I Had a Dream : a Discussion About Human Skeleta

The first part was a view of old "human species" (misnomer I think) that I do not share, and it's refutation.

I cannot totally recall it, as I had fever and was too tired to get up and memorise my dream, but basically, if you take Homo erectus soloensis, Homo heidelbergensis (which is probably = Antecessor and to Denisovan), Homo sapiens neanderthalensis as early post-Flood, it would be a very remarkable variety just after the Ark, and it would involve (on a view not shared by other Creationists, even those who do hold Neanderthals are post-Flood) a very rapid development in a very short time from these or some of them to the Homo sapiens we see today.

Even the other view, the one I didn't dream about, the one saying Neanderthals are early post-Babel would involve a very remarkable speed of mutations accumulating in one population. This is held by Carter (who doesn't believe there were caves for them to live in in the pre-Flood world) and by Anne Habermehl (who holds that Genesis 6:7 involves a complete annihilation, or reduction to unidentifiable powder of anything pre-Flood human we could come across).

Compare this to my view.

In the Flood, 2262 after Creation, those perishing involved:

• the Homo sapiens type we are best familiar with (those on the Ark belonged to it too)
• the Neanderthal and Denisovan types (from which some partial ancestry of some on the Ark is involved)*
• the Homo erectus on Java and in Peking
• a few others, perhaps.

When it comes to divergent gene and mutation drifts 2262 years before the Flood is much more ample opportunity for the non-"sapiens" to diverge from "us" than 101 or 531 years after the Ark.**

The equivalent for these types appearing post-Flood would be them appearing in somewhat before 695 BC or 996 BC in a LXX chronology, or in somewhat before 84 BC in the Masoretic one.

But moreoever, in the Pre-Flood world, there is not just natural divergence, there is also the genetic effect of whatever the Nephelim were about, perhaps also some (other?) genetic engineering done by demons.

So, the existence of these different human tribes is really less mysterious before a Flood in 2958 BC or in 3266 BC, than it would be after the Flood.

When it comes to radiometric dates, the carbon dates concern only Neanderthals and Denisovans, when it comes to Heidelbergians and Antecessors (whom I suspect of being simply Denisovans, but they are other finds and other dates) and to Homo erectus, we are more typically dealing with K-Ar, with Potassium Argon. In a Flood setting, how old would reflect how much argon was trapped by rapid cooling of lava spreading above the mud their bodies were in. For Neanderthals and Denisovans, where we have carbon dates, these end at or perhaps a bit before 40 000 BP. This is why for long I took the carbon date 40 000 BP or 38 000 BC as the carbon date of the Flood year.

If the skeleta are really 5000 years old, they are carbon dated 8 times as old as they really are, and if the carbon 14 proportion to carbon 12 in the atmosphere was 1/64 of what it is today (or would have been without industrialism), this is really not very surprising.

So, my main answer, as to time, is, a) potassium argon dates either mean nothing or more typically point to the Flood, different amounts of water at different temperatures of cold cooling lava at different rapidity and trapping different quantities of argon (considered then as daughter isotope, when it really was always in the sample) b) carbon 14 proportion has risen from 1.628 pmC during the Flood to 100 pmC at the Fall of Troy, 1777 years later.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. George
23.IV.2024

Natalis sancti Georgii Martyris, cujus illustre martyrium inter Martyrum coronas Ecclesia Dei veneratur.

* The Neanderthal genes we have now do not involve Neanderthal Y-chromosomes, nor Neanderthal mitochondriae. If a daughter in law of Noah had a father who was Neanderthal, she would not have Neanderthal mitochondriae. Being female, she would not have Neanderthal or any other Y-chromosomes. The Ark is the perfect bottleneck for allowing this degree of Neanderthal ancestry to survive and at the same time eliminate any woman who had Neanderthal mothers or any man who had a Neanderthal father.

** Citing the times from Flood to Peleg's birth in Masoretic and full LXX chronology.

Ah, Griffith and White Provided the Source Too

Are CMI Hearing Me? · Does Sennaar mean Sumer? · Ken Griffith and Darrell K. White considered Judi, but not Göbekli Tepe · Ah, Griffith and White Provided the Source Too · Sumeria, Damien Mackey, Intellectual Honour · Damien Mackey Has His View on Shinar, Nimrod and Babel

An Upper Mesopotamian location for Babel
Ken Griffith and Darrell K. White
VIEWPOINT || JOURNAL OF CREATION 35(2) 2021
https://dl0.creation.com/articles/p149/c14992/j35_2_69-79.pdf

The tablet known as ABC 20 “The Chronicle of Early Kings”32 relates Sargon’s last campaign of conquest to Subartu as follows:

“Afterwards, Subartu attacked Sargon in full
force and called him to arms.
Sargon set an ambush and completely defeated them.
He overpowered their extensive army
and sent their possessions into Akkad.
He dug up the dirt of the pit of Babylon and
made a counterpart of Babylon next to Agade.”

...

However, we see a different solution to the puzzle. The Chronicle of Early Kings relates that Sargon dug dirt from Babylon and built a new Babylon near Akkad in the section describing how he looted and humiliated Subartu after defeating them.

32. Grayson, A.K. (Ed.), Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles (Texts from Cuneiform Sources), Eisenbrauns, Ann Arbor, MI, 2000.

I also find that, like me, they know of Anne Habermehl:

Anne Habermehl5 proposed that Babel and the other three cities of Nimrod were located in the Khabur Triangle of Syria adjacent to the Sinjar Mountains.

...

The fact that the PPNA is known to be older than the Halaf culture of the Khabur Triangle, by Habermehl’s standard, suggests that the PPNA is where Babel should be found. No PPNA sites have been found in the Khabur Triangle.

5 probably 6. Habermehl, A., Where in the world is the Tower of Babel? ARJ 4:25–53, 2011.

I'd like to know if Göbekli Tepe is included in Subartu, as it certainly is in PPNA (Pre-Pottery Neolithic A), as well as in PPNB. In fact, the identity of Subartu is, according to wiki, disputed.

Obviously, their three candidates for Babel are further east than Göbekli Tepe:

a. Small structure under lava flow: 37°40’27.62”N, 40°2’13.81”E
b. 600 x 1000 m rectangle canted 23° east of north: 37°44’57.88”N, 40° 6’30.17”E
c. Tel along old river terrace: 37°47’48.84”N, 40°22’45.39”E.

Göbekli Tepe is 37°13′25″N 38°55′18″E — a bit longer than one degree further West than each of the candidates. I think it's bigger than all three of them, and since I place the time period of the Babel building into between 350 and 401 after the Flood, I can so to speak "afford more workers" than they can. Not that either they or I would be eager to give workers to Nimrod.

I could not find any dates for any of these, carbon dates that is, but for C I found two sources, one being the pdf already linked to and another being a book from Cambridge University Press — which has the title 6000 BC.

Obviously, titles like that can be misleading, but if this one isn't, I think Göbekli Tepe trumps it in age, as per the carbon dates of charcoal layers.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Georges Pompidou Library
Sts Basil, Auxilius and Saturnine
Martyrs of Antioch
27.XI.2023

Antiochiae sanctorum Martyrum Basilei Episcopi, Auxilii et Saturnini.

Cox and Bates : Not CMI's Best on Egypt, I'd Say (but then I am Biassed)

One of the things we noticed is that you presumed that the Exodus took place in the 13th Dynasty. We know some Christians have advocated this period. But conventionally this dynasty has been attributed to the Middle Kingdom or even added to the 2nd Intermediate Period of the Hyksos. We would advocate a New Kingdom Exodus and most likely during the 18th Dynasty.

CMI, Feedback archive → Feedback 2020
Can we understand Egyptian chronology before the Exodus?
Published: 12 September 2020 (GMT+10), CMI’s Gavin Cox and Gary Bates respond.
https://creation.com/understanding-egyptian-chronology-before-exodus

However, getting Moses born in the 12th and Exodus in the 13th is advocated on CMI:

Searching for Moses
by David Down | This article is from
Journal of Creation 15(1):53–57, April 2001
https://creation.com/searching-for-moses

Habermehl differs from David Down, by making, not Moses, but the pharao of Exodus Amenamhet IV, placing thereby Exodus already in the 12th and making 13th a post-Exodus and probable Hyksos dynasty.

It so happens, I put the equation "child killer" (and therefore 1590 BC) = Sesostris III at one of the nodes of my tables, and here is how Down argued it:

One of the last kings of the 12th dynasty was Sesostris III. His statues depict him as a cruel tyrant quite capable of inflicting harsh slavery on his subjects. His son was Amenemhet III, who seems to have been an equally disagreeable character. He probably ruled for 46 years, and Moses would have been born near the beginning of his reign.

Amenemhet III may have had one son, known as Amenemhet IV, who was an enigmatic character who may have followed his father or may have been a co-regent with him. If the latter, Amenemhet IV could well have been Moses. Amenemhet IV mysteriously disappeared off the scene before the death of Amenemhet III.

Amenemhet III had a daughter whose name was Sobekneferu. It is known that she had no children.6 If she was the daughter of Pharaoh who came down to the river to bathe, it is easy to understand why she was there. It was not because she had no bathroom in her palace. She would have been down there taking a ceremonial ablution and praying to the river god Hapi, who was also the god of fertility. Having no children she would have needed such a god, and when she found the beautiful baby Moses there she would have considered it an answer to her prayers (Exodus 2:5–6).

But of course, Cox and Bates have other qualities, notably Bates admits reality of UFO sightings, as sightings, attributing them to demons. Which would be fairly correct at least for some of them./HGL

PS:

However, as shown in the aforementioned recommended article and also in our article Evidence of Hebrews in Egypt, it demonstrates that if we take the biblical date for the Exodus c. 1,446 BC it puts the Exodus within the realm of New Kingdom dates.

First, with Temple in 1032 BC, Biblical date for Exodus (as per III Kings) is 1510 BC. Second, even 1446 BC would arguably be inflated in Egyptian chronology and in carbon dates.

Third, the inflation would be small and fit nicely with 80 years inflation in Kenyon's 1550 BC carbon date for abandoned Jericho./HGL

And what are the lineups between archaeology and Bible, in my tables?

Have you Really Taken ALL the Factors into Account? · New Tables · Why Should one Use my Tables? · And what are the lineups between archaeology and Bible, in my tables? · Bases of C14 · An example of using previous · Difference with Carbon 14 from Other Radioactive Methods · Tables I-II and II-III and III-IV, Towards a Revision? · The Revision of I-II, II-III, III-IV May be Unnecessary, BUT Illustrates What I Did When Doing the First Version of New Tables · Convergence of Uneven pmC? · [Calculation on paper commented on] · Other Revision of I-II ? · Where I Agree with Uniformitarian Dating Experts

I, Flood

Fossil wood from a quarry near the town of Banbury, England, some 80 miles north-west of London, was dated using the carbon-14 method.1 The ages calculated ranged from 20.7 to 28.8 thousand years old. However, the limestone in which the wood was found was of Jurassic age, of 183 million years. Clearly the dating methods are in conflict.

https://creation.com/radioactive-dating-anomalies

That C14 for the wood and limestone by Jurassic type fauna, for the limestone, are two methods in conflict is not the least surprising. Each has its own reasons to deviate from the true and Biblical chronology, and the reasons do not line up.

However, the problem is, if the Jurassic limestone has the shell Sharpirhynchia sharpi, this means it got lots of shells during the Flood.

In my recconning, 20 700 to 28 800 BP (18 700 to 26 800 BC) would be early post Flood:

2935 B. Chr.

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

...

2867 B. Chr.

0.119246 pmC/100, so dated as 20 467 B. Chr.

Flood in 2957 BC, the wood from between 2935 and 2867 BC. But a landslide after the Flood could have buried the wood, while containing shells exposed above sea since the Flood. Or the wood could have suffered radioactive radiation before the Flood (it increases the number of C14 isotopes). Or, this is my problem, the wood could have a normal carbon level like that and be buried in the Flood, for my part, I have preferred the carbon levels corresponding to 40 000 BC, last known Neanderthals and Denisovans, or body parts, as those of the Flood. And against this being normal carbon levels in the Flood is, "18 700 BC" (as carbon dated) is recent enough to correspond to what I take to be post-Flood peopling of the continents.

Other quote, here I'd consider the carbon level pre-Flood, but within a more acceptable fluctuation of levels for Flood year:

Diamonds analyzed from mines in South Africa and Botswana, and from alluvial deposits in Guinea, West Africa, found measurable carbon-14—over ten times the detection limit of the laboratory equipment.2 The average ‘age’ calculated for the samples was 55,700 years. Yet the rocks that contained the diamonds ranged from 1,000 to 3,000 million years old. Dating methods are in conflict again.

There is very little difference in original carbon level for 40 000 and 55 000 BP, if from Flood year, both are below 2 %, so fluctuation would be more explainable. For 19 000 BC, we would be more like 14 %, so it should be later, original content of samples in relation to modern atmosphere.

Want to know more why I think Flood is carbon dated to c. 40 000 BP? Neanderthal Pre-or Post-Flood?, Neanderthal - speculations and certainty, Pääbo and Habermehl, Answering Robert Carter's Four Reasons, Anne Habermehl Still Wants Göbekli Tepe After Babel and Neanderthals Post-Flood - some of these have in the top of post body, under the header, a list of related posts, read them too, if interested. The last of these is obviously also relevant for next topic:

II and III, beginning and end of Babel

I have wagered on Göbekli Tepe, and have used earliest and latest carbon dates from lowest and highest level of GT as beginning and end of Babel. The problem is Tell Qaramel having levels dated earlier, but on the other hand, Tell Qaramel is West of Euphrates, so outside Shinar, while GT is just East of Euphrates and so in Shinar. Other problem is, how to explain "bricks for stone and bitumen for mortar" as the words are usually translated. I wonder whether we will:

• find a lower level of GT or smaller habitations around GT with literally what we would call bricks and bitumen?
• find that the stamped earth in GT contains burned chalk skeleta, so one should translate "bricks burned in fire" or literally "whites burned in burning" as the chalk skeleta with the burning process, and "bitumen for mortar" literally "thickness for thickness" as the stamped earth?
• or that the words as they stand are a reference to monumentality, or to instability, taken from a later Babylonian situation and wording?

Want to know more on why Göbekli Tepe? Graham Hancock had sth to Say on Göbekli Tepe, Is Graham Hancock Right on Göbekli Tepe?, Why would Nimrod Want a Rocket?, Bricks at Göbekli Tepe or Close? with Ten Keys to my Idea of Göbekli Tepe as Babel and its Tower as a Rocket, Changing the Text, NIV?, For those sceptical about Göbekli Tepe as Babel, Lining up Cities. As with previous, some have links to other posts in same series.

IV, Genesis 14 and Calcholithic of En-Geddi

No doubts about identification in so far as En-Geddi is Asason Tamar, and the identification was (with some leeway to Neolithic of En Geddi, which I reject) made by Dr A.J.M. Osgood in The Times of Abraham on the site of CMI, but he dismissed carbon dating overall, so gave no indication of what the digs by Pessah Bar-Adon had been carbon dated to. Only recently did I find 3500 BC, after guessing between 3400 and 3100 based on indications for chalcolithic in general, and taken 3200, which is too recent, based on Narmer's times.

Only these new tables incorporate, finally, this find. As well as go further into the dissolution in Biblical times to periods of 22 to 23 years apart (22.3828125 is a binary division of 5730, corresponding to the square rooting I entertained myself with during the lockdown, where 0.9973 is a square root of square root type power of 0.5).

This one is probably my strongest one. After Chalcolithic of En-Geddi, as Osgood says, you have habitation periods in Kingdom of Israel times and in Roman times, neither of which are relevent for Genesis 14.

V, Joseph in Egypt, VI birth of Moses

My timeline is this : Joseph is known to Egyptians as Imhotep, or rather, the pagan figure of Imhotep is based on him, and as Imhotep's pharao is Djoser, Joseph's pharao is Djoser. Moses is born a little before Sesostris III dies, was coregent as Amenemhat IV, after fleeing Egypt had a cenotaph, and is succeeded by his adoptive sister, then comes back for the Exodus during next dynasty.

Alternative readings would include :

• Joseph's pharao was Sesostris III, dealt with here : Sobekemhat instead of Imhotep? Sesostris III instead of Djoser?, where I also link to my source for Sesostris III as the childkilling pharao, and Amenemhet IV as an alias for Young Moses : Searching for Moses by David Down.
• Amenemhat IV was the pharao of Exodus (also compatible with the cenotaph), discussed with Anne Habermehl here : With Habermehl 2017, II

VII, taking of Jericho

There is a level of habitation in Jericho, which was followed by complete abandonment. Kenyon dated it to 1550 BC. Problem is, there is a dating of the walls of Jericho to 2200 BC.

Jericho was discussed on both parts of the Habermehl correspondence, and also with Damien Mackey here : Jericho and Carbon Dates

I propose the solution, that the 2200 date, if carbon, depends on:

• either walls being made of material older than "1550 BC", including organic materials
• or walls falling so deep, they fall below the "1550 BC" level down to the "2200 BC" level.

Or 2200 is not itself carbon dated at Jericho. I don't know.

VIII, Troy

Carbon date corresponds to Greek historical date. Like IV, a fairly good case, needs very little discussion, as far as I know. As to its place in Biblical chronology, both Syncellus and (perhaps depending on him) Historia Scholastica consider Troy fell when Eli was High Priest. Eli, Samuel, Saul, King David.

IX, 1032 - Anointing of King David or Temple of Solomon?

In the entry for 25th of December, the Roman Martyrology has since 1490's said that Christ was born 1032 years after the anointing of King David.

Syncellus, on the other hand, has 1032 for the Temple (completed) and 1082 for the anointing of King David. Roman martyrology lacks both temple and 1082 date, so, perhaps, the 1032 date was mixed with the 1082 event.

For anointing of King David being in 1082 rather than 1032 speak:

• the 1510 BC date for Exodus from Egypt - 487 years (III Kings 6:1,38) = 1023 (and not 1032)
• the 1082 BC date for anointing of King David fits better than the 1032 with the fall of Troy when Eli was High Priest.

This would be what speaks for an early date of the Temple, the most common date now accepted being later.

Roman Martyrology for December 25 with its roots via Historia scholastica in St. Jerome and in Julius Africanus are discussed here:

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Background to Christmas Martyrology
https://filolohika.blogspot.com/2019/02/background-to-christmas-martyrology.html

While adjustments could probably be made here and there, I think I have taken, if not all, at least most factors into account.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Octave of Assumption
Feast of the Immaculate Heart of the Blessed Virgin Mary
22.VIII.2020

Lita Cosner and Robert Carter Still Want to Deny Euphrates and Tigris Being Frat and Hiddekel ...

Anne Habermehl Still Wants Göbekli Tepe After Babel and Neanderthals Post-Flood   Lita Cosner and Robert Carter Still Want to Deny Euphrates and Tigris Being Frat and Hiddekel ...

Their joint article* appeared on tomorrow's date in Australia's time zone (Creation.com is an Australian collective blog plus other site functions : it is connected to blogger or google sites, since it disconnects when I disconnect my blogger account).

I will give their argument and the reason behind their argument.

Contrary to common opinion, the Tigris and Euphrates of Genesis 2 cannot be the modern rivers flowing through Syria and Iraq today, because they do not share the same source.

Granted they do not share the same source either with each other or with pre-Flood Hiddekel and Frat.

That they are not same rivers does not follow.

They would still be same rivers in a sufficient sense if partially same river bed - including if going into the other direction.

Now, Robert and Lita would argue this is impossible:

Think about it—the Flood was global and highly destructive. Huge amounts of sediment were deposited on the continents, and massive amounts of erosion occurred during the Recessive Stage as the waters drained off the continents. Plus, the continental plates moved around, raising mountains and creating deep basins. Why would we expect the modern landscape to reflect the pre-Flood landscape?

The four rivers were the main rivers of the earth. There must have been four water dividers and between them four drainage systems on the whole earth.

A river bed in the centre of the fourth of the world's drainage systems would not be sufficiently covered to totally obfuscate where it ran.

Now, one might argue Euphrates and Tigris are very far from being candidates for such huge rivers.

I would say they are the "closest to source" (to pre-Flood source) remains of it.

I would say that the complete pre-Flood Frat would have started in Jordan, if Holy Land or parts of it were land in pre-Flood times (but see the Elasmosaur arguing Holy Land or parts of it would have been sea) branched into four where we now have Dead Sea and the Frat quarter would have very soon bent into where we now have Euphrates but instead it would have flowed North West. The Zagros Mountains*** where now Euphrates has its sources are post-Flood, so is Black Sea, so Frat would have continued NW through what is now Black Sea and Danube, and as Danube now arises in post-Flood Alps, while Rhine, Seine and Rhone also do so, it would have continued into one of them or all three or two of them.

One can speculate if this Frat would have continued even further NW into Thames, Liffey, St Lawrence river all the way to the North West corner of the world (Apocalypse 7 says the world has 4 corners, and as it's arguably corners of ha-Eretz, this can be taken as Continents or pre-Flood single Continent and does not imply flatness of the total body). Which would if so be in Alaska.

However, my model very much does argue the Flood shifted things around more places than one.

Main differences immediately post-Flood, Frat is cut into two by Alps, what is North West of them still flowing North West, what is South East of them flowing instead South East, reverse direction, and the outlet being distinct from that of Jordan now (if ever it was connected to Jordan).

Then the rise of Zagros Mountains*** and the gradual or floodwise filling of Black Sea further divided South East part of original Frat into Danube and Euphrates, with divergence of outlets, which is exactly the situation we have today.

I think so much rearrangements, namely including river beds changing direction due to tectonic movements, would clearly keep in mind how devastating and chaotic the Flood was. On the mean, the Flood was certainly very destructive, but why not allow huge variations into both directions?

Oh, if you have in mind arguing the Elasmosaur could have been transported 500 km, well, such a transport is not unheard of for the Flood, as you have material on yourselves, and as Fr. Fulcran Vigoroux argued for limited Flood still being over a very huge region, but if a boulder arrives after 500 km, it is arguably either diminished in diameter to at least as little as only half of original, or broken away from other similar pieces originally hanging together.

The Elasmosaurs that were transported 500 km did not arrive in shapes fit to be identified as Elasmosaurs.

It is funny that I have answered both arguments earlier, they repeat them, they do not refute what I said, but ignore it.

Creation vs. Evolution : Answering Carter and Cosner on Eden
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2018/06/answering-carter-and-cosner-on-eden.html

Creation vs. Evolution : Trying to Break Down "Reverse Danube" or "Reverse Euphrates" Concept
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2018/07/trying-to-break-down-reverse-danube-or.html

Defending my model against opposite error, by Damien Mackey:

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : With Damien Mackey on Four Rivers and Related, I to X
http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2018/07/with-damien-mackey-on-four-rivers-and.html

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : Continuing Previous, XI to XX - are Nile Rivers Excluded?
http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2018/07/continuing-previous-xi-to-xx-are-nile.html

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : Continuing Previous : XXI to XXXIII - getting to Troy (as we Tend to Do) (Update to XXXIX)
http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2018/07/continuing-previous-xxi-to-xxxiii.html

And about geography of pre-Flood, in general and specifically in defense about their arguments:

Creation vs. Evolution : How Much was Shinar Devastated by the Flood?
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2018/06/how-much-was-shinar-devastated-by-flood.html

Creation vs. Evolution : You Find a Fossil Whale Here, a Fossil Pterosaur There ...
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2018/06/you-find-fossil-whale-here-fossil.html

Lita Cosner and Robert Carter haven't changed their view, I haven't changed mine.

Difference is, when I publish, I refer to the arguments they give and I am refuting, they do not refer to my blog, probably because they have no answer to the refutation I give, and therefore prefer gate-keeping.

If they think my blog is not seen, the blogger stats have 196 221 views as "all time". I think before some of the 196 221 viewers perhaps they would gain in credibility if trying to refute me rather than trying to ignore me.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bibl. Audoux
St. Hospice**
21.V.2019

* Where was Eden?
by Lita Cosner and Robert Carter | This article is from
Creation 41(2):36–39, April 2019
https://creation.com/where-was-eden

** Niciae, apud Varum fluvium, sancti Hospitii Confessoris, abstinentiae virtute ac prophetiae spiritu insignis.

*** My bad, I wrote Zagros and meant Taurus.

Anne Habermehl Still Wants Göbekli Tepe After Babel and Neanderthals Post-Flood

Anne Habermehl Still Wants Göbekli Tepe After Babel and Neanderthals Post-Flood   Lita Cosner and Robert Carter Still Want to Deny Euphrates and Tigris Being Frat and Hiddekel ...

She also still wants a Biblical chronology calibration for not just carbon dates, but all of uniformitarian or converntional dates, whether carbon or potassium argon.

Here is her paper:

A creationist view of Gӧbekli Tepe: Timeline and other considerations
Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Creationism, 2018, by Anne Habermehl
https://www.academia.edu/39154731/A_creationist_view_of_G%D3%A7bekli_Tepe_Timeline_and_other_considerations

Here I cite parts of her timeline from figures 3 and 4 (parallel timelines for Masoretic Text - MT - and Septuagint Text - LXX - which is good, better than just MT).

figure 3
Conv.		Biblical MT
Acheulean, 1.76 mya		Babel/Peleg born 2250 BC
End of Neanderthals, 23 000 BC
Göbekli Tepe 10 000 BC		end of ice age c. 2040 BC
Nile Delta formed 6000 BC
Beg. First Dynasty c. 3000 BC		Abraham in Egypt 1920 BC

figure 4
Conv.		Biblical LXX
Acheulean, 1.76 mya		Babel/Peleg born 2570 BC
End of Neanderthals, 23 000 BC
Göbekli Tepe 10 000 BC		end of ice age c. 2170 BC
Nile Delta formed 6000 BC
Beg. First Dynasty c. 3000 BC		Abraham in Egypt 1920 BC

I have omitted the BC century dates, on the Biblical side which do not serve calibration, but only general overview.

I could not copy the figures and insert them as images here.

Now, what is wrong here?

On my view, more than one thing. Here:

• "conventional dating" is not one dating method and can therefore not have one calibration to Biblical chronology;
• I consider anything dated as over 100 000 years ago as dated most probably by potassium argon, therefore worthless as date, valuable only as to see how deep the volcanic eruption was in how cold water, perhaps whatever you like from the Flood or perhaps you could (at least at Laetolil) give "later and shallower, less cool water" as Flood proceeded;
• which would prove that Acheulean was used up to Flood, somewhere;
• I also consider Neanderthals as pre-Flood;
• I also consider Neanderthal extinction as Flood;
• I had also heard of no Neanderthal biological remains (unlike tools) carbon dated to more recent as 40 000 (Gorham cave has a level with more recent dates and Neanderthal type tools, Habermehl considered my conjecture about how it came to pass as novel writing, fine, I write fan fiction, and as she would not be taken seriously if trying it, fine, I am happy not to be hampered by such Academic decorum;
• I consider Peleg as born 401 years after Flood in Roman Martyrology chronology (LXX without Second Cainan), and 529 in George Syncellus (LXX with Second Cainan). Either of them, this place fits very neatly to carbon dates (ignoring all non-carbon in post-Flood chronology) like those of either early or late Göbekli Tepe, I opt for late, as I consider Göbekli Tepe as Babel;
• I also consider there is no such thing as a Biblical date for end of ice age. Beginning of ice age, sure, Flood. End? No.

If I had had my usual allotment of normal library card in Nanterre University Library, instead of one hour this morning and doing this in a cyber, I might have actually read lots more of her paper.

As it is, somewhat sullenly, I concentrated on what's wrong.

I don't think she has any fresh arguments against my positions since our debates, and she doesn't cite me as someone she has refuted. I. e. she thinks it is OK to ignore me because I am no Academic in the field.

I'll link to our previous debates in an appendix under my signature, as well as to my own table in another one.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre
St. Bernard of Siena OFM
20.V.2019

Appendix I

Label Habermehl on this blog:
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/search/label/Habermehl

Possible other mentions here:
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/search?q=Habermehl

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : With Habermehl 2017, I
http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2018/11/with-habermehl-2017-i.html

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : With Habermehl 2017, II
https://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2018/11/with-habermehl-2017-ii.html

Appendix II

Creation vs. Evolution : Bricks at Göbekli Tepe or Close?
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2019/03/bricks-at-gobekli-tepe-or-close.html

Scroll down to "Citing relevant parts of my latest carbon table:" or read it in full on:

Creation vs. Evolution : Refining table Flood to Abraham - and a doubt
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2018/05/refining-table-flood-to-abraham-and.html

Appendix III

Other on Babel as Göbekli Tepe:

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : With Mackey on Haman and on Babel
https://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2019/03/with-mackey-on-haman-and-on-babel.html

Creation vs. Evolution : Ten Keys to my Idea of Göbekli Tepe as Babel and its Tower as a Rocket
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2019/04/ten-keys-to-my-idea-of-gobekli-tepe-as.html

Göbekli Tepe Among Hunter Gatherers

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Does my Interpretation of Mahabharata and Ramayana Offend Hindoos? · If Tower of Babel was a Rocket Project, Why was it Called a Tower? · If Tower of Babel was a Rocket Project - What Else Can We Expect? · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Sin of Babel - Two Views · Φιλολoγικά/Philologica again: In case anyone missed this · Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : With Mackey on Haman and on Babel · Creation vs. Evolution : Bricks at Göbekli Tepe or Close? · How My View of Babel Ties in with "Defending Biblical Inerrancy" · Ten Keys to my Idea of Göbekli Tepe as Babel and its Tower as a Rocket · Does Roger Pearlman Have a Wrong Take on Göbekli Tepe? · Göbekli Tepe Among Hunter Gatherers

Graham Hancock is wrong on dates and a few more things, but he is right on one thing.

A society of hunter gatherers with no even theoretic skills beyond that did not wake up one morning and decide first to build a great structure and then to invent agriculture, because they found out that the structure was too laborious without it.

Here is his argument:

THE MYSTERY OF GÖBEKLI TEPE - Graham Hancock on London Real
London Real | 19.IX.2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6K5NvCiYGEI

So, we actually have people living as hunter-gatherers in the area before this happens. We also have - on uniformitarian dates and even more so obviously with my reduction of carbon dates - an explosion of activity. Even without it, the transition is gigantic and very sudden.

So, his explanation is, people from Atlantis came there.

Mine is, the hunter gatherers there and elsewhere were survivors of a global Flood. I am not excluding Atlantis sinking then too, but my main idea is, they survived a Flood and knew of the things that had gone on before the Flood, before they had (Genesis 9:2) been obliged to live as hunter gatherers.

I would say agriculture would already have started at least on some small scale before this, since I think Noah's vineyard was before this. But this was a major project already well past the Flood, genetically speaking the hunter gatherers who were around before them were also on the modern post-Flood range of human genetics (within still extant haplogroups of Y-chromosomes or mitochondriae and things, no one left purebred Neanderthal or Denisovan), so this major project cannot have been the first thing Noah and his sons did after the Ark, but on the other hand, any tower of Babel project does presuppose agriculture sooner or later as basis, meaning that it's less than feasible to have a Tower of Babel before the palaeolithic "dispersion" of mankind.

If we accept (as Postilla in Libros Geneseos does at least as one possibility) that there was a geographic spread of mankind, and it was the élites who gathered in Babel, this is a fairly possible match.

The reason why Habermehl and CMI are proposing a Babel well before Göbekli Tepe, despite no big agricultural basis found earlier (though archaeology may still hold a surprise or two, I'm waiting for bricks with bitumen for mortar from Göbekli Tepe or the plain around Harran (the plain of which Göbekli Tepe is just outside the NW corner, as I recall the map, unless it was a bit West of the middle of the North side)), their reason is that "all mankind" was present at Babel, and they interpret it as all mankind in the demographical sense and as fulltime geographic presence for every member of the human family.

I think Babel functioned quite a bit like New York or Paris do to many these days, with people residing there for a few years in their lives and then walking back home to whereever they were from.

I calculated, with very moderate walking speed (my own) that you could start walking from Hamburg to Moscow or Shanghai on August 1st 2016, you would arrive in Moscow if that was your trip, on December 18th, and you would arrive in Shanghai, if that was your trip, on February 19th 2018.

Much of the world, including Americas if one could still walk across Atlantis with very little sea voyage, would have been accessible on foot from Göbekli Tepe within two or three years. And if, just after Noah died, they stopped meeting at the base of the Ark at presumably Mount Judi and instead removed from that eastern place nearly due west to Göbekli Tepe, you suddenly had somewhat better terrain for big projects.

I suppose before Nimrod organised people at Göbekli Tepe, he had organised quite a few mammoth hunts. And, since we have no written records from there of a long continuous history spanning several centuries, this short view of what happened definitely could have happened with no proof to the contrary. Carbon dates are no problem if they are inflated due to lower carbon 14 content than now, and if the rising of the carbon 14 content means later dates are less inflated than earlier ones.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Cergy
IV day of Easter
24.IV.2019

Carbon Dating and Belfast Series

Went to "My" Topic, Ignored My Work · Carbon Dating and Belfast Series

I can basically only endorse what Gavin Cox says about treering dating here*:

That being said, the Belfast data is a well-known example of a lengthy, (claimed) continuous tree ring chronology, from AD 5 – 2006, but this particular example (methodological assumptions aside) is obviously not a problem for the biblical time-scale. I also mention supposed agreement for bristlecone pine (BCP) tree rings in my article, but that depends on matching rings from living and dead trees (“prone wood”) that has been ¹⁴C dated to multiple thousands of years.

His discussion of BCP series is here*:

Significantly for biblical creationists, a timeline for the growth of bristle-cone pines (BCPs) (Pinus longaeva), growing in the White Mountains of eastern California, has been calculated at 8,700 years. One tree dubbed ‘Methuselah’ has been tree-ring counted to 4,600 years, which, assuming the chronology of the Masoretic text for the Old Testament, places it well before the Flood, which is clearly incorrect. CMI has pointed out that BCPs can grow multiple rings per year, due to their dry environment. Extended chronology relies upon correlation of prone dead wood, with similar ring structures, which are then dated using ¹⁴C. Where overlaps with ‘identical’ ring structures are found, the chronology is considered to be extended. This is a highly subjective endeavour, which also implies prone wood lay around on the ground without rotting for thousands of years, which is demonstrably false. The entire method of ¹⁴C dendrochronology correlation is therefore an exercise in circular reasoning.

I'd disagree on Methusalem, since I think the Flood occurred 5000 or 5300 years ago (2957 or 3266 BC, to be somewhat more precise), depending on which version of the LXX chronology (Roman Martyrology of St. Jerome, as I have seen it attribued, or Byzantine of George Syncellus) is the correct one, Masoretic not being so, but being changed in order to accomodate an equation Shem = Melchisedec in polemics against Epistle to the Hebrews.

Now, it is also to be noted that similar ring structures may sound a good bet, if you narrow it down to identical. However, identical is not exactly what you get. OK, if you stay in one place, theoretically you can get that too. There is an early exercise in carbon 14 and ring tree dating with a very close match for a certain Pueblo in, I think Arizona. But this is concerning trees from a very restricted area and only concerns last pre-Columbian centuries - the dates could perhaps even be checked against indigenous narratives taken up by Spanish missionaries, if any. Or confirm narratives taken up centuries later by American folklorists.

But the further back in time you go, the wider you have to search to find wood, just to get a match for each year (if you have even one gap in dendro, you cannot determine if it is 1 year or 3000 years except by using other methods, the only reliable one that for back being narrative). This means, you need to accept imprecise matches. Similar, but not identic ones.

And even more, if you are dealing with small pieces of wood, maybe an identic one for ten or twenty rings is no real proof, since it might not be unique in time and space - you might need more material to get that. Hence, further back dendrochronology goes, the more it is taking a chance.

So, no, dendro is so far as I know not an independent way of calibrating ¹⁴C dates to 6,700 BC.

That said, CMI is being incomplete on the issue. ¹⁴C is used very regularly for very basic datings in the close to present. A statue from Benin, is it from Benin's Golden Age (including Golden Age of slavery, but that is another matter) from 1400 AD? Or is it from 1900 AD, that is a later imitation of the style, or even outright forgery? You ask someone to take a sample from a not too conspicuous part of the statue and you ¹⁴C-test that sample.

This means, there is a section of ¹⁴C-dating which is very parallel to the Belfast series. Now, Gavin Cox has explained very well why Belfast series is reliable (it is connected to trees known in the present and from so recent times that wood can be sampled from a fairly small region in fairly big chunks with fairly many rings), while other series are not (they are disconnected from Belfast series, their connection to time involves ¹⁴C-dates, they are from so far back that samples are smaller and from a wider area than would be really useful).

For ¹⁴C-dating, I'd appreciate a similar approach. Show why ¹⁴C-dating is reliable when dating sth from Gettysburg (if needed) but unreliable (as it definitely is in absolute dates) when it comes to dating Göbekli Tepe.

Hint : ¹⁴C-dates are different from tree ring dates. In a tree ring dating, each date depends on the one before that more recent in time and closer to when ring dates coincided with AD dated Gregorian calendar dated tree growth. So, one disconnect is enough to send a pan of 500 years (which possibly could be correctly dated internally in relative dates) floating on whenever its end is however long before the next series that is connected, whegther one connected to present or one not directly so connected.

This should imply : ¹⁴C-dating depending on another assumption, it has another set of problems. Let's identify them as candidly as Gavin Cox did with dendro! And first, let's identify Gavin Cox' candidness on this matter.

Bill N. of Australia

There are over 100 C14 labs doing a total of 10s of thousands at least of tests annually. If C14 is so unreliable, why haven't researchers who send their specimens for testing noticed it? What does CMI do to disillusion them?

Gavin Cox

But, contrary to your comment, researchers have actually noticed anomalous results for their samples for decades, and CMI has simply reported on their results. There was a major study of ¹⁴C reported by the RATE team (Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth) back in 2005. They listed 90 peer-reviewed papers, going back to 1984, that reported anomalous results for 14C in samples supposedly 100,000 to multi-million-years (in the evolutionary time-scale). Of course, this is an impossible situation, unless these ancient materials are young—which we believe they are.

Gavin Cox has at best misunderstood the actual argument. The vast majority of the thousands of tests annually are NOT concerned with very old dates for which such anomalies (which only are so on Uniformitarian view, not for ¹⁴C per se), but simply with things like this coroner deciding whether such and such a skeleton belongs to the battle of the Marne or the rampages of a later serial killer, whether it should go to war memorial or to coroner for investigation and for families that are kin to victims of the stabber. And the more like near totality do not show this kind of so called anomalies.

What is 90 peer reviewed papers compared to more than 34 000 tests with no such anomaly (we are 34 years after 1984, and there are thousands of tests per year)?

Now, seing that Gavin Cox is not quite helpful, what is?

The assumption which is most likely to be wrong in a dating conflicting with Biblical chronology is not uniform speed of decay, whatever Setterfield and his fan Habermehl may think of that, it is how much the initial carbon was at.

If Göbekli Tepe organic samples had c. 100 pmC when they stopped breathing, Göbekli Tepe is 11 600 to 10 600 years back in time. If on the other hand Göbekli Tepe is Babel, between death of Noah and birth of Peleg, between 350 and 401 after the Flood, perhaps not all of these years, then for one thing the earliest and lowest layers as well as the highest and most recent ones started out with less than 50 pmC when they stopped breathing, and for another, the at most 51 years (I'd go for 40, though) are only spreading out to 1000 years because during this time, ¹⁴C is on the rise.

And this is my option. The things that are a definite anomaly to uniformitarians, ¹⁴C from layers supposed to be over 100,000 years old, and which is noted as an anomaly for Uniformitarians by Baumgartner, well, we as knowing better should be giving an account making it no more anomalous, I do, the "every level in the Phanerozoic portion [life-bearing] of the geological record" is simply usually either buried during Flood or during early post-Flood mudslides, and that means we can start calculating what the ¹⁴C level was at the Flood, 350 years before Göbekli Tepe started and 401 years before Peleg was born (and if you think Peleg was born just 101 years after the Flood, as per Masoretic with Vulgate text, you run into a problem, a too steep rise in ¹⁴C levels).

Perhaps my work has been ignored simply for the fact that as a Catholic, I don't feel bound to promote Jewish tradition over Catholic or Orthodox tradition, and therefore also not bound to take Vulgate over Roman Martyrology or Historia Scholastica. Let alone King James. (Which on top of being Masoretic in OT is also mistranslating the Greek of the NT, as in "repetitions" for Matthew 6:7**). My work is ignored, because it challenges the Protestantism of these usually Protestant researchers, indirectly, but if you scratch the surface, after all rather firmly.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Immaculate Conception
of the Blessed Virgin Mary
8.XII.2018

PS, in case you argue I am just a blogger, how about checking out this piece of news:

One Man's Discovery Sinks Major Climate Study
Bill Whittle | 15.XI.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpLVRPJnL4M

* The two articles are:

¹⁴C dating—who is fooling who?
Published: 8 December 2018 (GMT+10)
https://creation.com/carbon-dating-fooling-who

How old? When archaeology conflicts with the Bible
by Gavin Cox, Published: 1 November 2018 (GMT+10)
https://creation.com/how-old-archaeology-conflicts-bible

** Matthew 6:7 in King James. And in Douay Rheims. Link to discussion of meaning of battologein.

Comparing Habermehl's Take and Mine

Here is Anne Habermehl, from JOURNAL OF CREATION 31(2) 2017, Sodom—part 2, read it carefully, it is a fine intelectual feat, beyond most these days:

We first need to find a crossover date for Joseph and Imhotep. For that, we will calculate when construction of the Saqqara pyramid by Djoser probably began, because this project is known to have been overseen by Imhotep.55 If we allow for a few years of this pharaoh’s reign before Joseph was promoted, plus 14 years for the seven years each of plenty and famine, this would take us perhaps 20 years into the pharaoh’s reign before the beginning of construction of this pyramid. (We are making an assumption on this, because it was at the end of the famine period that the people were literally owned by the pharaoh, and were therefore available to be conscripted to work for him. However, construction could have begun earlier.) Djoser began his reign in about 2670 bc (secular time) as noted above, making the start of the Saqqara pyramid around 2650 bc. This is the date that we can use for placing Imhotep and Joseph together on the secular timeline. Joseph was made vizier by the pharaoh in 1715,56 182 years after Sodom’s destruction in 1897 (which was one year before Isaac’s birth).57 If we count 20 years to the beginning of the Saqqara pyramid, this makes a round figure of about 200 years back to Sodom’s destruction/Abraham. This would appear to land Abraham at 2850 bc (secular time). But this is in the middle of the murky period of the first and second dynasties, and like all the rest of the Egyptian timeline, there is every reason to believe that these dynasties are stretched out and contain extra time.58 This means that 200 years on the biblical timeline could represent quite a bit more time at this distant period in Egypt’s history. So how far back would Abraham go? A plausible time would be somewhere around 3000 bc, the beginning of the first dynasty. There is in fact a hint in ancient secular history to support this date.

Here are the notes 55 to 58:

• 55. Oakes and Gahlin, ref. 48, p. 46.
  
  
  • (48. For example Oakes, L. and Gahlin, L., Ancient Egypt, Hermes House, Anness Publishing Inc., New York, p. 46, 2002. Currently most scholars accept approximately this date for Djoser, although Egyptian dates are always subject to tweaking by somebody or other.)
  
  
  
• 56. Jones, ref. 1, p. 278. The Jones chronology puts the children of Israel in Egypt for 215 years, which I support. However, whether or not it was 215 years does not affect where Abraham and Joseph go on the secular timeline—it only changes the number of years between the secular and biblical timelines at that point.
  
  
• 57. Jones, ref. 1, p. 278.
  
  
  • (1. This figure is based on 215 years as the length of time that the children of Israel lived in Egypt. The apostle Paul supports a stay of 215 years in Egypt when he says in Galatians 3:17 that God’s covenant with Abraham (in Canaan) was 430 years before the giving of the law. For more information on this, see Jones, F.N., The Chronology of the Old Testament, 16th edn, Master Books, Green Forest, AR, pp. 53–55, 2007. Jones (who follows the Masoretic), shows that internal calculations of Scripture indicate 215 years in Egypt. The LXX translations of Exodus 12:40 clearly indicate 215 years in Egypt, saying that 430 years was the time of residence in the land of Egypt and the land of Canaan.)
  
  
  
• 58. Secular scholars simply do not know for sure whether all the pharaohs of these dynasties reigned in series or concurrently, and for how long, or even whether some of these were pharaohs under different names. For example, see Wilkinson, T.A.H., Early Dynastic Egypt, Routledge, London and New York, pp. 55─91, 1999.

O K .... what is Habermehl consistently leaving out?

Carbon 14 dating.

Do I believe carbon 14 dating yields correct dates? No. Not this far back, while carbon 14 ratio had not reached present level yet. Later on, yes.

Do I believe a correspondence between carbon 14 dates and real dates (Biblical timeline) can be made? Yes.

What is the exact place in above quoted passus, where such a distinction would be useful?

Joseph was made vizier by the pharaoh in 1715,56 182 years after Sodom’s destruction in 1897 (which was one year before Isaac’s birth).57 If we count 20 years to the beginning of the Saqqara pyramid, this makes a round figure of about 200 years back to Sodom’s destruction/Abraham. This would appear to land Abraham at 2850 bc (secular time)

This assumes that carbon dates have nothing to do with secular time, only inserting too many pharaos.

Now, she corrects this, slightly, but indirectly:

This means that 200 years on the biblical timeline could represent quite a bit more time at this distant period in Egypt’s history.

200 years on real timeline can represent down to 200 years on carbon timeline only after carbon 14 has reached present level. As long as carbon 14 is rising, two carbon dates taken from items left in the ground at a real distance of 200 years will seem more distant than that, since the earlier of them had lower carbon 14 content, yielding more "instant age" years.

On the other hand, if the "secular timeline" is made by one carbon date + one historic distance in time (other item 200 years after or before the carbon dated item), then the method outlined by Habermehl will work. Unless spurious history, like extra pharaos or extra years, is inserted.

Now, it is interesting that Habermehl and I agree on Joseph being Imhotep. It so happens, the point of secular timeline we are dealing with has a carbon date, namely the coffin of pharao Djoser. Unfortunately, this carbon date is somewhat obfuscated as a pure carbon date by its being presented in the form of a calibrated one. I think I read some paper saying the raw carbon date for Djoser's coffin is samples at least one of which goes back to 2800 BC. Either way, 2800 BC or 2600 BC, Joseph is prior to the carbon date 2400 BC - which is that of earliest Ebla tablets. This amply explains (Ebla tablets being very contemporary diplomacy, nothing to do with remote historiography unless relevant for the then active diplomats) why Ebla archive has no mention of Sodom or Gomorrah. Some assume "2400 BC is before Sodom was destroyed according to the Bible" - yes, indeed. But only 2400 BC on the real Biblical timeline. 2400 BC in carbon dates, which are inflated, is after Joseph. This also means, since Ebla tablets are prior to earliest tablet of Enuma Elish, all parts of Genesis, except chapter one which was revealed to Moses on Sinai and his editing, like replacing earlier theonyms with Adonai when appropriate, were already redacted, either in writing or orally (arguably chapters from 12 on would have been originally written redactions, while first 11 chapters can have been redacted for oral transmission) were already in place in Egypt, available to Moses, before we can trace Enuma Elish.

But back to business.

Sodom was destroyed 182 years before Joseph was made vizier, Isaac was born 181 years before that later date, since year after destruction of Sodom. This I accept from Habermehl's sources, notably Jones, F.N., The Chronology of the Old Testament, 16th edn, Master Books, Green Forest, AR, pp. 53–55. Now, Isaac was born 1915 BC if Abraham was born 2015 BC (or 2012 BC, two versions of the chronology involved in Roman Martyrology).

1912	1915	BC
0181	0181
1731	1734	BC

How many years did Djoser have overall? 19 or 28 according to wikipedia, meaning, sources would be differring.

If Joseph was made vizier in the beginning of Djoser's reign of 19 years, Djoser died five years after the fourteen years under Imhotep's or JOseph's supervision, if Joseph was made vizir in the fifth year, Djoser died after the 14 years.

1731	1731	1734	1734	BC
0019	0014	0019	0014
1712	1717	1715	1720	BC

If Joseph was made vizier in the beginning of Djoser's reign of 28 years, we have another option:

1731	1734	BC
0028	0028
1703	1706	BC

So, Biblical and real date for Djoser's death would be at latest 1703 BC and at earliest 1720 BC.

The problem with the following is, the carbon date is probably already calibrated:

"Dr Ramsey's team was able to determine the exact period when this king reigned Egypt - from about 2691 to roughly 2625 BC, said the scientist."

Citing : BBC : Radiocarbon dating verifies ancient Egypt's history
By Katia Moskvitch Science reporter, BBC News, 17 June 2010
https://www.bbc.com/news/10345875

But I'll take either extreme 2691 BC or 2625 BC as if it were uncalibrated carbon date. I don't think the span refers to the span of his rein, which was definitely shorter than 67 years.

2691	2691	2625	2625	BC
1703	1720	1703	1720	BC
0988	0971	0922	0905

So, the extra years are 905 to 988. This gives us the pmC levels, since "extra years" = instant age sth would have had if tested when dying or being felled back then:

988	971	922	905
88.735	88.918	89.446	89.63

Now, for Abraham in Genesis 13 or 14, I'm presuming he was 80 years old, I take 3400 (Proto-Elamitic) to 3100 (early dynastic) BC as the carbon dates.

2015	2012	BC
0080	0080
1935	1932	BC
3400	3400	3100	3100	BC
1935	1932	1935	1932	BC
1465	1468	1265	1268

1468	1465	1268	1265
83.729	83.76	85.78	85.811

So, this leaves between the carbon dated (or near so) events of Abraham in Egypt and fighting for Sodom and Djoser's death a rise in carbon level between 85.811 to 88.735 pmC and 83.729 to 89.63 pmC.

What would be the carbon date of Sodom? Well, calibrate a rise from one carbon level to the other over the Biblical and real years, and take the value for 20 years after Genesis 13/14. That pmC level will give you the number of extra years and that added to the Biblical years will give you the uncalibrated carbon date with Cambridge halflife, closer to the calibrated one than to the one called "uncalibrated" which is given in BP and uses Libby half life.

This carbon 14 calculator uses the Cambridge halflife.

Carbon 14 Dating Calculator
https://www.math.upenn.edu/~deturck/m170/c14/carbdate.html

Obviously, it is meant to be used by uniformitarians (who are right on most samples - there have been exceptional ones from exceptional circumstances like marine, iceberg or near nuke explosion - when they come from recent years, like last 2000 or 2500 years if not more), as a way to date in the present something having in the present a certain carbon 14 level, and also, for a given age, if you look for things having a certain age, predict the carbon 14 level of most relevant samples. A corpse found in the battlefields of the Marne ought to be 100 years old and therefore have a carbon 14 level of 98.798 pmC, unless it's more recently there from a serial killer, in which case it has more pmC.

Nevertheless, given the concept of a carbon buildup, the exact same mathematics serve to tie "extra years" to successive levels of carbon 14 during the Biblical timeline (for which I use that of Roman Martyrology).

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St. Andrew
30.XI.2018

Pääbo and Habermehl

Both published papers on Neanderthals in 2010.

Anne Habermehl published hers ... January:

Answers Research Journal 3 (2010):1–21.
www.answersingenesis.org/arj/v3/enigmatic-neanderthals.pdf

Pääbo published his in ... May:

A Draft Sequence of the Neandertal Genome
(Of several authors, Richard E. Green is mentioned first and Svante Pääbo last)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5100745/

Published in final edited form as:
Science. 2010 May 7; 328(5979): 710–722.

In other words, when Anne Habermehl wrote her paper on Neanderthals, she did not yet have access to Svante Pääbo's investigation about sequencing the genome.

Yet - in a correspondence we had - she has claimed that she understood Pääbo's work as bogus, he was projecting back to Neanderthals genetic differences as observed now, absolutely not in any way shape or form actually sequenced actual DNA, Cuozzo has the final word (from 1998) over Pääbo (2010) because he studied developmental morphology (as opposed to static morphology .... however you square that with no Neanderthal skull ever being observed in growth over the years of its life by X-rays, since all Neanderthal skulls are dead.

Now, here is a little contribution to why Homo Erectus is non-human:

Consideration of this question logically leads to the conclusions of Wise, who says that since there must have been more peoples than this leaving Babel, there must be whole groups of early people who have disappeared, whether in natural catastrophe, warfare, or whatever (Wise 2005). Indeed, Wise goes as far as saying that H. erectus may have been the only humans at Babel; in his proposed scenario, Neanderthals would have possibly developed later. This raises the question whether this accords with what the Bible says in Genesis 10, where it lists a lot of different peoples, but nothing about disasters or eradicating any of them.

Also, as Wood points out, if H. erectus were human, this would also indicate that there was a wider range of physical appearance, and therefore genetic diversity, immediately after the Flood than we have today (Wood 2008). But in the view of others, there should have been less human diversity immediately after the two genetic bottlenecks of the Flood and the Babel dispersion, with diversity increasing as time went on (Ashcraft 2004; Nelson 2004).

Those problems are all solved if, like Cuozzo (1998, p. 101), we put H. erectus into the category of apes. This suggests that all the people who left Babel were Neanderthals who spread out in many directions to form the nations of Genesis 10; moreover, all peoples now living on earth are descended from Neanderthals. This theme will be developed in the next section on Neanderthal lifespan.

So - what if Homo erectus (possibly), Flores Hobbits (possibly, I'd even say probably), Heidelbergians, Atapuerca Antecessors, Denisovans and Neanderthals were all pre-Flood?

AND one other pre-Flood race, ours, came on the Ark, with some minor half caste (mixed race) contribution from Neanderthals and Denisovans through daughters in law.

This means they came before the bottle-neck, not after it.

Which means, the Flood reduced human variability, precisely as expected.

Everyone agrees that modern humans showed up on the world scene at approximately the same time that the Neanderthals disappeared; whether or not this timing was a coincidence is debated. Some evolutionists allow thousands of years for the two groups to overlap—how many thousand is a matter of intense discussion—because they have a lot of time at their disposal, and a few thousand years here or there are a mere trifle (see, for example, Lewin 1999, pp. 157, 165–166). Creationists obviously have far less historical time available to account for the Neanderthal disappearance and subsequent appearance of modern man; therefore they have to explain how this mysterious event could have happened so quickly. But the problem for both sides is the same: why did it happen?

Habermehl is in fact wrong on what "everyone agrees".

Neanderthals disappeared, carbon dated (that is misdated by inflated timeline) 30 - 40 000 years ago.

If we make it 40 000 years, that gives me a carbon date for the Flood to be compared to the real, Biblical date. And therefore a carbon level at Flood.

Obviously, if Gorham cave of Gibraltar contains any actual bodyparts of Neanderthals (whether skulls or teeth) and not just Mousterian tools, the carbon date would be the later dates of Gorham level IV, which is a considerably more recent carbon date, a considerably higher carbon level at the Flood and therefore also some perspective of calibrating in detail C14 for pre-Flood times, which I had left out of reckoning as unrealistic. To me, any carbon date 40 000 - 70 000 (or 65 000, if that is the limit) simply means "pre-Flood" and I am so far not trying any calibration of what pre-Flood years. So, Anno Mundi 2242, was the carbon level 1.45 pmC, meaning we date the 5000 years and add the 35 000 "instant years" to get an inflated date of 40 000 years?

Or was the level 11.333 pmC, meaning we date the 5000 years and add only 18 000 "instant age" years, to get an inflated date of 23 000 BP, as per latest dates in Gorham level IV?

Level III	Level IV
8	0	Number of AMS Dates <24 kyr bp
0	22	Number of AMS dates >24 kyr bp
10800	23040	Youngest Date (lower 95% confidence limit)
18600	33340	Oldest Date (upper 95% confidence limit)
0	103	Number of mousterian artefacts present
240	0	Number of upper Palaeolithic artefacts present
Omitting ratios I don't know the use of.

Gorham’s Cave, Gibraltar—The persistence of a Neanderthal population
http://www.ugr.es/~grupo179/pdf/finlayson%202008.pdf

In the latter case, one would actually have an interest in making similar calibrations for pre-Flood timeline (5199 - 2957 BC) as I have so far done exclusively for post-Flood (from 2957 BC especially to 2015, birth of Abraham, to some extent also even up to 1510, Exodus).

For my part, as long as I am not told explicitly that Gorham level IV contains actual Neanderthal bodily remains, I'll take it as post-Flood and Neanderthals as pre-Flood and Noah's family as visiting and doing or collecting Mousterian tools.

Now, why would modern man NOT have been a pre-Flood race, along Neanderthals?

Everyone agrees that modern humans showed up on the world scene at approximately the same time that the Neanderthals disappeared.

No, Evolutionists don't agreee on that.

They say modern humans turned up in Europe a few millennia before Neanderthals disappeared. Tool styles and art styles like Aurignacian, Magdalenian, Gravettian all turn up in Europe c. 40 000 ...

Aurignacien
Répartition géographique	Europe, Moyen-Orient, Asie centrale, Altaï
Période	Paléolithique supérieur
Chronologie	de 43 000 à 29 000 AP
Gravettien
Répartition géographique	Europe - Sibérie
Période	Paléolithique supérieur
Chronologie	31 000 à 22 000 ans AP
Solutréen
Répartition géographique	Ouest du Rhône et sud de la Seine en France, Espagne, Portugal
Période	Paléolithique supérieur
Chronologie	environ 22 000 à 17 000 avant le présent
Magdalénien
Répartition géographique	Europe occidentale et centrale
Période	Paléolithique supérieur
Chronologie	Environ 17 000 à 12 000 avant le présent

However, they also say that modern humans were around well before turning up in Europe.

Homo sapiens idaltu (Afar: Idaltu; "elder" or "first born"[1]), also called Herto Man,[1] is the name given to a number of hominin fossils found in 1997 in Herto Bouri, Ethiopia. They date to around 160,000 years ago.[2]

Paleoanthropologists determined that the skeletal finds belong to an extinct subspecies of Homo sapiens which lived in Pleistocene Africa since the fossils possess some archaic cranial traits that are uncommon among anatomically modern humans. They also generally lack the derived features of classic Neanderthals. Homo sapiens idaltu are morphologically similar to both archaic African fossils and subsequent anatomically modern humans of the Late Pleistocene.

Because of their early dating and unique physical characteristics, they were believed to represent the immediate ancestors of anatomically modern humans, as suggested by the Out-of-Africa theory.[1][3] The oldest anatomically modern human fossils (315,000 years old) discovered at Jebel Irhoud, Morocco, have since been dated to nearly twice the age of the Herto fossils.

Why do I bother about Herto man or Jebel Irhoud being dated 160 or 315 millennia ago? They are not carbon dates, after all? And I mainly consider Potassium Argon dates as bogus or hazard game, right?

Well, Habermehl was talking of how "Everyone agrees that modern humans showed up on the world scene at approximately the same time that the Neanderthals disappeared" and she is including Evolutionists since she is talking, a) of "everybody" and b) specifically of how Evolutionists debate the millennia of coexistence.

Citing (the very biassed) Timeline of human evolution
130–80 ka	Marine Isotope Stage 5 (Eemian).
	Modern human presence in Southern Africa and West Africa.[47] Appearance of mitochondrial haplogroup (mt-haplogroup) L2.
80–50 ka	MIS 4, beginning of the Upper Paleolithic.
	Early evidence for behavioral modernity.[48] Appearance of mt-haplogroups M and N. Southern Dispersal migration out of Africa, Proto-Australoid peopling of Oceania.[49] Archaic admixture from Neanderthals in western Eurasia, from Denisovans in East and Southeast Asia,[50][51] and from an unspecified "basal western African" lineage and other "deeply divergent" archaic humans in Sub-Saharan Africa.[52]
50–25 ka
	Behavioral modernity develops, according to the "great leap forward" theory.[53] Extinction of Homo floresiensis[54] M168 mutation (carried by all non-African males). Appearance of mt-haplogroups U and K. Peopling of Europe, peopling of the North Asian Mammoth steppe. Paleolithic art. Extinction of Neanderthals and other archaic human variants (with possible survival of hybrid populations in Asia and Africa. Appearance of Y-Haplogroup R2; mt-haplogroups J and X.

For my part, I think modern men and Neanderthals coexisted for much of latter half if not all of the 2242 years before the Flood. They diverged, whether simply by genetic drift and if so, how far was Adam from modern human and to Neanderthal or Denisovan, or by a genetic experiment gone wrong.

The "genetic experiment" idea comes from Pääbo's observation that mitochondrial DNA of Neanderthals are half way between man and chimp.

But it is also possible, genetic divergence started out with a higher potential before the Flood, spanning "modern" as well as Neanderthal and Denisovan, and the carbon dates 55 to 40 millennia ago reflect the part of the pre-Flood world - Europe and perhaps Asia - where Neanderthals and Cro-Magnon were living together, mainly on Neanderthal terms.

And, Neanderthals are visible in remains, while Nodians are not, because they lived like today some Amerindians, in the sense of lacking agriculture and so on.

Genesis 6:[7] He said: 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.

Would it be against this verse, as Anne Habermehl argues, if any remains remain as bones, found in caves or sedimentary layers? I don't think so. A cave or a mudlayer (later hardening to sediment) by definition is no longer on the face of the earth. And the life is destroyed by death, even if bones remain.

I do think that if she would like to exclude this, arguing like only Hadean layers are from Flood (there was some time since I looked up her tables on matching Biblical real chronology with, simply, secular or conventional), then the major part of "geological column" (which she reckons with) will be post-Flood and so if no single disaster, at least successive disasters together would have left more sediment than the Flood. Which is an inconvenience.

I therefore, while deploring that Mr Pääbo is Evolutionist (but congratulations to his marriage!) find his work on Neanderthal DNA very interesting, and that partly due tothe fact we do share some Neanderthal DNA and partly the fact this is never from Y chromosomes or mitochondrial DNA, suggesting we are both patrilinearly and matrilinearly cut off from Neanderthals, as would be the case if the relevant genome had passed through a daughter in law of Noah (passing on no Y chromosome, since a female) who was Neanderthal on either father's or a grandfather's side, thereby excluding the Neanderthal genome also from being a carrier of mitochondrial DNA.

Meanwhile, I don't know exactly what parts of Neanderthal morphology and developmental morphology which are explained exclusively by the DNA, I cannot exclude Cuozzo has some points (shared with his admirer Habermehl) about the old ages of Neanderthals. That in turn, while consistent with very early post-Flood men, would also be very consistent with pre-Flood men.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Evarist, Pope and Martyr
26.X.2018

Romae sancti Evaristi, Papae et Martyris, qui Dei Ecclesiam, sub Hadriano Imperatore, suo sanguine purpuravit.

Hugh Ross and Genetics, Featuring a Gruesome Habit (Don't Read This When You Eat!)

Neanderthal : Neanderthal Pre-or Post-Flood? · If Neanderthals were Carnivores, were they Post-Flood? · "what biblical, young earth creationists have always maintained" · Is there an Urban Legend that Grendel and His Mother were Dinosaurs Among Creationists? · Neanderthals - Related to Michael Oard's and Anne Habermehl's Work (post-Flood Boundary and Babel Builders) · Hugh Ross and Genetics, Featuring a Gruesome Habit (Don't Read This When You Eat!)

Hugh Ross seems to think that a lack of Neanderthal Y chromosomes and Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA proves that we are all unrelated to Neanderthals.

I am for instance "hearing" this speech, or rather seeing it subtitled:

What is a Neanderthal - Hugh Ross
Abrahamic Faith | 17.I.2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Z1RSofbLt4

Not so.

If a Neanderthal man has a daughter with a Homo Sapiens woman, that daughter will have NEITHER Neanderthal Y Chromosome, since females don't have that, NOR a Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA, since she inherits the mitochondria from her Sapiens mother.

I think a woman of that or similar description would be a neat option for one of the wives of Noah's three sons.*

Note, there are other parts of Neanderthal genome which are shared by some men today and not others. Also, Neanderthals have a clearly human version of the FOXP2 gene which apes have not. This shows, on the common Christian view that all men descend from Adam, that Neanderthals were men, Adamites. They had the fundamental capacity for speech and they have descendendants among men.

Noah and his wife could not have been either Neanderthals or even hybrid Neanderthal / Sapiens. Had they been that, all men now would have Neanderthal heritage more or less equally. Red hair and white skin was a thing among Neanderthals, but not the earliest known Sapiens. And I include carbon dated ones, where the relative chronology is fairly well proven.

On the other hand, Noah's daughters in law could have involved one more Neanderthal like than the others, either through the process just outlined, or because of the pre-Flood race known as Antecessor or the pre-Flood race known as Homo Heidelbergensis, both of which seem to count - among Evolutionists - as common ancestors to "Neanderthal and man".

Now, in the same video, Hugh Ross is about to claim, as can be seen from the pictures, taken from the "Them and Us" site, that Neanderthals were monsters, preying on us. (In fact, now, I have "heard" the video, he did not, he only took the pictures from that site.) This is in fact possible. Cannibalism could be one of the unwise traits of giants.

Baruch 3:[26] There were the giants, those renowned men that were from the beginning, of great stature, expert in war. [27] The Lord chose not them, neither did they find the way of knowledge: therefore did they perish. [28] And because they had not wisdom, they perished through their folly.

This means, Neanderthals could be simply Nephelim. If so, I don't think Noah's daughters in law would very readily include a very Nephelim tainted person.

If so, it is more probable that the Neanderthal like genes come from pre-Flood either Heidelbergians or Antecessors, the race from which then the Neanderthals, if Nephelim, came.

On the other hand, there is some indication Neanderthals as such were not necessarily Nephelim. While Neanderthals in Belgium were living off Woolly Rhino and human meat, Neanderthals in Spain were, as men were supposed to be up to Genesis 9, vegetarians. This is known from their tooth enamel.

This, or the possibility that the daughter of a Nephelim was, herself, not too tainted, could speak for those parts of DNA actually being from Neanderthals, as such, not just from potentially similar genes on Antecessor labelled race or Heidelberg labelled race.

Now, Hugh Ross claims there were always few Neanderthals. I am checking the reasoning of a secular source:

Now, Briggs and his colleagues have used a new method that targets the genetic material of interest, analyzing so-called mitochondrial DNA from the fossils of six Neanderthals, who lived between 38,000 and 70,000 years ago. That genetic material comes from females and so can be used to trace maternal lineages.

To get a sense of the genetic diversity, and ultimately population size, the team compared the Neanderthal sequences with one another. Then, the researchers looked at such genetic information from 50 living humans from around the world, asking, "how different are their genes from one another?"

(Diversity of genes can provide indirect evidence for the number of breeding individuals, because with more people mating more genes are thrown into the mix, and vice versa.)

The Neanderthals had about three times less genetic diversity than the modern humans. Briggs suggests the entire population could be roughly estimated by doubling the number of females, which they set at no higher than 3,500.

From : Neanderthals Were Few and Poised for Extinction
By Jeanna Bryner, Live Science Managing Editor | July 16, 2009 10:02am ET
https://www.livescience.com/5570-neanderthals-poised-extinction.html

Note, for one, this result by Briggs from 2009 is contradicted by Pääbo** from later on, who did more sequencing on Neanderthals.

But "3 times less genetic diversity than modern humans" would be readily explainable if they were simply one race.

Take 50 Europoid or 50 Black or 50 Yellow persons, and they will also have about 3 times less genetic diversity than the human race as a whole, as it is post-Flood.

Again, Briggs is projecting the diversity onto a timescale of "between 38,000 and 70,000 years ago". It seems, "32,000 years ago", as they say, Sapiens was not very racially diversified.

Back to "where one could possibly consider Nephelim to have been" ... I just said, if Neanderthals were Nephelim, then perhaps the Neanderthal shared genes come from Antecessor, instead. On the other hand, I also said, in Spain the Neanderthals were vegetarian, as pre-Flood men were supposed to be, while, I just checked, the Homo Antecessor in Spain, those at Atapuerca, were in fact cannibals.

En el artículo, titulado 'Modeling Trophic resource availability for de first human settlers of Europe: The case of Atapuerca TD-6' ('Modelo trófico de disponibilidad de recursos para los primeros pobladores humanos de Europa: El caso del nivel TD-6 en Atapuerca') concluyen que el entorno era muy rico en recursos, por lo que el canibalismo no se debía a periodos de hambruna.

From : El canibalismo del 'Homo Antecessor' no se debía a épocas de hambruna
Efe | Burgos | Actualizado miércoles 03/04/2013 20:03 horas
http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2013/04/03/castillayleon/1365012206.html

This would of course mean, "Antecessor" is even more suspect than Neanderthals of being Nephelim - or simply very fallen men.

On the other hand, this one could favour Hugh Ross' assessment:

El hombre de Atapuerca practicaba el mismo canibalismo que los chimpancés
Nuño Domínguez 04/09/2012
http://esmateria.com/2012/09/04/el-hombre-de-atapuerca-practicaba-el-mismo-canibalismo-que-los-chimpances/

Citing:

Intergroup cannibalism in the European Early Pleistocene: The range expansion and imbalance of power hypotheses
Palmira Saladié Rosa Huguet Antonio Rodríguez-Hidalgo Isabel Cáceres Montserrat Esteban-Nadal Juan Luis Arsuaga José María Bermúdez de Castro Eudald Carbonell
Journal of Human Evolution Volume 63, Issue 5, November 2012, Pages 682-695
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047248412001406

Key words:

However, the age distribution of the cannibalized hominins in the TD6 assemblage is not consistent with that from other cases of exo-cannibalism by human/hominin groups. Instead, it is similar to the age profiles seen in cannibalism associated with intergroup aggression in chimpanzees. For this reason, we use an analogy with chimpanzees to propose that the TD6 hominins mounted low-risk attacks on members of other groups to defend access to resources within their own territories and to try and expand their territories at the expense of neighboring groups.

I am also reading here evidence on cannibalism having occurred also among Neanderthals in Spain. It seems then, I was arguing too much pre-Flood virtue from tooth enamel.

The thing is, on a quick skimming through, the cannibalism actually seems to go beyond what a parallel with chimpanzees can explain, even if similar in terms of victims. This means, it is very likely to relate to:

Genesis 6:[5] And God seeing that the wickedness of men was great on the earth, and that all the thought of their heart was bent upon evil at all times, (a verse after one having mentioned giants).

It seems that the Heidelbergians of Terra Amata were not tied to cannibalism. The one link showing Terra Amata and cannibalism together was a google book, the title being Prehistoric Art in Europe, by Nancy K. Sandars*** - and she talks of the concepts in two different paragraphs on page 35. She notes, even Homo habilis was right handed as a tool maker. Chimps are ambidextrous. Why? Well, the right hand is tied to the left brain hemisphere, which in man (but not chimps, obviously) is related to speech.

Note, Homo Antecessor is only known from Atapuerca, while Homo Heidelbergensis is known from several places, and some place Antecessor here.

Note also that morphologically, Heidelbergians like the Steinheim skull were at least as close if not closer to Neanderthals as to post-Flood Sapiens.

This means, they are about equally suspect of being Nephelim. Actually, since the Steinheim skull was found after the National Socialists took over, God could have shown a pre-Flood Nephelim to the emerging State horror, so as to hold up a kind of mirror.

Even if, however, neither a Neanderthal nor a Heidelbergian is in our direct ancestry, someone sharing traits with the former or with some of them is. That being so, Adam was more probably either Sapiens or very close to pure such, since there were only 10 generations spanning both Adam and Noah (in a time during which other lineages could have had time to diverge considerably more) and since Noah was pure from the Nephelim taint. So, if we are "Sapiens" race, so was Noah, if Noah was, so was, or was close enough, Adam. Only, some of us are closer to Neanderthals than others.

Sorry if I made this too rambling, I woke up early this morning.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St. Scholastica°
10.II.2018

* I therefore differ from Sarfati who thinks Neanderthals - pure, not Sapiens mixed - were a post-Flood race. Or he thought so in 2006. ** My countryman, if you want to suspect bias, maybe there is. *** Yale University Press, 1968 and second edition 1985.

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