the Exodus, in the Judges period.

B i) Replacing eruption of Santorini with Death of Amenophis II:

1510 BC

100.655 pmC so dated as 1457 BC

1470 BC

99.037 pmC so dated 1550 BC

First of all, the lowering of carbon 14 levels would not square with the radiocarbon dates for later 18th dynasty kings. But apart from that, what would the change imply?

100.655 * 99.517 % = 100.169 pmC

B ij) and also replacing the Biblical years of the Roman martyrology.

1446 BC

99.879 pmC so dated as 1457 BC

1406 BC

98.273 pmC so dated as 1550 BC

99.879 * 99.517 % = 99.397 pmC

B, in both cases, even with no added carbon 14 into the atmosphere, the simple decay of atmospheric carbon during 40 years will bring the carbon 14 level one pmC unit above the one needed for dating Jericho to 1550 BC ...

However, 1550 BC was Kenyon's dating by other methods, it would seem. Recently there have been carbon dates, sometimes reported as totally confirming Kenyon. Here is another view of them:

Carbon-14 Dates at Jericho and the Destruction Date
/ Uncategorized / By Archae27
https://apxaioc.com/?p=10

However, it was discovered years later that the result of this sample testing was incorrect, and was later reissued on a list of erroneous dates due to a problem with equipment calibration at the laboratory for the years 1980-1984. The dates were corrected to 3300 +/- 110 BP, (Bowman, G.E., Ambers, J., Leese, M.N. “Re-Evaluation of British Museum Radiocarbon Dates Issued Between 1980 and 1984.” Radiocarbon 32, 1990, 74, BM-1790) which calibrates to approximately 1883-1324 BC, rendering the resulting C-14 date useless for settling the debate between a destruction in ca. 1550 BC or ca. 1400 BC (Using http://calib.qub.ac.uk/calib/calib.html).

Previous to that, a sample from Jericho had dated to 1400 BC +/- 40 ... suspicious how big the gap between earliest and latest date suddenly became ...

So, maybe the 1550 BC date for Jericho is not just not a carbon date, but totally a red herring.

Let's ignore Jericho, and do both versions again, but taking them to Troy instead.

B i)

1510 BC

100.655 pmC so dated as 1457 BC

1179 BC

100 pmC so dated 1179 BC

331 years, 96.075 %, 3.925 pmC normal buildup
100.655 * 96.075 / 100 + 3.925 = 100.629 pmC, so, the buildup would have been slower.
3.925-0.629 = 3.296, 3.296 / 3.925 = 83.975 % of normal buildup speed.

B ij)

1446 BC

99.879 pmC so dated as 1457 BC

1179 BC

100 pmC so dated 1179 BC

267 years, 96.822 %, 3.178 pmC normal buildup
99.879 * 96.822 / 100 + 3.178 = 99.883 pmC
100-99.883 = 0.117, 3.178 + 0.117 = 3.295, 3.295 / 3.178 = 103.682 % of normal buildup speed.

Unlike for "Jericho carbon dated 1550 BC" this gives no problem.

Perhaps a tip for revision?

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Oculi LD
23.III.2025

PS, this was inspired by:

Tombeau du pharaon de l'Exode : ce qui a été découvert et pourquoi vous ne le savez pas !
(Tomb of Exodus' Pharao : what has been discoverd and why you don't know it!*)
Expedition Bible | 22 mars 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJP4pVjnWpk

* In France, the title is shown in French, not sure how to turn that off. I tried to change the keyboard, and recharge the page, the title was still in French.

What Would 440 Before the Flood Date To? Carbon Wise? Or 600 Before the Flood?

What Would 220 Before the Flood Date To? Carbon Wise? · What Would 440 Before the Flood Date To? Carbon Wise? Or 600 Before the Flood?

0.5^(440/5730) = 0.9481657393132604

0.9481657393132604 * = decay
0.0518342606867396 = normal replacement

A) with 3.611 times as fast production, like on this view the half as long period after the Flood?
B) with same production as now?
C) with ten times slower production than now (as generally pre-Flood)?

3398 BC

x -> pmC

A) x * 0.9481657393132604 + 3.611 * 0.0518342606867396 = 0.016277
x * 0.9481657393132604 = 0.016277 - 3.611 * 0.0518342606867396
x = (0.016277 - 3.611 * 0.0518342606867396) / 0.9481657393132604
x = -0.180239 ... (minus value, impossible)

B) x * 0.9481657393132604 + 0.0518342606867396 = 0.016277
x * 0.9481657393132604 = 0.016277 - 0.0518342606867396
x = (0.016277 - 0.0518342606867396) / 0.9481657393132604
x = -0.0375 ... (minus value, impossible)

C) x * 0.9481657393132604 + 0.00518342606867396 = 0.016277
x * 0.9481657393132604 = 0.016277 - 0.00518342606867396
x = (0.016277 - 0.00518342606867396) / 0.9481657393132604
x = 0.0117

How about taking the final 440 years as rising twice as fast as the medium?

D) x = (0.016277 - 2 * 0.00518342606867396) / 0.9481657393132604
x = 0.006233

C) 5730 * log(0.0117) / log(0.5) + 3398 = 40 169 BC
D) 5730 * log(0.006233) / log(0.5) + 3398 = 45 375 BC

What about 600 Before the Flood, when Noah was born?

3557 BC

x -> pmC

0.5^(600/5730) = 0.9299905477435162

0.9299905477435162 * = decay
0.0700094522564838 = normal replacement

0.0700094522564838 / 5 = 0.01400189045129676
0.0700094522564838 / 10 = 0.00700094522564838

A) x * 0.9299905477435162 + 0.01400189045129676 = 0.016277
x * 0.9299905477435162 = 0.016277 - 0.01400189045129676
x = (0.016277 - 0.01400189045129676) / 0.9299905477435162
x = 0.002446379

B) x * 0.9299905477435162 + 0.00700094522564838 = 0.016277
x * 0.9299905477435162 = 0.016277 - 0.00700094522564838
x = (0.016277 - 0.00700094522564838) / 0.9299905477435162
x = 0.0099743538

A) 5730 * log(0.002446379) / log(0.5) + 3557 = 53 266 BC
B) 5730 * log(0.0099743538) / log(0.5) + 3557 = 41 648 BC

Three possible tables. Both are on average 1/5 of the normal replacement. The latter part is, but the former part is 1/10 normal replacement. Both are on average 1/10 normal replacement. Hmm ... may have to think the compromise through, tomorrow ...

3557 BC

0.245 pmC, 53 266 BC

3398 BC

0.623 pmC, 45 375 BC

3557 BC

0.997 pmC, 41 648 BC

3398 BC

0.623 pmC, 45 375 BC

3557 BC

0.997 pmC, 41 648 BC

3398 BC

1.17 pmC, 40 169 BC

.... Thinking — could this happen?*

I mean, if the pmC is 0.997 in 3557 BC, could it drop to 0.623 in 3398 BC? Not by decay. In 159 years, the decay is a multiplication by 0.98095. By carbon escaping from somthing which never had carbon 14? Perhaps. So, no, as that is not overlikely in the calm pre-Flood times, probably not. Actually the opposite combination would be more likely:

3557 BC

0.245 pmC, 53 266 BC

3398 BC

1.17 pmC, 40 169 BC

How fast would that have gone?

0.00245 * 0.98095 = 0.0024
0.0024 + 0.01905 = 0.02145 (2.145 pmC)

0.0024 + 0.01905/2 = 0.011925 (1.1925 pmC)

Less than half as fast as modern speed to reach 1.17 pmC. Now, that could happen.

Why am I just speculating, between incompatible scenarii? Because I have no anchor point prior to the Flood, that's why.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Cyril
18.III.2025

Hierosolymis sancti Cyrilli Episcopi, Confessoris et Ecclesiae Doctoris; qui, ab Arianis multas pro fidei causa perpessus injurias et ex Ecclesia sua saepe depulsus, tandem, sanctitatis gloria clarus, in pace quievit. Ipsius porro intemeratam fidem prima Constantinopolitana Synodus oecumenica, sancto Damaso Papae scribens, praeclaro testimonio commendavit.

* The middle one, obviously. The other two can.

Stone Age European Seafarers

LiveScience: 7,000-year-old canoes from Italy are the oldest ever found in the Mediterranean
News By Jennifer Nalewicki published March 20, 2024
https://www.livescience.com/archaeology/oldest-canoes-ever-found-in-the-mediterranean-sea-unearthed-off-the-coast-of-italy

LiveScience: European hunter-gatherers boated to North Africa during Stone Age, ancient DNA suggests
News By Jess Thomson published St. Patrick's Day 2025
https://www.livescience.com/archaeology/european-hunter-gatherers-boated-to-north-africa-during-stone-age-ancient-dna-suggests

This would be 5000 BC for the canoes, 6500 BC for the arrival in Tunisia. Or rather* ...

2396 BC

60.027 pmC, dated 6615 BC

2391 BC

Arphaxad died

2373 BC

61.194 pmC, dated as 6433 BC

2189 BC

70.415 pmC, dated as 5089 BC

2187 BC

Eber died

2166 BC

71.553 pmC, dated as 4933 BC

... the arrival in Tunisia is from around when Arphaxad died, or some ten years later, and the actual canoes is from when Eber died, or some ten years later ...

Can we refine it a bit?

(2396 + 2373) / 2 = 2384~2385 BC
(60.027 + 61.194) / 2 = 60.6105 pmC

Dates as
5730 * log(0.606105) / log(0.5) + 2384.5 = 6524 BC

(2189 + 2166) / 2 = 2177~2178 BC
(70.415 + 71.553) / 2 = 70.984 pmC

Dates as
5730 * log(0.70984) / log(0.5) + 2177.5 = 5011 BC

So, the arrival in Tunisia would be by 2385 BC, the canoe in Italy from 2177 BC.

Enjoy, happy St. Patrick's Day!
/HGL

* Newer Tables, Flood to Joseph in Egypt

So, You Think Another Biblical Chronology is Right than Mine? Here is What You Can Do ... for Carbon Dates

In the Catholic Church, there are three different views on how old the Earth was when Jesus was born.

One council, I think II Counc. of Nicaea, 787, says 5500 years were past when Jesus was born.*

The Historia Scholastica and the Roman Martyrology give the dates I use in reverse. Starting with Jesus born 5199th year after Creation.

And, again, some prefer to go by the Vulgate, since Trent makes it the standard text of the Catholic Bible:

10 These are the generations of Sem: Sem was a hundred years old when he begot Arphaxad, two years after the flood.

11 And Sem lived after he begot Arphaxad, five hundred years, and begot sons and daughters. 12 And Arphaxad lived thirty-five years, and begot Sale. 13 And Arphaxad lived after he begot Sale, three hundred and three years; and begot sons and daughters. 14 Sale also lived thirty years, and begot Heber. 15 And Sale lived after he begot Heber, four hundred and three years; and begot sons and daughters.

16 And Heber lived thirty-four years, and begot Phaleg. 17 And Heber lived after he begot Phaleg, four hundred and thirty years: and begot sons and daughters. 18 Phaleg also lived thirty years, and begot Reu. 19 And Phaleg lived after he begot Reu, two hundred and nine years, and begot sons and daughters.

As we know from Genesis 9, Noah dies 350 after the Flood. Traditionally, one sees Babel as ending when Phaleg (or Peleg) is born. With a LXX without the Second Cainan (the Martyrology), or with a LXX with the Second Cainan (Nicaea II), no problem. With the Vulgate, or King James, both have Hebrew originals with Masoretic chronology in the relevant chapters of Genesis, this would mean Babel ending in 101 after the Flood. That could be problematic.

So, let's count a bit.

Flood 2 Years after Arphaxad born 37 Years after Sale born 67 Years after Heber born

101 Years after Phaleg born 131 Years after Reu born 340 Years after Phaleg dies 350 Years after Noah dies

You can place end of Babel anywhere you want between 101 and 340 after the Flood. Or maybe even 341, if you think Babel ended the anniversary of Phaleg's death, with the Gedenktag. I'm placing it between 350 (Noah's death) and 401 (Phaleg's birth), because I have a LXX chronology. And saying Babel ended when or before Phaleg was born is more traditional (let's say the breaking up took a period of seven year, well, Phaleg could have been born in the seventh of those years).

Now, you match your view of when the Flood was (2348 BC according to Ussher), and your view of when Babel was (Ussher says 2204 BC, so, when Phaleg was 43 or 42 years old) with the data in remains, whether fossil or archaeological or anthropological (I take Neanderthals as a pre-Flood population, so my go to for the Flood is last provenly living Neanderthal, i e last Neanderthal body or body part). And you take your archaeological match for Babel (I take Göbekli Tepe, Petrovich took Ziggurat of Eridu, CMI seems to have basically said the Ice Age Palaeolithic was after Babel).

Then you match the real year, according to the Bible, or what you think that real year was, and carbon year, according to your matching material evidence, and you subtract the BC dates of the real year from the BC dates in carbon years, you get the carbon year excess, and from there you calculate the carbon 14 level. Same formula for how old sth is now with remaining carbon 14 in a sample works equally well for how old sth would have seemed in carbon dates, so, for instance, if an item is 500 years old, you calculate how much carbon it should have left (prior to more minute calibrations, like from tree rings or historic data), and the formula is ...

0.5^(500/5730) = 0.9413087854383377 = 94.131 pmC

As 1950 is 75 years ago, the carbon date BP wouldn't be 500, but 425. However, the raw carbon age for 420 BP seems to correspond to 1460 rather than to 1525, according to the fine calibration.**

Meanwhile, I am using Biblical data to calibrate carbon. So would you be. And the gap for carbon age of the Flood and actual Biblical age of it would exceed 10 000 years (34 000 years in my calibration).

0.5^{(10 000/5730)} = 0.2982924364237143 = 29.829 pmC

I don't place that value at the Flood, in fact I place it at between 2673 BC and 2660 BC, when Heber was up to 29 years old. You'd place it elsewhere, and you wouldn't start with it.

And when you then have what I call anchor points, any two of them can connect by interpolation (an anchor point involves Biblical / real date, Carbon date as per well identified item, pmC level derived from the discrepancy) and the way you do it is you decide intermediate carbon levels for the intermediate time divisions.

And from any intermediate point, you calculate the carbon date for the Biblical date from the pmC value. Like I did. The formula is, and I'll reverse the one for 500 years, like this.

5730 * log (0.9413087854383377) / log(0.5) = 500.0000000000001136432
5730 * log (0.2982924364237143) / log(0.5) = 9999.9999999999996080125

Now, to get the calibrated BC date, obviously as said all this time a Biblical calibration rather than a tree ring one, you add the BC year to the correct value of extra years derived from the pmC value.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Reminiscere LD
16.III.2025

* It should be Nicaea II, since it says the Incarnation makes a difference for the licitness of religious imagery.

** page 41 in the pdf from High-Precision Decadal Calibration of the Radiocarbon Time Scale, AD 1950–6000 BC

Somestimes CMI Are Just Wrong, on Theology

Rainbows, the Flood, and the Covenant
by Jonathan Sarfati | This article is from
Creation 38(4):44–45, October 2016
https://creation.com/rainbows-and-the-flood

Most of the article is correct on Creation Science and Exegetics that Rainbows existed before the Flood. See the Haydock comment on Genesis 9.

13 I will set my bow in the clouds, and it shall be the sign of a covenant between me and between the earth.

Ver. 13. My rain bow. This had been from the beginning; but it was not before appointed for a sign that the earth should no more be destroyed by water. It is styled God’s bow, on account of its beauty and grandeur. (Menochius) (Ecclesiasticus xliii. 12.) — “As the rain-bow, which makes its appearance in the clouds, borrows all its effulgence from the sun, so those only who acknowledge the glory of Christ in God’s clouds, and do not seek their own glory, will escape destruction in the deluge,” St. Augustine, contra Faust. ii. 21.

The cited Giovanni Stefano Menochio SJ (9 December 1575 – 4 February 1655) was an Italian Jesuit biblical scholar. Perfectly orthodox, and so it is perfectly OK for a Catholic to say that there were rainbows before the Flood.

However, Jonathan Sarfati pretends that in Matthew 26:26 ff. Jesus left bread and wine as they were and only added a new signification. Given the multiplication of breads and the miracle in Cana, why would He do no more, like actually make it His body and His blood? Because the Deformers say so? No, let's stick with the Church, shall we, over the centuries!/HGL

I Wish My Readers Consulted CMI or AiG a Bit More

Some answers they would not need to bother me about, since they are already available on those other activist platforms, I don't even have an original twist to add.

Like, how did Cangaroos and Aborigines get to Oz from Mountains of Ararat after the Flood?

They have answered this passim and given both Carl Wieland and Ken Ham are Australians, no wonder. Like here: How did animals get from the Ark to places such as Australia?

Now, I just happened to come across a map from the ice age. No, not made back then. Made now, but about conditions back then:

The context was Swedish Quora and someone else answering a near identic question about the arrival supposedly 55 000 years ago.

I shared with an appropriate comment on this also being a good answer for Young Earth Creationists.

utmärkt svar äfven för ungjordscreationister
https://sv.quora.com/profile/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1/utm%C3%A4rkt-svar-%C3%A4fven-f%C3%B6r-ungjordscreationister-https-sv-quora-com-Australien-%C3%A4r-ju-omgivet-av-vatten-i-alla-riktningar

Australien är ju omgivet av vatten i alla riktningar, hur kom dess första befolkning till den kontinenten, och hur visste de att den skulle finnas?

... Det hjälpte också dessa Australiens första äventyrare att havsnivån var avsevärt mycket lägre under perioden, tack vare att mycket vatten var bundet i inlandsis:

Translation:

An excellent answer for Yung Earth Creationists too:

Australia being surrounded by water in all directions, how did its first population arrive to the continent, how did they know it was there?

... It was also of assistance to the first pioneers of Australia that the sea levels were considerably lower during the period, thanks to much water being bound up in ice sheets:

This also helps to illustrate how SE Australia, specifically Tasmania, is the South East corner of the world. Where Are the Four Corners on a Globe? It was not so long ago (like less than 5000 years) that it was attached to SE Asia like Amager is attached to Zealand or the Danish Islands in general to Jutland (which juts out of North Germany).

If I should really add a personal touch, well, I give a Biblical date for the carbon date of Mungo Man (or Mungo Woman). First Tas Walker:

The dating game
by Tas Walker | This article is from
Creation 26(1):36–39, December 2003
https://creation.com/the-dating-game

Quote:

The first major find, in 1969, was of crushed and burnt skeletal fragments, interpreted to be of a female called Lake Mungo 1, or more affectionately Mungo Woman.2,3 What made the find significant was the assigned date. Carbon-14 dating (see Dating methods) on bone apatite (the hard bone material) yielded an age of 19,000 years and on collagen (soft tissue) gave 24,700 years.3 This excited the archaeologists, because that date made their find the oldest human burial in Australia.

So, 17,000 BC, 22,700 BC. Newer Tables, Flood to Joseph in Egypt

2782 BC

9.201 pmC, dated as 22,505 BC

...

2712 BC

17.585 pmC, dated as 17,081 BC

Her soft tissue is 70 years older than her hard bone material, probably because she ate something like shellfish, or sth with old carbon pretty much before she died. The reservoir effect. Vikings have been dated to before the Viking invasion through eating pretty much fish, and in their case the reservoir effect was sth like two centuries, I recall.

So, she died 245 years after the Flood, and given life spans back then, at less than 300—400 years old, it was a premature death. This is why in the anatomy of the skeleta, they do not look like old people from today, at less than 200 years old, probably, she would have been anatomically comparable to a woman in her thirties or forties.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Quadragesima L. D.
9.III.2025

Yesterday, I Heard a Man from the Orthodox Church Repeat a Heterodox and Unmanly View

It goes like this.

We now know how Babylonians (both Sumerian and Akkadian speakers) thought the world was created, and Phoenicians weren't totally different. The story in Genesis 1 is very similar, but there are key differences. So, Genesis uses mythology (understood as never meant by anyone to be taken literally) and then tweaks it to make theological points. Only one creator God. Creation is effortless, not a ruthless brawl. Man is created in God's image. This in context of Ancient Near East cultures means, man is God's representative on Earth, and probably, though he didn't say it, this is also a theological point embroidered onto a mythology taken from elsewhere.

I have no quarrel with the differences spelling out theological points, and each is pretty sound as far as it goes. I especially love the one about the dignity of each individual human person, and how this is different from Babylon. B U T ... why would one place the originals of the stories in the realm of wild speculation by heathen "who knew not their maker" and why would only the theological points be left to God's own Israel (of which the Church is the continuation)?

Orthodox, like us Catholics, and unlike Protestants, have a "Formalprinzip" (to use a Lutheran term, I once upon a time was Lutheran) of Scripture with Church Fathers. This view is obviously not the one of any Church Father. No one says "Ezra loved the Babylonian creation account as a story, but hated its ideology" and the rest. No one denies that Genesis from 1:1 to 50:25 is history. And you'd be very hard put to present the story of Joseph in Egypt as taken over from the Babylonians. That's also in Genesis. So, the problem one is, this Orthodox man contradicted the Church Fathers.

However, he could argue (as people have about millions of years or about heliocentrism, both of which are chemically absent in the Church Fathers) that no one knew of the Babylonian account. After all, Cuneiform was only recently discovered, long after the Patristic era, and Leonard William King only translated Enuma Elish in 1902. Who could blame the Church Fathers for not knowing? Well, part of the argument is style, and part of the style is such as is also found in the mythology that the Church Fathers did know, like Greco-Roman, sometimes Egyptian, myth. But they never made the connection, so, are we more savvy than they?

But there is more. Cuneiform, Sumerian, Akkadian, that didn't just die when Cyrus overthrew the heir of Nebuchadnezzar. In fact, the early authors of the Mishna had access to both Sumerian and Akkadian texts (at least if they bothered to learn the languages and look) and when the New Testament was written, Akkadian was still being studied. In fact, one could argue that St. John was in some numbers referring to Babylonian numerals.

Babylonian Math : Four Corners and a Fish

From this, one could argue that he was also conscious how the Babylonian shape for 666 would look like the needle point of a syringe or the top capsule of a rocket:

Babylonian Numerals for a certain number have a certain shape

In fact, as in the New Testament 11 verses mention Babylon, and 6 of them are in the Apocalypse, it would be hard to argue that St. John neither had prophetic acquaintance with Babylonian culture, nor had a preparation as due diligence for speaking up on the matter. Very hard. How, given this, are the NT authors supposed to have missed this connection, if it is so obvious?

And here we come to a third thing. The connection may indeed be obvious, but it's not obviously only in one direction, one cannot obviously tie Genesis 1 to a copy of Enuma Elish. Indeed, if all the peoples who were divided from each other and lost contact (or most of it) around Babel were descended from Noah, they would all have known something of how God created. What if it were instead Enuma Elish that was tweaking and making polemic points? For Atrahasis, it's pretty obvious, the differences from the Biblical account would boil down to three:

• sloppy description of the Ark (though the "shape of a die" could refer to an astragal and be somewhat accurate about the real shape);
• vain shortcut of dynastic connections between pre-Flood Shuruppak and post-Flood royalty;
• but above all a different theology. (By the way, Atrahasis, unlike Enuma Elish, does have an Adam and Eve, but they were created to be slaves to the gods, as in Enuma Elish). Enlil decides the Flood for petty jealosy, deciding in favour of Adad and Nisaba, who had acted destructively, and Enki by slyness saves mankind, as before.

So, rather than Genesis making theological polemics on the basis of what was otherwise mythology, Genesis can as well be history, and Babylonians have forged the history and prehistory they inherited into the pagan myth we see. The historical untruthfulness of the texts having the above three explanations, rather than the genre. I think this is pretty much what the Church Fathers said in relation to Deucalion and Pyrrha. "The Greeks confused the Flood of Noah with a later Flood in Thessaly" and that one featuring Deucalion and Pyrrha.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Gabriel of Our Lady of Sorrows
27.II.2025

Insulae, in Aprutio, sancti Gabrielis a Virgine Perdolente, Clerici Congregationis a Cruce et Passione Domini nuncupatae, et Confessoris; qui, magnis intra breve vitae spatium meritis et post mortem miraculis clarus, a Benedicto Papa Decimo quinto in Sanctorum canonem relatus est.

Correction to Jonathan Sarfati

Since then, those languages have divided much further. For example, English, French, German, Icelandic, Greek, Russian, Hindi, Persian, and many others can all be traced back to one ancestral language. This language is called “Proto-Indo-European” (PIE). PIE might have been one of the languages God created at Babel. But Hungarian, Finnish, and Estonian did not come from PIE. Rather, they came from an ancestral language called Proto-Uralic, maybe another Babel language.

From tomorrow's page on CMI, The Genesis Flood for Kids | Noah’s descendants

French, Spanish, Italian can all be literally traced back to Latin. When in around 800 in Tours Latin started to get a more oldfashioned pronunciation, closer to the letters, the Latin writing was no longer the default spelling of the vernacular language. Within a century, French appeared as very archaic Old French.* Classic Old French is a bit younger.**

In a council in Burgos, the Frankish way of pronouncing Latin was adopted, mid-11th C. and soon enough after that, 1200, you find Old Spanish.*** For Italy I'm not sure of the exact time when Frankish pronunciation trumped the close to Italian one (without nasals at all in -um, pronouncing it like -o), but as Italian is even closer to Latin than Spanish and French are, it is very clear that Italian too stems from Latin. On top of that, there is no record of Latin ever being replaced with an actual foreign language, at any point, so one is very safe to assume that what language Sicilian poets like Giacomo da Lentini or Tuscan poets like Dante wrote was actually a later form of what Horace or Virgil had written.

In this sense, we cannot trace any "branch of Indo-European" or anything at all to "Proto-Indo-European".

One of the reasons that Indo-European languages are supposed to all descend from Proto-Indo-European is verbal endings. You'll be familiar with the Greek ones, no doubt. Now, look at the Finnish endings as well:

μῑσέω		ἐμίσεον		minä vihaan
μῑσέεις		ἐμίσεες		sinä vihaat
μῑσέει		ἐμίσεε		hän vihaa
(μῑσέετον μῑσέετον)		(ἐμῑσέετον ἐμῑσεέτην)
μῑσέομεν		ἐμῑσέομεν		me vihaamme
μῑσέετε		ἐμῑσέετε		te vihaatte
μῑσέουσῐ		ἐμίσεον		he vihaavat

Finnish is not Indo-European, it's Uralic. Was Nostratic, hypothetic ancestor of both Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Uralic, one post-Babel language? Or did some Sprachbund phenomenon influence the common endings between Finnish and Greek? If the latter, could that, on a larger and more intense scale, be the cause of similarities between the several "branches of Indo-European"? Because, if it could, then Greek could be descended from Javanic, the post-Babel language of Javan, son of Japheth. And Hittite with Celtic, Italic (of which Latin and later Romance) and Germanic, could be Gomerite.°

There would have been more than one early and somewhat later occasions for language contact, like when Gomer and Semitic Lud were in Anatolia, Javan was just across the Aegean, or in the 1200's BC, according to archaeologists, the Villanova culture was both influenced by Mycenaean Greeks and in trade contacts all the way up to Denmark from Italy.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Walburgis
25.II.2025

In monasterio Heidenhemii, dioecesis Eystettensis, in Germania, sanctae Walburgae Virginis, quae fuit filia sancti Richardi, Anglorum Regis, et soror sancti Willebaldi, Eystettensis Episcopi.

PS, enumerating the similarities. First person singular is -n in Finnish, -n in Secondary Endings of Greek. Second person singular ends in a dental. Third person singular ends in a long vowel (in present tense in Greek). First person plural ends in -me (-men in Attic and Koiné, -mes in Doric), and in -mme. Second person plural ends in -te / -tte. If I had taken in Latin, I'd have compared "-nt" to Finnish "at", though the preceding -v- is not obviously related to anything in Indo-European, as to third person plural./HGL

* Maybe Strassburg Oaths, certainly the Saint Eulalia Sequence.
** Song of Roland.
*** El Cantar del Mio Cid.
° Church Fathers have traced both Gauls and Cappadocians to Gomer, and it would seem Italic and Germanic are closely related. Old Irish shares grammatic features with Hittite.

Red Lady of El Mirón — When?

Creation vs. Evolution: Red Lady of El Mirón — When? · New blog on the kid: Lapedo Child lived ...

The Red Lady of El Mirón is a skeleton belonging to a woman of Upper Paleolithic (Magdalenian) found at El Mirón Cave in eastern Cantabria, Spain.

When is this woman said to have lived?

Radiocarbon dating indicates that the woman was buried around 18,700 years ago.

So, when is that really? Given that it is a radiocarbon date, it's reducible by my recalibration.

Newer Tables: Preliminaries · Flood to Joseph in Egypt · Joseph in Egypt to Fall of Troy.

Given that is says "years ago" it means it's not 18,700 BC, but 16,675 BC.

2712 BC

17.585 pmC, dated as 17,081 BC

2699 BC (!)

20.835 pmC, dated as 15,666 BC

She really died some time between 2712 BC and 2699 BC. Let's get closer to when, and lets ignore that the graph of rising Carbon 14 is slightly bent, and treat it as a straight line graph.

(2712 + 2699) / 2 = 2705.5
(17.585 + 20.835) / 2 = 19.21 (0.1921)

5730 * log(0.1921) / log(0.5) + 2705.5 = 16,343 BC

(2712 + 2712 + 2712 + 2699 + 2699) / 5 = 2706.8
(17.585 + 17.585 + 17.585 + 20.835 + 20.835) / 5 = 18.885 (0.18885)

5730 * log(0.18885) / log(0.5) + 2706.8 = 16,486 BC

(2712 + 2712 + 2699) / 3 = 2707.667
(17.585 + 17.585 + 20.835) / 3 = 18.668333 (0.18668333)

5730 * log(0.18668333) / log(0.5) + 2707.667 = 16,582 BC

(2712 + 2712 + 2712 + 2699) / 4 = 2708.75
(17.585 + 17.585 + 17.585 + 20.835) / 4 = 18.3975 (0.183975)

5730 * log(0.183975) / log(0.5) + 2708.75 = 16,704 BC

So, she arguably died some time around 2709 BC, since 16,704 BC is close enough to the desideratum of 16,675 BC./HGL

Interesting Quote from Georges Declercq

I'm starting to read | Anno Domini |, by one Georges Declercq, with a subtitle The Origins of the Christian Era. It's on BREPOLS PUBLISHERS, Turnhout Belgium, 2000.

It turns out, the add-ups giving the actual span of the OT, as in Ussher, this was not the earliest origin of the totals.

Actually, there was speculation on "sixth day of creation" corresponding to sixth millennium after creation, and ending with Doomsday but having Our Lord's incarnation in the middle. So, the total 5500 Anno Mundi for either Birth or Death and Resurrection of God in the Flesh, of Jesus the Christ, was in place before Syncellus started to add up year items in Genesis 5 and 11 and the rest of the Bible.

This changed with Eusebius of Caesarea.

However, unlike other world chronicles, the text of the bishop of Caesarea does not begin with Adam and the creation of the world, but with Abraham, because prior to this patriarch the chronology of the Bible was in his opinion uncertain and inaccurate. He nevertheless indicated that according to the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Old Testament, 2242 years passed between Adam and the flood, and 942 years from the latter event to Abraham. Each year in the chronicle was consecutively numbered from the birth of Abraham onwards. Interrelated with this era of Abraham, Eusebius also used a regnal chronology and, from the year 1240 since Abraham (776 BC), Greek Olympiads as well. In the version of Jerome, the birth of Christ is thus dated in the year 2015 since Abraham, the forty-second year of Augustus and the third year of the 194th olympiad (2 BC), while the Passion and Ressurrection are placed in the year 2047 from Abraham, the eighteenth year of Tiberius and the third year of the 202nd olympiad (AD 31).

And while the age of the world isn't mentioned, it can be calculated as 5199 when Our Lord was born, 5231 when He died. The quote spans parts of pages 42 and 43 in the book. In the following we learn that St. Jerome very much popularised this chronology. AND that Venerable Bede used Vulgate instead of LXX and had Our Lord born in Anno Mundi 3952 (4 BC).

Now, the span of 942 years from flood to Abraham indicates a LXX version of Genesis 11 without the Second Cainan. In fact, not from this book, but on a site, I found that the beginning of St. Jerome's chronology attributes the 2242 + 942 years to Julius Africanus, who, however also had a different version of chapter five and gave 2262 from Adam to flood.

So, the chronology I use is a collaborative work, but certainly not by noobs from today living in their mother's basement, but from pretty well known names from the First Millennium of the Christian Era (which is the topic of the book, one which touches very much on Easter calculus where I'm right now .../HGL

PS, iffy if one should use "Anno Mundi" for Western or Western popularised calculations like St. Jerome's or St. Bede's birth years of Our Lord, since Anno Mundi actually was a definite thing in the East, either Alexandrian or Byzantine Era, and then always was sth like 5500 AM when Our Lord was born./HGL

PPS, "a definite thing" = an actual system of dating current events. In Russia it was abolished in 1700 by Peter the Great./HGL

"A million steps are possible" — No, Not Always

Arithmetic is not Geometry. And Real Arithmetic makes "Real Numbers" unreal. However much you like apple pie, you can never have π apples. However much a tree is rooted, between 1 tree and 2 trees, there is no such thing as sqrt(2) trees.

This is a good refresher of remembering what we really know even in Number Theory. Someone brought up logarithms, and I finally, years later, came up with a model for logarithms, which was obviously not meant to replace the logarithms we have, but I used a different than usual way of expressing logarithms to prove I hadn't cheated by simply looking at a logarithm table, that my understanding of what logarithms actually are in number theory actually had allowed me to find some logarithms.

This time, I'll go with the known value 0.301 for the ten-logarithm for 2.

So, according to the usual theory, this means 10^0.301 = 2. I'll wager that this is, apart from geometry (natural logarithms come with certain curve shapes) actually an algebraic shortening of another statement.

10 ³⁰¹ = 2¹⁰⁰⁰

10 ³⁰¹ =
1 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

2¹⁰⁰⁰ =
1 0715086071862673200000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Can't make out whether it's equal length or not? I combined 000 000 000 into "nine zeros" and than three of these into XXVII zeros, then three of those into LXXXI zeros. I then added back last zeros to the part before the abbreviations, and I dissolved parts to bring the number of abbreviations to the same.

10 ³⁰¹ =
10 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000
LXXXI zeros LXXXI zeros LXXXI zeros XXVII zeros

2¹⁰⁰⁰ =
10 715 086 071 862 673 200 000 000 000 000
LXXXI zeros LXXXI zeros LXXXI zeros XXVII zeros

But the difference is pretty great? over and above the 10 followed by 300 zeros, there is 715 followed by 297 digits (the calculator made most of the digits into zeros).

So, let's check, how different is 10^0.301 from 2?

10^0.301 = 1.999 861 869 632 744 1, off by 0.000 1 and some more.

What if we took 0.30103?

10^0.30103 = 2.000 000 019 968 104 6, off by 0.000 000 1 and some more.

Twice as accurate, in terms of how many digits, but inexact on the other side. No doubt, for

10 ^{30 103} = 2^{100 000}

the excess or deficit would be even more notable than 715 followed by 297 digits. However, that is because you need greater whole numbers in order to give finer fractions as whole number to whole number ratio, the finer the fraction, the more exact the logarithm, the greater the powers of 10 and 2, the greater the discrepancy. I expressed this fact as "the logarithm" (from the arithmetic standpoint) "is the make believe that pretends to an impossible equality between powers of ten and powers of two, the more exact the logarithm, the less the powers are actually close to equality" ... something for which I was taken for a raving fool who had no idea what he was talking about. A mixture of drug addict and intellectual hybris capable of spouting things out which it is a no-brainer to refute, and then being too intellectually arrogant to step down when refuted by people with no brain, or with no evidence of their brain being effectively used for the task.

There is of course, as I more recently found out, a more geometric approach to what a logarithm is, and it is used to get more exact values, and I have no problem with that. Geometry, unlike arithmetic, actually does have Real Numbers, that are actually real. I was answering the proposition that in arithmetic there is no such thing as a stark transition from one to two. Or in other words, that you can have pi apples or sqrt(2) trees.

This is important in the Creation to Evolution debate exactly how?

Well, bear with me, for the relevance is coming. Two of them.

A chromosome may have 10 000 genes. And it may (conceivably) gradually rise in number of genes until it has 20 000 genes. Invent a mechanism that allows a functioning gene to arise, and the 10 000 genes on the chromosome may be 10 001, and then 10 002 and so on. Eventually that may reach 20 000 genes. But they would still all be on that one single chromosome. How is this important?

Well, once upon a time Kent Hovind made a spoof argument about the tobacco plant being more developed than man, because it had more chromosomes. Man only has 46 chromosomes, the tobacco plant has 48.

The Solanaceae species Nicotiana tabacum, an economically important crop plant cultivated worldwide, is an allotetraploid species that appeared about 200,000 years ago as the result of the hybridization of diploid ancestors of Nicotiana sylvestris and Nicotiana tomentosiformis.

In other words, the tobacco plant has appeared before the Flood, and there was tobacco on the Ark. The 200,000 years ago date is just "lava cooled rapidly during the Flood and trapped excess argon" ...

Now, the spoof argument by Hovind reminded me of a real argument in Fr. Bryan Houghton, a non-order priest who was still not totally a diocesan priest, since "incardinated 'in propriam fortunam' " ... in the French translation of his Unwanted Priest, he inserted pieces of tracts, one of them against Evolution. And he mentioned that French scientists had for a long time hushed up the existence of chromosomes, because this poses a barrier to evolution. As mentioned, augmenting the number of genes on a single chromosome may be gradual, but the transition to two chromosomes, if it occurred at all, would be abrupt. There is no such thing as "one and a half chromosomes" for the same reason that there is no such thing as "half a chromosome" ...

There are also not one million intermediates between vocal communications having one level, the full message = one sound, and vocal communications having three levels, full message expressed with composition of morphemes (these being often, but not always, words), and morpheme being expressed in composition of phonemes, and phonemes holding no meaning of their own. There is exactly one possible intermediate, and that is having two levels.

However, there are two ways between the one and the three levels.

1) full message = sound, first divides into full message = many sounds

then this divides into full message = many words, word = many sounds. Or:

2) full message = sound, first divides into full message = many words, but each word = sound

then this divides into full message = many words, word = many sounds.

Note, we have two alternatives. Then again, adding notionality to pragmatism is another item. Did it happen during the first, the intermediate or after reaching the last stage?

We have six alternatives. Placements of three events. And, again, no hint of gradualism being even possible.

Again, the physiological underpinning of the human speach can be reduced to two items: "fully or at least adequately reached" and "not even adequately reached" ... While gradualism is possible, it can for this purpose be ignored. The question now becomes:

Did the apparatus exist before even first division and before notionality?

Or did it arise after first, second or third of the three events above outlined?

Again, the alternatives aren't bafflingly many, you can't say "any scenario we can't even think of is possible" ... and you also cannot pretend I'm crunching "a million gradients" into too few events.

Two scenarios:

Full message divided into sounds. Full message divided into words that remained divided into sounds.
Full message divided into words. Words divided into sounds.

Six scenarios:

Notionality was added to pragmatism. Full message divided into sounds. Full message divided into words that remained divided into sounds.
Full message divided into sounds. Notionality was added to pragmatism. Full message divided into words that remained divided into sounds.
Full message divided into sounds. Full message divided into words that remained divided into sounds. Notionality was added to pragmatism.

Notionality was added to pragmatism. Full message divided into words. Words divided into sounds.
Full message divided into words. Notionality was added to pragmatism. Words divided into sounds.
Full message divided into words. Words divided into sounds. Notionality was added to pragmatism.

Twenty-four scenarios:

Apparatus ready. Notionality was added to pragmatism. Full message divided into sounds. Full message divided into words that remained divided into sounds.
Notionality was added to pragmatism. Apparatus ready. Full message divided into sounds. Full message divided into words that remained divided into sounds.
Notionality was added to pragmatism. Full message divided into sounds. Apparatus ready. Full message divided into words that remained divided into sounds.
Notionality was added to pragmatism. Full message divided into sounds. Full message divided into words that remained divided into sounds. Apparatus ready.

Apparatus ready. Full message divided into sounds. Notionality was added to pragmatism. Full message divided into words that remained divided into sounds.
Full message divided into sounds. Apparatus ready. Notionality was added to pragmatism. Full message divided into words that remained divided into sounds.
Full message divided into sounds. Notionality was added to pragmatism. Apparatus ready. Full message divided into words that remained divided into sounds.
Full message divided into sounds. Notionality was added to pragmatism. Full message divided into words that remained divided into sounds. Apparatus ready.

Apparatus ready. Full message divided into sounds. Full message divided into words that remained divided into sounds. Notionality was added to pragmatism.
Full message divided into sounds. Apparatus ready. Full message divided into words that remained divided into sounds. Notionality was added to pragmatism.
Full message divided into sounds. Full message divided into words that remained divided into sounds. Apparatus ready. Notionality was added to pragmatism.
Full message divided into sounds. Full message divided into words that remained divided into sounds. Notionality was added to pragmatism. Apparatus ready.

Apparatus ready. Notionality was added to pragmatism. Full message divided into words. Words divided into sounds.
Notionality was added to pragmatism. Apparatus ready. Full message divided into words. Words divided into sounds.
Notionality was added to pragmatism. Full message divided into words. Apparatus ready. Words divided into sounds.
Notionality was added to pragmatism. Full message divided into words. Words divided into sounds. Apparatus ready.

Apparatus ready. Full message divided into words. Notionality was added to pragmatism. Words divided into sounds.
Full message divided into words. Apparatus ready. Notionality was added to pragmatism. Words divided into sounds.
Full message divided into words. Notionality was added to pragmatism. Apparatus ready. Words divided into sounds.
Full message divided into words. Notionality was added to pragmatism. Words divided into sounds. Apparatus ready.

Apparatus ready. Full message divided into words. Words divided into sounds. Notionality was added to pragmatism.
Full message divided into words. Apparatus ready. Words divided into sounds. Notionality was added to pragmatism.
Full message divided into words. Words divided into sounds. Apparatus ready. Notionality was added to pragmatism.
Full message divided into words. Words divided into sounds. Notionality was added to pragmatism. Apparatus ready.

The apparatus is not all that useful unless you have notionality and speech. Speech is not possible without the apparatus. (Applies to production, but even more to hearing and learning).

Notionality is not possible before you have three levels. But three levels are not useful without notionality.

Tell me, if you can, which of the twenty-four scenarios isn't destroyed by one of these observations. Because, in evolution, a thing has to be both useful and possible. Thick fur is useful to keep warm. Keeping warm is possible on some levels even before acquiring thick fur. On the other hand, acquiring thick fur first isn't a too bad thing, before the climate change to the cold or the move to a colder clime strikes, it can be a neutral change, and then it becomes useful. This is a change which has happened in kind after kind. And the thickness of fur actually does really allow for several intermediate gradients. It's a geometric question.

Inventing language is a question of arithmetic changes. Which, as mentioned, do not allow for intermediates between the integers.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Holy Founders of the Servites
12.II.2025

Sanctorum septem Fundatorum Ordinis Servorum beatae Mariae Virginis, Confessorum, quorum depositio respectivis diebus recolitur. Quos autem in vita unus verae fraternitatis spiritus sociavit, et indivisa post obitum veneratio populi prosecuta est, eos Leo Decimus tertius, Pontifex Maximus, una pariter Sanctorum fastis accensuit.

Carefully hedged Question.

A teacher on FB posted the meme with a question, I'm skipping the red stuff and just doing the text:

Question Can a person accept Evolution and also believe: Holy Trinity—the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit Incarnation—God became man in the person of Jesus Christ Miracles of Jesus Jesus died on the Cross for our sins Physical Resurrection of Jesus Bible is the Holy Spirit inspired Word of God Inerrant Spirit Truths in the Bible Miraculous signs and wonders Final Judgement of every person Eternal Life for believers in God

Technically, yes. Some of above are ill formulated.

Eternal life is not for all believers, Ephesians 2:8 to 10 indicate a risk of losing justification, despite believing, if you don't do good works after justification.

God the Son is the person who became Man and as such is now called Jesus, and bears the office of Christ.

But back to the qustion. Consistently, not really.

But above all, what is the person posting the meme (Denis O. Lamoureux) NOT asking? In other words, is the question carefully hedged?

• Inerrant Biblical History
• Bodily resurrection of all men, either to eternal torment or to eternal glory
• Bible as humanly reliable historic record, even apart from the Inspiration (Moses for Genesis and Luke for the Gospel relied on information they hadn't observed)
• Adam tainted us with sin
• God was totally good to Adam before he sinned, and generally speaking, God is good.

Just as all of the questions on the list can be answered yes by a believer in the evil "God" of Calvinism, so also, all of them can be answered yes by a believer in the evil "God" of Evolutionism.

I'll give the items where belief in Evolution, when consistent, conflicts with above.

• Inerrant Biblical History — Genesis 5, Genesis 11.
• Bodily resurrection of all men, either to eternal torment or to eternal glory — C. S. Lewis admitted that with man around for a million or even just 100 000 years, there would be too many men for earthly matter to suffice for it. With 7000 + years of history, different story.
• Bible as humanly reliable historic record, even apart from the Inspiration (Moses for Genesis and Luke for the Gospel relied on information they hadn't observed) — If there were so many more years between Adam and Abraham than Genesis 5 and 11 suggest, then the history is very poorly recorded and preserved.
• Adam tainted us with sin — with Genesis 3 events 100,000 years back it's not history, and even then he would not be unique ancestor of all, and a collective fall means the God of Supralapsarian Calvinism, since collectives have no freewill.
• God was totally good to Adam before he sinned, and generally speaking, God is good. — if Adam is supposed to come from evolution and then become man, he either becomes man from start, and if so is raised by beasts in near human bodies and cannot acquire language, or God gives him language in a way that separates him from those dear to him, or God makes him human only after separating him, and then this either leaves Adam with shame for or memory loss of his life prior to being human. But shame and memory loss are things that the good God doesn't allow men to suffer apart from them already being in a state of sin.

And obviously, Global Flood and Young Earth go together, and the First Pope linked disbelief of the Global Flood to disbelief in the Coming Judgement.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Scholastica
10.II.2025

Apud montem Cassinum sanctae Scholasticae Virginis, sororis sancti Benedicti Abbatis, qui ejus animam, instar columbae, migrantem e corpore in caelum ascendere vidit.

What Would 220 Before the Flood Date To? Carbon Wise?

What Would 220 Before the Flood Date To? Carbon Wise? · What Would 440 Before the Flood Date To? Carbon Wise? Or 600 Before the Flood?

I—I/II

Starts out 2958 BC,

1.6277 pmC, dated as 37 000 BC

2958-2738 = 220 years

10 * 22 years

3.611 times as fast

0.9973422400389199 * = decay

0.0026577599610801 = normal replacement

A) with 3.611 times as fast production, like on this view the correspondingly long period after the Flood?
B) with same production as now?
C) with ten times slower production than now (as generally pre-Flood)?

Note, "production" is here used for how the production is spread through the pre-Flood atmosphere. If it held more carbon, the same actual production would count less in relation to the overall carbon, and it is this "relative production" or "production of proportion" rather than absolute production of a quantity I'm counting.

3178 BC

x pmC

A) x * 0.9973422400389199 + 3.611 * 0.0026577599610801 = 0.016277

x * 0.9973422400389199 = 0.016277 - 3.611 * 0.0026577599610801

x = (0.016277 - 3.611 * 0.0026577599610801) / 0.9973422400389199 = 0.0066976294719845

5730 * log(0.0066976294719845) / log(0.5) + 3178 = 44 561 BC, 46 511 BP

B) x * 0.9973422400389199 + 0.0026577599610801 = 0.016277

x * 0.9973422400389199 = 0.016277 - 0.0026577599610801

x = (0.016277 - 0.0026577599610801) / 0.9973422400389199 = 0.0136555

5730 * log(0.0136555) / log(0.5) + 3178 = 38 672 BC, 40 622 BP

C) x * 0.9973422400389199 + 0.00026577599610801 = 0.016277

x * 0.9973422400389199 = 0.016277 - 0.00026577599610801

x = (0.016277 - 0.00026577599610801) / 0.9973422400389199 = 0.01605389

5730 * log(0.01605389) / log(0.5) + 3178 = 37 334 BC, 39 284 BP

So, these would per this calculation be equally valid guesses:

3178 BC

0.67 pmC, dated as 46 511 BP

3178 BC

1.366 pmC, dated as 40 622 BP

3178 BC

1.605 pmC, dated as 39 284 BP

Why can't I decide between them? Because, backwards* from the Flood, I have no anchor point where physical traces are identifiable to a Biblical event, like I have for Flood, Babel = Göbekli Tepe, En-Gedi in Genesis 14 and so on. When I say for a given point between end of Babel and Genesis 14:

2396 BC

60.027 pmC, dated 6615 BC

2391 BC

Arphaxad died

Then, the pmC value of 60.027 pmC for the year 2396 BC is based on this being an evenly spaced point between:

2557 BC

51.766 pmC, dated as 8000 BC

and: 1936 BC

82.763 pmC, dated as 3500 BC

I'm presupposing the whole atmosphere (with fairly minor variations) was at these levels and is applicable when contamination or bomb effect and old carbon or reservoir effect aren't. I'm also presupposing that the rise between the two levels was even. I am also modelling each interior stretch on the idea that the medium carbon replacement during the overall stretch can be applied to it, and that a good mathematical model is, multiply by a percentage for decay, add the replacement for addition, the new carbon level is decayed old carbon level plus addition. This cannot be done when the stretch has an open end backward, unless of course I presuppose an even rise in carbon 14 levels all the way back to Creation, in which case C would be my pick.

Please note, 220 years before the Flood was prior to God saying

... I will destroy man, whom I have created, from the face of the earth, from man even to beasts, from the creeping thing even to the fowls of the air, for it repenteth me that I have made them
[Genesis 6:7]

A Neanderthal buried in 3178 BC, 220 years before the Flood, would not fall under this decree, even if the CMI were right in interpreting not just "no survivors" but even "no physical remains" which I don't grant. I think the Tautavel man is a real descendant of Adam and was caught in mud and lava in the Flood. And that the huge age of (from memory) 300,000 BP is due to excess argon, to argon trapped in a rapidly cooling lava, because the Flood waters cooled it rapidly. A process totally independent of the events relevant for carbon dating.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. John of Matha
8.II.2025

[17.XII] Romae natalis sancti Joannis de Matha, Presbyteri et Confessoris, qui Ordinis sanctissimae Trinitatis redemptionis captivorum Fundator exstitit. Ipsius tamen festivitas, ex dispositione Innocentii Papae Undecimi, agitur sexto Idus Februarii.
[8.II] Sancti Joannis de Matha, Presbyteri et Confessoris, qui Ordinis sanctissimae Trinitatis redemptionis captivorum fuit Institutor, et sextodecimo Kalendas Januarii obdormivit in Domino.

* It can be noted that a pre-Flood period of 2242 years, or 2262, is longer than the whole extension of my tables, since 2957 - 1179 = only 1778 years. Going backwards from the Flood to Creation would also be without subdivisions, unlike this shorter period up to the Fall of Troy.

Did Jean Aitchison Mean Double Articulation of Duality of Patterning?

Was Jean Aitchison Calling Bird-Song Doubly Articulated? · Did Jean Aitchison Mean Double Articulation of Duality of Patterning?

They are used interchangeably, but they are not the same.

Hjelmslev and Hocket speak of what is normally called Duality of Patterning, distinguishing TWO levels or planes.

Martinet speaks of Double Articulation, distinguishing THREE levels.

I think at least in Chomsky or somewhere (which I read in the 90's or early 2000's borrowing from a library I can now not access), because I did not read Martinet himself, it is THREE levels.

Obviously on order to have the word "come" equal a phrase, composed of more than one morpheme, one needs the zero-morpheme for imperative. This is however perfectly reasonable.

There is a difference between "come" as imperative, "come" as participle, "come" as infinitive, and "come" as indicative not third singular, and "come" with additions like "-s" for third singular or "short o => long a" for past. There is no human language where all phrases are made up of 1 morpheme + a zero-morpheme, which in that case would be highly just theoretical. The zero-morphemes in any language where they exist (not sure if some language has none, it is certain some do not have them where English would expect them, like "any nominative or accusative noun in the singular" which would not describe Latin or Polish) actually contrast with non-zero morphemes, like for "come" additions like 3 p sg -s (older -th), or change of root vowel in the past or other words like auxiliaries and non-3 p sg subjects.

So, I dissed her because she missed that double articulation = articulation of phrase into morphemes + of morphemes into phonemes.

Not lightly, since I highly respect her on "Language change: progress or decay" but still.

I would suggest, a) sorry for not knowing the phrasing of Hocket and Hjelmslev and hence being impolite, b) do take into account Martinet or his derivation in Chomsky (or others).

My criticism stands in substance, though I have to mitigate it in tone.

And no, I do not have access to the linguistics books I borrowed from Lund Municipal Library in the 90's or between 2000 and 2004. Perhaps it's even in her own Language change, which I read in 1993, same term as my grandmother died. So, I cannot give the reference.

The truth of the statement is however obvious. A one-word sentence does not mean a one-morpheme sentence apart from the special case of perfectly zero-morpheme after verb root = imperative. Pluit has plu-it. In Greenlandic, you can certainly say "I'm looking for [snow]/[material] to build an igloo" in one word, but it is not one morpheme, but a compound word, with "igdlu" as the lexical base and the rest (material, look for, present indicative non-perfect 1st person singular) as derivation endings and conjugation endings. Don't ask me how this is spelled or pronounced in Greenlandic, I just remember the fact.

And this fact means, Jean Aitchison, alas, your statement that birds have double articulation, in this sense, is still incorrect. They just have two levels in songs, double articulation in this sense has three.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Romuald
7.II.2025

Sancti Romualdi Abbatis, Monachorum Camaldulensium Patris, cujus dies natalis tertiodecimo Kalendas Julii recensetur, sed festivitas hac die, ob Translationem corporis ejus, potissimum celebratur.

German wiki has, correctly:

Ein Zeichensystem ist zweifach gegliedert, wenn eine darauf basierende Nachricht wie folgt strukturiert ist:

1. Die Nachricht besteht aus Ausdruckseinheiten, deren jede eine Bedeutung trägt. Eine solche Einheit heißt signifikativ („bedeutungstragend“). Dies ist die erste Gliederung.

2. Jede signifikative Einheit ist zusammengesetzt aus Ausdruckseinheiten, die keine Bedeutung tragen, sondern lediglich Bedeutung unterscheiden. Eine solche Einheit heißt distinktiv („bedeutungsunterscheidend“). Dies ist die zweite Gliederung.

In dem Satz Jan arbeitet treten drei signifikative Einheiten auf: Jan („Jan“), arbeit- („pflichtmäßig zum Broterwerb tätig sein“) und -et („3. Person Singular Präsens“). Die signifikative Einheit Jan ist aus drei distinktiven Einheiten zusammengesetzt: /j/, /a/, /n/.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zweifache_Gliederung