Some Pretend the Ages of Patriarchs are Symbolic

Some Pretend the Ages of Patriarchs are Symbolic · Numbers in Genesis 5 (and 11?) non-random?

For Genesis 5, one can state that the names have a symbolism.

Adam Seth Enosh Kenan — man appointed mortal sorrow
Mahalalel Jared — [but] Blessed-God [shall] come-down
Enoch — teaching [that/and]
Mathusela Lamech Noakh — his-death-shall-bring the afflicted comfort.

But I have not found any symbolism in their ages ... prior to today.

Nr	Patriarch	Age	Nr	Patriarch	Age	Nr	Patriarch	Age
1	Adam	930	10	Noah	950	19	Terah	205
2	Seth	912	11	Shem	600	20	Abraham	175
3	Enosh	905	12	Arpachshad	438	21	Isaac	180
4	Kenon	910	13	Shelah	433	22	Jacob	147
5	Mehalalel	895	14	Eber	464	23	Levi	137
6	Jared	962	15	Peleg	239	24	Kohath	133
7	Enoch	365	16	Reu	239	25	Amram	137
8	Methuselah	969	17	Serug	230	26	Moses	120
9	Lamech	777	18	Nahor	148	TOTAL 12,600

Horisontally from the table, rather than in order
930 + 950 + 205 + 912 + 600 + 175 + 905 + 438 + 180 + 910 + 433 + 147 + 895 + 464 + 137 + 962 + 239 + 133 + 365 + 239 + 137 + 969 + 230 + 120 + 777 + 148 = 12 600

So, the total, which seems to have some kind of Apocalyptic significance .... which it has:

And I will give unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred sixty days, clothed in sackcloth.
[Apocalypse (Revelation) 11:3]

And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she had a place prepared by God, that there they should feed her a thousand two hundred sixty days.
[Apocalypse (Revelation) 12:6]

So, some have pretended the ages of the patriarchs are symbolic.

The only three symbolisms detectable to us are 365, 777 and the total 12,600. Of these, 365 would not have been detectable as a symbolism in the day back then, at least not the same symbolism as it has to us. Then 777 is disputed between the text versions, like the LXX disagrees:

And all the days of Lamech were seven hundred and fifty-three years, and he died.
καὶ ἐγένοντο πᾶσαι αἱ ἡμέραι Λάμεχ ἑπτακόσια καὶ πεντήκοντα τρία ἔτη, καὶ ἀπέθανε.

The total would also be affected by including the second Kenon whom most LXX manuscripts include. And the total would only be known to total geeks and not even all of them.

Confer the meanings of the names. The Genesis is clearly older than the New Testament, one can get that from Qumrân, from the scrolls there. We rightly presume it is way older than the Apocalyptic literature in question. However, there were in the Qumrân scrolls diverse versions, some agreeing with LXX readings in Genesis 5 or 11 or both. The choice Jews made of the reading of Vulgate and Masoretic may have been to get this total. But the choice was made after Christ came and they had rejected him, probably to counter an argument made by St. Paul by presenting Shem as identic to Melchisedec, which is chronologically impossible with a LXX reading for Genesis 11.

I'm not sure that a similar total cannot be reached by adding up LXX or near-LXX figures.

Now, the other symbolism, the names, clearly was unknown to the first redactors of the text. Or known only prophetically. Humanly speaking, the redactor cannot have known the match with Christian theology ...

The total of the ages may be symbolic and if so prophetic or implied in a wrongful text choice. But this still leaves no indication for individual lifespans of Patriarchs having been chosen for symbolic reasons. Anyone who says the six days in Genesis 1 are just symbolism is wrong, but he may have a kind of rhetoric point. Anyone who says that the ages of patriarchs in Genesis 5 and 11 are just symbolism, apart from making a frontal attack on the veracity of the text itself, lacks even an arithmetic point.

So, wikipedia doesn't give the whole context of Jeremy Northcote, "The lifespans of the patriarchs: Schematic orderings in the chrono-genealogy", Vetus Testamentum, pp. 243-257, esp. 245, 247. The following paragraphs, surrounding the table I just quoted, summarise this writing from 2007.

The following table lists all the ages of the patriarchs from Adam to Moses as listed in the Bible. These add up to 12,600.

[table as above]

The value of 12,600 is a variant of the symbolic value of 1,260 known from apocalyptic theology (although may derive from earlier traditions), only multiplied by ten. The patriarchal ages were selected in order to achieve this numerological total. Another example of the numerical schema of 12,600 can be found in the War Scroll discovered at Qumran, where "the Sons of Light shall fight against the Sons of Darkness in the final days for a period of 35 years. Employing the Jewish luni-solar calendar of the 360-day year, 35 years equals 12,600 days."

So, out of fifteen pages, the wikipedians cited mainly two, and condensed them to this. Also:

Variations of the three and a half years result in other numerological values. For example, three and a half years correspond to 42 months or 1,260 days. Thus, both 42 and 1,260 have numerological use in the Bible. The three and a half symbol as appearing in the Bible may derive from the Babylonian calendar.

and:

The apocalyptic numeral derived from the length of 42 months (=3.5 years) is seen in numerous contexts. Northcote writes "In Num xxxiii, forty-two stages are listed between Egypt and the Promised Land, and the LXX version of Josh v 6 states that the Israelites spent forty-two years wandering in the wilderness ... [and] according to Matt i 17, forty-two generations elapsed from Abraham to the birth of Jesus".

So, first, while the paragraphs around the table may suggest a wholesale fabrication of the genealogies for symbolic reasons, it's on Jeremy Northcote's presumable intention more like doing a rounding and then fitting the items to make the rounded total exact. I say this intention is presumable, because I have not actually read the fifteen pages, just the above extracts on the wikipedian article:

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

To which I got because some people in the shop presumably wanted to test me for hexakosioihexekontahexaphobia as related to the bar codes. I try to avoid scanning them myself. And before you speak of pathology in a man who simply renounces the merchandise and walks out when a cashier is not available, how about the swastikaphobes who have banded about that man, not because he's actually a National Socialist, but because he has some things in common with them, which to their taste has been too much. A camp survivor may take some kind of measures about the neighbourhood, along with younger folks, but the things I've seen look more like the neighbourhood (with those camp survivors) doing their private investigation on my "National Socialism" and deciding to censor me world wide for common readers, the kind that actually earn an author money.

Meanwhile, this is another fail for a certain NinjaMonkeyPrime or similar minded persons, the named person's youtube account being used to tell me "When observations of reality conflict with the mythology of scripture, an honest person would realize that the mythology wasn't intended to be taken literally." The ages of the patriarchs don't borrow themselves to be read any other way. And especially not as Deep Timers have two different beefs with them. They will both pretend that each patriarch lived, if at all, a much shorter time, and that the total of generations spans a much longer time. Those types of quibbles have as little place for a Catholic believer that the Bible is inerrant, as Methodist pilpuls have for a Catholic banner of contraception.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St. Margaret of Scotland
10.VI.2026

[16 Novembris] Edimburgi, in Scotia, natalis sanctae Margaritae Viduae, Scotorum Reginae, amore in pauperes et voluntaria paupertate celebris. Ipsius tamen festivitas quarto Idus Junii celebratur.
[10 Junii] Sanctae Margaritae Viduae, Scotorum Reginae, quae sextodecimo Kalendas Decembris obdormivit in Domino.

Archaeology of the Levant, my Recalibration

Let's start with two articles, one from wiki, one from me.

List of archaeological periods (Levant)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_archaeological_periods_(Levant)

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

Stone Age

(2,000,000 BP – 3300 BCE)

Paleolithic

(2,000,000 BP – 8300 BCE)

Lower Paleolithic

2,000,000 BP – 300,000 BP

Middle Paleolithic

300,000 BP – 30,000 BP

So far,

except for the latter part of Middle Palaeolithic, everything is Potassium Argon dated rather than Carbon dated.

An inflated Potassium Argon date typically goes back to a Volcanic eruption having the lava cool quickly, trapping Argon.

This would typically have happened during the Flood of Noah, 2957 BC.

Carbon dated

Note that my tables would be using BC and so converting from BP. 30,000 BP = 28,000 BC.

Middle Paleolithic

300,000 BP – 30,000 BP

2884 av. J.-Chr. (BC)

4,804 pcm (pMC), donc daté à (so dated to) 27 984 av. J.-Chr. (BC)

Upper Paleolithic

30,000 BP – 12,000 BP

2633 av. J.-Chr.

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

0.5^(8250/5730) => 36.862 pmC

2607 av. J.-Chr.

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

0.5^(6900/5730) => 43.401 pmC

(2633 + 2607) / 2 = 2620
(36.862 + 43.401) / 2 = 40.1315 pmC => 7550
7550 + 2620 = 10170 BC (too old carbon date)

(2633 + 2607 + 2607) / 3 = 2616 BC
(36.862 + 43.401 + 43.401) / 3 = 41.221 pmC => 7350
7350 + 2620 = 9970 BC (30 years too young, but fair enough)

Upper Paleolithic

ends 12,000 BP = 10,000 BC

2616 BC

41.221 pmC, so dated to 9970 BC

Epipalaeolithic

12,000 BP – 8300 BCE

2573 av. J.-Chr.

48,992 pcm, donc daté à 8473 av. J.-Chr.

0.5^(5900/5730) => 48.982 pmC

2556 av. J.-Chr.

51,761 pcm, donc daté à 8006 av. J.-Chr.

0.5^(5450/5730) => 51.723 pmC

(2573 + 2573 + 2556) / 3 = 2567 BC
(48.982 + 48.982 + 51.723) / 3 = 49.896 pmC => 5750
5750 + 2567 = 8317 BC

Epipalaeolithic

ends – 8300 BC

2567 BC

49.896 pmC, so dated to 8317 BC

Neolithic

(8300 BCE – 4500 BCE)

Pre-Pottery Neolithic

ends 5500 BC

2250 av. J.-Chr.

67,323 pcm, donc daté à 5500 av. J.-Chr.

Pottery Neolithic

ends 4500 BC

2097 av. J.-Chr.

74,891 pcm, donc daté à 4497 av. J.-Chr.

Chalcolithic

(4500 BCE – 3300 BCE)

Early Chalcolithic

ends 4000 BC

2039 av. J.-Chr.

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

0.5^(2050/5730) => 78.037 pmC

2022 av. J.-Chr.

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

0.5^(1950/5730) => 78.987 pmC

(2039 + 2022) / 2 = 2030
(78.037 + 78.987) / 2 = 78.512 pmC => 2000
2000 + 2030 = 4030 BC

Early Chalcolithic

ends 4000 BC

2030 BC

78.512 pmC, so dated to 4030 BC

Late Chalcolithic (Ghassulian)

ends 3300 BC

1868 av. J.-Chr.

84,1262 pcm, donc daté à 3318 av. J.-Chr.

Bronze Age

(3300 BCE – 1200 BCE)

Early Bronze Age

(3300 BCE – 2000 BCE)

Early Bronze Age I

ends 3000 BC

1778 av. J.-Chr.

85,9766 pcm, donc daté à 3028 av. J.-Chr.

Early Bronze Age II

ends 2700 BC

1700 av. J.-Chr.

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

0.5^(1100/5730) => 87.541 pmC

1678 av. J.-Chr.

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

0.5^(920/5730) => 89.468 pmC

(1700 + 1678) / 2 = 1689 BC
(87.541 + 89.468) / 2 = 88.5045 pmC => 1000
1000 + 1689 = 2689 BC

Early Bronze Age II

ends 2700 BC

1689 BC

88.5045 pmC, so dated to 2689 BC

Early Bronze Age III

ends 2200 BC

1633 av. J.-Chr.

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

Early Bronze Age IV

ends 2000 BCE

1610 av. J.-Chr.

95,2011 pcm, donc daté à 2020 av. J.-Chr.

Middle Bronze Age

(2000 BCE – 1550 BCE)

Middle Bronze Age I

ends 1750 BCE

1566 av. J.-Chr.

97,441 pcm, donc daté à 1776 av. J.-Chr.

0.5^(210/5730) => 97.492 pmC

1543 av. J.-Chr.

97,813 pcm, donc daté à 1723 av. J.-Chr.

0.5^(180/5730) => 97.846 pmC

(1566 + 1543) / 2 = 1555 BC
(97.492 + 97.846) / 2 = 97.669 pmC => 200
200 + 1555 = 1755

Middle Bronze Age I

ends 1750 BCE

1555 BC

97.669 pmC, so dated 1755 BC

Middle Bronze Age II

ends 1650 BC

1521 av. J.-Chr.

98,184 pcm, donc daté à 1671 av. J.-Chr.

0.5^(150/5730) => 98.202 pmC

1498 av. J.-Chr.

98,555 pcm, donc daté à 1618 av. J.-Chr.

0.5^(120/5730) => 98.559 pmC

(1521 + 1498) / 2 = 1510 BC
(98.202 + 98.559) / 2 = 98.3805 pmC => 140
140 + 1510 = 1650 BC

Middle Bronze Age II

ends 1650 BC

1510 BC

98.3805 pmC, so dated to 1650 BC

But this is probably wrong, 1510 BC as year of the Exodus is probably dated to 1609 BC, as that was the eruption of Santorini.

Middle Bronze Age III

ends 1550 BC

1470 BC

99.037 pmC, so dated to 1550 BC

This one is correct and the date for the taking of Jericho.

Late Bronze Age

(1550 BCE – 1200 BCE)

Late Bronze Age I

ends 1400 BC

1364 av. J.-Chr.

99,3421 pcm, donc daté à 1424 av. J.-Chr.

0.5^(60/5730) => 99.277 pmC

1341 av. J.-Chr.

99,425 pcm, donc daté à 1391 av. J.-Chr.

0.5^(50/5730) => 99.397 pmC

(1364 + 1341) / 2 = 1353 BC
(99.277 + 99.397) / 2 = 99.337 pmC => 55
1353 + 55 = 1408 BC

Late Bronze Age I

ends 1400 BC

1353 BC

99.337 pmC, so dated to 1408 BC

Late Bronze Age II A

ends 1300 BC

1275 av. J.-Chr.

99,6725 pcm, donc daté à 1305 av. J.-Chr.

Late Bronze Age II B

ends 1200 BC

1207 av. J.-Chr.

99,918 pcm, donc daté à 1217 av. J.-Chr.

0.5^(10/5730) => 99.879 pmC

1179 BC

100 pmC, so dated to 1179 BC

(1207 + 1179) / 2 = 1193 BC
(99.879 + 100) / 2 = 99.9395 pmC => 5

0.5^(5/5730) => 99.9395 pmC

1193 + 5 = 1198 BC

Late Bronze Age II B

ends 1200 BC

1193 BC

99.9395 pmC so dates to 1198 BC.

At the fall of Troy, 1179 BC, my calibrations end. Not because there is nothing more to calibrate, but because from then on, calibration by tree rings is suffificiently good (at the start, I actually put this limit later, toward 600 to 500 BC).

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
XVIII Lord's Day after Pentecost
22.IX.2024

How Accurate are Chronogenealogies Anyway? Conclusion continued.

Intro : General Intro to my Carbon Tables (with other parts in links in comments) · Conclusion : Preliminary Conclusion, with Corrections · How Accurate are Chronogenealogies Anyway? Conclusion continued. · Table for St Jerome as per Preliminary Conclusion · Refining table Flood to Abraham - and a doubt · Ultra Brief Summary on Carbon 14 Method

Let's take me, ma and gramp. If I were to die now, it would be in my fiftieth year, me having lived 49 years and some. Ma had me in her 22:nd year, after she had lived to 21 and some. She was born before my gramp's 47th birthday. Adding low and high counts, this gives us either 46+21+49=116 years, or 47+22+50=119 years. 119-116 = 3. Three years for three lifespans added.

Genesis 11: 10 And these are the generations of Sem: and Sem was a hundred years old when he begot Arphaxad, the second year after the flood. 11 And Sem lived, after he had begotten Arphaxad, five hundred years, and begot sons and daughters, and died. 12 And Arphaxad lived a hundred and thirty-five years, and begot Cainan. 13 And Arphaxad lived after he had begotten Cainan, four hundred years, and begot sons and daughters, and died. And Cainan lived a hundred and thirty years and begot Sala; and Cainan lived after he had begotten Sala, three hundred and thirty years, and begot sons and daughters, and died. 14 And Sala lived an hundred and thirty years, and begot Heber. 15 And Sala lived after he had begotten Heber, three hundred and thirty years, and begot sons and daughters, and died. 16 And Heber lived an hundred and thirty-four years, and begot Phaleg. 17 And Heber lived after he had begotten Phaleg two hundred and seventy years, and begot sons and daughters, and died. 18 And Phaleg lived and hundred and thirty years, and begot Ragau. 19 And Phaleg lived after he had begotten Ragau, two hundred and nine years, and begot sons and daughters, and died. 20 And Ragau lived and hundred thirty and two years, and begot Seruch. 21 And Ragau lived after he had begotten Seruch, two hundred and seven years, and begot sons and daughters, and died. 22 And Seruch lived a hundred and thirty years, and begot Nachor. 23 And Seruch lived after he had begotten Nachor, two hundred years, and begot sons and daughters, and died. 24 And Nachor lived a hundred and seventy-nine years, and begot Tharrha. 25 And Nachor lived after he had begotten Tharrha, an hundred and twenty-five years, and begot sons and daughters, and he died. 26 And Tharrha lived seventy years, and begot Abram, and Nachor, and Arrhan.

Sem was a hundred years old when he begot Arphaxad, the second year after the flood.
And Arphaxad lived a hundred and thirty-five years, and begot Cainan.
And Cainan lived a hundred and thirty years and begot Sala
And Sala lived an hundred and thirty years, and begot Heber.
And Heber lived an hundred and thirty-four years, and begot Phaleg.
And Phaleg lived and hundred and thirty years, and begot Ragau.
And Ragau lived and hundred thirty and two years, and begot Seruch.
And Seruch lived a hundred and thirty years, and begot Nachor.
And Nachor lived a hundred and seventy-nine years, and begot Tharrha.
And Tharrha lived seventy years, and begot Abram, and Nachor, and Arrhan.

From later records we know that Abraham was 100 years when he got Isaac, Isaac 60 when he begat the twins Jacob and Esau, and Jacob died at 110 years old. This we get from later chapters in Genesis, up to the last. So, Jacob died 270 years from birth of Isaac, with an error margin of 3 years only.

However, St Jerome seems to have omitted the "second Cainan", meaning we get:

Sem was a hundred years old when he begot Arphaxad, the second year after the flood.
And Arphaxad lived a hundred and thirty-five years, and ... begot Sala
And Sala lived an hundred and thirty years, and begot Heber.
And Heber lived an hundred and thirty-four years, and begot Phaleg.
And Phaleg lived and hundred and thirty years, and begot Ragau.
And Ragau lived and hundred thirty and two years, and begot Seruch.
And Seruch lived a hundred and thirty years, and begot Nachor.
And Nachor lived a hundred and seventy-nine years, and begot Tharrha.
And Tharrha lived seventy years, and begot Abram, and Nachor, and Arrhan.

I know from CMI, some manuscripts of LXX as well as some of St Luke do omit the "second Cainan".

Sem was a hundred years old when he begot Arphaxad, the second year after the flood.

2955 BC

And Arphaxad lived a hundred and thirty-five years, and ... begot Sala

2820 BC

And Sala lived an hundred and thirty years, and begot Heber.

2690 BC

And Heber lived an hundred and thirty-four years, and begot Phaleg.

2556 BC

And Phaleg lived and hundred and thirty years, and begot Ragau.

2426 BC

And Ragau lived and hundred thirty and two years, and begot Seruch.

2324 BC

And Seruch lived a hundred and thirty years, and begot Nachor.

2194 BC

And Nachor lived a hundred and seventy-nine years, and begot Tharrha.

2015 BC

And Tharrha lived seventy years, and begot Abram, and Nachor, and Arrhan.

1945 BC

Something is wrong, 2015 BC should have been Abraham's birth:

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

Deluge 2957 BC, Abraham born 2015 BC. 942 years.

Syncellus?

Sem was a hundred years old when he begot Arphaxad, the second year after the flood.

3356 BC (false memory? yep, 3256, never mind, I already wrote the table.)

And Arphaxad lived a hundred and thirty-five years, and begot Cainan.

3221 BC

And Cainan lived a hundred and thirty years and begot Sala

3091 BC

And Sala lived an hundred and thirty years, and begot Heber.

2961 BC

And Heber lived an hundred and thirty-four years, and begot Phaleg.

2827 BC

And Phaleg lived and hundred and thirty years, and begot Ragau.

2697 BC

And Ragau lived and hundred thirty and two years, and begot Seruch.

2565 BC

And Seruch lived a hundred and thirty years, and begot Nachor.

2435 BC

And Nachor lived a hundred and seventy-nine years, and begot Tharrha.

2256 BC

And Tharrha lived seventy years, and begot Abram, and Nachor, and Arrhan.

2186 BC

Syncellus has Flood 3358 BC (no, 3258!) and Abraham born 2188 BC. 1170 years ... I get it. Not 128 years difference as I thought, but 228 years difference.

Here I try again

Noah

600 B.F. - 350 A.F.

Shem

100 B.F. - 500 A.F.

Arphaxad

0 - 565

Cainan

135 - 595 (Exit in St Jerome)

Shelah

265 - 725 : 135 - 595

Eber

395 - 899 : 265 - 769

Peleg

529 - 868 : 399 - 738

Reu

659 - 998 : 529 - 868

Serug

791 - 1121 : 661 - 991

Nahor

921 - 1129 : 791 - 999

Terah

1000 - 1205 : 870 - 1075

Abraham

1070 – 1245 : 940 - 1115

Longevity Charts as per LXX
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.fr/2015/11/longevity-charts-as-per-lxx.html

Here I detect the origin of the error, cited text has:

And Nachor lived a hundred and seventy-nine years, and begot Tharrha.

The text available to Pete Williams, whose article I had used, states 79 years:

CMI : Some remarks preliminary to a biblical chronology
by Pete Williams
https://creation.com/some-remarks-preliminary-to-a-biblical-chronology

So, this variation in LXX text, plus no "second Cainan" would be the reason why Abraham is born "940" (really 942, but Pete seems to have ignored Arphaxad born second year after Flood (or I ignored it when using his info, sorry Pete!) after Flood, which is 2957 BC minus 940 gives "2017" or actually 2015 BC.

We have, now, three versions of LXX plus one Masoretic / Vulgate text in use among Christians. Within each version, only as many years as there are generations are the quibble points due to ambiguity of "lived 79 years" (and how many months?).

II Cainan and Nahor begetting at 179 (Abraham born 1170 after Flood, 1770 after birth of Noah, died 1945 after)

13:1945=0.00668 or 0.668 % error margin

II Cainan and Nahor begetting at 79 (Abraham born 1070 after Flood, 1670 after birth of Noah, died 1845 after)

13:1845=0.007046 (with 07046 repeating) or 0.705 % error margin

No II Cainan and Nahor begetting at 79 (Abraham born 942 after Flood, 1542 after birth of Noah, died 1717 after)

12:1717=0.007 or 0.7 % error margin

No second Cainan, Nahor begetting at 29 and various other shorter ones (Abraham born c. 290 after Flood, unless I counted wrong, 890 after birth of Noah, died 1065 after).

12:1065=0.01127 or 1.127 % error margin

The same type of error margin is - due to shorter life spans - multiplied in Egyptian king lists. These also contradict on more detail than the named versions of the Bible, or of Genesis 11:

Den seal impressions (1st dynasty);

found on a cylinder seal in Den's tomb. It lists all 1st dynasty kings from Narmer to Den by their Horus names.

Palermo stone (5th dynasty);

carved on an olivin-basalt slab. Broken into pieces and thus today incomplete.

Giza King List (6th dynasty);

painted with red, green and black ink on gypsum and cedar wood. Very selective.

South Saqqara Stone (6th dynasty);

carved on a black basalt slab. Very selective.

Karnak King List (18th dynasty);

carved on limestone. Very selective.

Abydos King List of Seti I (19th dynasty);

carved on limestone. Very detailed, but omitting the First Intermediate Period.

Abydos King List of Ramses II (19th dynasty);

carved on limestone. Very selective.

Saqqara King List (19th dynasty), carved on limestone.

Very detailed, but omitting most kings of the 1st dynasty for unknown reasons.

Turin King List (19th dynasty);

written with red and black ink on papyrus. Most possibly the most complete king list in history, today damaged.

Manetho's Aegyptiaca (Greek Period);

possibly written on papyrus. The original writings are lost today and many anecdotes assigned to certain kings seem fictitious.

Source: Wickipeejuh : List of pharaohs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pharaohs

The difference is, we still have the continuation or continuations of the tradition which gave us Genesis. We do not have the pharaonic tradition, we only have it filtered through Greeks and Hebrews - or viewed directly in fragmentary expressions, whose place in tradition is debatable. The source considered the lists omitting kings as selective and the ones including them as detailed - it could be instead that some of the "selective" ones are simply correct and some of the "detailed" ones are stuffed.

And obviously, it is useless to appeal to Carbon 14 until you have a calibration, the one I offer being a so far not refuted alternative to the conventional one.

But what if I am wrong in chosing the chronology of St Jerome? I don't think I am. One way of seeing 25 of March as falling on a Friday both Year 33 AD and creation week (as per Latin tradition) is to use St Jerome's chronology, to consider all or all but last pre-Flood years as 364 days long, and heavens as still turning 364 times around Earth per year, but Earth being hit by an asteroid as turning around itself 1.2425 times each year. It would not alter St Robert Bellarmine's understanding of Joshua's long day, or not radically, since in 24 hours the Sun (and Moon) would phenomenally seem to move only 1° 13' and some ".

But what if I actually were wrong and one of the longer chronologies were the right one? Well, as I have been looking for the speed of carbon production (and getting probable years for archaeology as a byproduct), that would mean carbon 14 was forming less fast than I presume, and so the radiation levels its formation implies would be even safer.

However, exactly how much for instance "11 times faster" implies in cosmic radiation dose during Babel, I don't know. If it is "11 times more", things are fairly cool. 11 times a medium of 0.39 milliSievert per year are 4.29 milliSievert per year (lower or higher depending on altitude and possibly also on Equator vs Poles) - far from the highest radiation dose we see in background radiation today. But I failed to get a response from Usoskin.

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : Other Check on Carbon Buildup
http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2017/11/other-check-on-carbon-buildup.html

If it is instead 121 (11 squared) times faster, that is troublesome. 47.19 milliSievert per year is more than twice the dose Japanese authorities consider as critical after Fukushima disaster. Even if 11 times faster carbon is only the forty years of Babel. And adding 31.59 milliSievert per year for preceding centuries since Flood would hardly make it better (9 times faster buildup). Then one could imagine that speed of carbon 14 buildup and dose are at square and cube of same factor ... 14.23 milliSievert per year (during Babel) and 10.53 centuries before would be possible. I have not taken into account that high radiation from cosmos also produces colder climate and how the Ice Age resulting from this might have modified radiation dose on Earth. I'll hope its the latter or the equal one, not the squared one ... or that Ice Age took care of it. However, a high raditation especially daytime would also explain preference for living in caves and hunting at night.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bibl. Mouffetard
Sts Philip and James
11.V.2018

Here goes my Howlibird theory ...

Joel kontinen : Death of a Darwinian Icon: T. Rex Did Not Have Feathers, Fossil Evidence Suggests
http://joelkontinen.blogspot.com/2017/06/death-of-darwinian-icon-t-rex-did-not.html

Recently, Dr Phil Bell (University of New England, Australia) and colleagues published a paper in the journal Biology Letters, examining skin impressions from a famous T. rex skeleton known as Wyrex.

They found no evidence for feathers.

In contrast, they found “scaly reptilian-like skin.”

Fine article, except certain people like complaining about the wikipedia instead of doing sth.

Some museums and textbooks (as well as Wikipedia, of course) have put feathers on T. rex although there is no fossil evidence that these huge reptiles ever sported them.

I look up wikipedia and see this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrannosaurus#Skin_and_feathers

While there is no direct evidence for Tyrannosaurus rex having had feathers, many scientists now consider it likely that T. rex had feathers on at least parts of its body,[33] due to their presence in related species. Mark Norell of the American Museum of Natural History summarized the balance of evidence by stating that: "we have as much evidence that T. rex was feathered, at least during some stage of its life, as we do that australopithecines like Lucy had hair."[34]

The first evidence for feathers in tyrannosauroids came from the small species Dilong paradoxus, found in the Yixian Formation of China, and reported in 2004. As with many other theropods discovered in the Yixian, the fossil skeleton was preserved with a coat of filamentous structures which are commonly recognized as the precursors of feathers.[35] Because all known skin impressions from larger tyrannosauroids known at the time showed evidence of scales, the researchers who studied Dilong speculated that feathers may correlate negatively with body size—that juveniles may have been feathered, then shed the feathers and expressed only scales as the animal became larger and no longer needed insulation to stay warm.[35] However, subsequent discoveries showed that even some large tyrannosauroids had feathers covering much of their bodies, casting doubt on the hypothesis that they were a size-related feature.[36]

While skin impressions from a Tyrannosaurus rex specimen nicknamed "Wyrex" (BHI 6230) discovered in Montana in 2002,[37] as well as some other giant tyrannosauroid specimens, show at least small patches of mosaic scales,[38] others, such as Yutyrannus huali (which was up to 9 meters (30 ft) long and weighed about 1,400 kilograms (3,100 lb)), preserve feathers on various sections of the body, strongly suggesting that its whole body was covered in feathers.[36] It is possible that the extent and nature of feather covering in tyrannosauroids may have changed over time in response to body size, a warmer climate, or other factors.[36]

Research has suggested that large theropods like Tyrannosaurus had teeth covered in lips like modern day lizards, rather than having bare teeth like crocodiles. This is based on the presence of enamel, which may need to remain hydrated, an issue not faced by aquatic species like crocodilians or toothless species like birds, which have lipless mouths and toothless beaks. In modern terrestrial animals with bare teeth, the teeth typically lack some or all of the standard amount of tooth enamel. Because Tyrannosaurus and other toothed theropods had enamel-covered teeth, they would have required some sort of lip-like covering to seal the mouth when closed.[39][40] However, the discovery that Daspletosaurus horneri, a related genus, seemingly did not possess lips and instead seems to have possessed large scales similar to those of crocodiles on its face. Based on comparisons of bone texture of D. horneri with crocodilians, this suggests that Tyrannosaurus and other tyrannosaurids may not have had lips at all and instead had large, flat scales that left no room for lips. The skull of Daspletosaurus horneri also suggests that tyrannosaurids including Tyrannosaurus had integumentary sensory organs similar to crocodilians likely used in touch, temperature readings, prey detection and precise control of jaw movements.[41]

Two hypotheses apart from that of the evolutionists:

• the dinos with feathers seem to come from China, a country with still a socialist system apart from certain aspects of market economy, and could be frauds;
• the Dilong paradoxus as well as the Yutyrannus huali, while Chinese, are even so not frauds but could resurrect my Howlibird theory ... they would in that case be another created kind than T Rex and Allosaurus.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Thursday in Pentecost Octave
8.VI.2017