Interim III, Flood to Abraham with Syncellus

Tas Walker and Myself on C14 : Glacial Maximum and End · Interim III, Flood to Abraham with Syncellus · Continuing Interim III to Joseph in Egypt · Comparing Three Roads from Seven Cows to Seven Trumpets

We make a little chart according to Peleg synchronised with Babel and Abraham in En-Geddi with Chalcolithic thereof.

Peleg 529 - 868, Abraham 1070 – 1245, in each case, after the Flood.

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

Babel's City starts getting built : 5 years after Peleg was born, 534 after Flood.

Dispersion of Languages, building of the City ceases : 40 years later, 574 after Flood.

Abraham in En-Geddi, 80 years after Birth; 1150 after Flood.

• This chart is non-St Jerome, I will be treating this as Syncellus.
  
  5500 Creation BC
  2242 Flood Anno Mundi
  3358 Flood BC
  
  3358 BC
  0534 Babel begins
  2824 BC
  
  3358 BC
  0578 Babel ends
  2780 BC
  
  3358 BC
  1150 Abraham in En-Geddi
  2208 BC
  
  
• Archaeological identifications of Flood, Babel and Abraham in En-Geddi, with the carbon dates:
  
  
  • Displacement of Neanderthals by Cro-Magnon in Europe (40 000 BP).
    
    40 000 BP =
    38 000 BC carbon
    03 358 BC real
    34 642 extra years
    
    
  • Göbekli Tepe (9600 - 8600 BC)
    
    9600 BC carbon
    2824 BC real
    6776 extra years
    
    8600 BC carbon
    2780 BC real
    5820 extra years
    
    
  • Chalcolithic of En-Geddi (3400 BC)
    
    3400 BC carbon
    2208 BC real
    1192 extra years
  
  
  
• In detail
  
  
  • Flood to Babel
    
    3358
    2824
    0534/13=41.0769230769230769
    
    

    I 3358		II 3317		III 3276
    IV 3235		V 3194		VI 3153
    VII 3112		VIII 3070		IX 3029
    X 2988		XI 2947		XII 2906
    XIII 2865		XIV 2824

    
    
    
  • Extra years therein:
    
    34 642
    06 776
    27 866/13=2143.5384615384615385
    
    

    I 34 642		II 32498		III 30355
    IV 28211		V 26068		VI 23924
    VII 21781		VIII 19637		IX 17494
    X 15350		XI 13207		XII 11063
    XIII 8920		XIV 6776

    
    
    
  • Babel to Chalcolithic En-Geddi
    
    2780
    2208
    0572/14=40.8571428571428571
    
    

    XV 2780		XVI 2739		XVII 2698
    XVIII 2657		XIX 2617		XX 2576
    XXI 2535		XXII 2494		XXIII 2453
    XXIV 2412		XXV 2371		XXVI 2331
    XXVII 2290		XXVIII 2249		XXIX 2208

    
    
    
  • Extra years therein:
    
    5820
    1192
    4628/14=330.5714285714285714
    
    

    XV 5820		XVI 5489		XVII 5159
    XVIII 4828		XIX 4498		XX 4167
    XXI 3837		XXII 3506		XXIII 3175
    XXIV 2845		XXV 2514		XXVI 2184
    XXVII 1853		XXVIII 1523		XXIX 1192

    
    
    
  • Apparent years:
    
    

    I 38 000 BC		II 35 815 BC		III 33 631 BC
    IV 31 446 BC		V 29 262 BC		VI 27 077 BC
    VII 24 892 BC		VIII 22 708 BC		IX 20 523 BC
    X 18 338 BC		XI 16 154 BC		XII 13 969 BC
    XIII 11 785 BC		XIV 9600 BC		XV 8600 BC
    XVI 8229 BC		XVII 7857 BC		XVIII 7486 BC
    XIX 7114 BC		XX 6743 BC		XXI 6371 BC
    XXII 6000 BC		XXIII 5629 BC		XXIV 5257 BC
    XXV 4886 BC		XXVI 4514 BC		XXVII 4143 BC
    XXVIII 3771 BC		XXIX 3400 BC

    
    
    
  • Pmc as per atmospheric level
    
    

    I 1.514		II 1.962		III 2.543
    IV 3.295		V 4.271		VI 5.535
    VII 7.173		VIII 9.297		IX 12.049
    X 15.616		XI 20.239		XII 26.23
    XIII 33.994		XIV 44.057		XV 49.459
    XVI 51.476		XVII 53.577		XVIII 55.763
    XIX 58.038		XX 60.405		XXI 62.87
    XXII 65.435		XXIII 68.105		XXIV 70.883
    XXV 73.775		XXVI 76.785		XXVII 79.918
    XXVIII 83.178		XXIX 86.572

Let's make a table, inserting the patriarchs from the longevity chart?

I 3358 BC

1.514 pmc 38 000 BC

Arphaxad *

3356 BC

II 3317 BC

1.962 pmc 35 815 BC

III 3276 BC

2.543 pmc 33 631 BC

IV 3235 BC

3.295 pmc 31 446 BC

Cainan *

3223 BC

V 3194 BC

4.271 pmc 29 262 BC

VI 3153 BC

5.535 pmc 27 077 BC

VII 3112 BC

7.173 pmc 24 892 BC

Shelah *

3093 BC

VIII 3070 BC

9.297 pmc 22 708 BC

IX 3029 BC

12.049 pmc 20 523 BC

Noah +

3008 BC

X 2988 BC

15.616 pmc 18 338 BC

Eber *

2963 BC

XI 2947 BC

20.239 pmc 16 154 BC

XII 2906 BC

26.23 pmc 13 969 BC

XIII 2865 BC

33.994 pmc 11 785 BC

Shem +

2858 BC

Peleg *

2829 BC

XIV 2824 BC

44.057 pmc 9600 BC

Arphaxad +

2791 BC

XV 2780 BC

49.459 pmc 8600 BC

Cainan +

2763 BC

XVI 2739 BC

51.476 pmc 8229 BC

Reu *

2699 BC

XVII 2698 BC

53.577 pmc 7857 BC

XVIII 2657 BC

55.763 pmc 7486 BC

Shelah +

2633 BC

XIX 2617 BC

58.038 pmc 7114 BC

XX 2576 BC

60.405 pmc 6743 BC

Serug *

2567 BC

XXI 2535 BC

62.87 pmc 6371 BC

XXII 2494 BC

65.435 pmc 6000 BC

Peleg +

2490 BC

Eber +

2459 BC

XXIII 2453 BC

68.105 pmc 5629 BC

Nahor *

2437 BC

XXIV 2412 BC

70.883 pmc 5257 BC

XXV 2371 BC

73.775 pmc 4886 BC

Reu +

2360 BC

Terah *

2358 BC

XXVI 2331 BC

76.785 pmc 4514 BC

XXVII 2290 BC

79.918 pmc 4143 BC

Abraham *

2288 BC

XXVIII 2249 BC

83.178 pmc 3771 BC

Serug +

2237 BC

Nahor +

2229 BC

XXIX 2208 BC

86.572 pmc 3400 BC

Terah +

2153 BC

Abraham +

2113 BC

Note that the oldest preserved writings are from archaeologically speaking 3500 - 2400 BC. But this means by the surplus of carbon dated years, that the very oldest, the proto-hieroglyphic and proto-literate in Sumerian, fall around point XXIX*, while the real starts** are closer to the archeological equivalents of the time of Joseph in Egypt, supposing his Pharao was Djoser.

This means of course that arguments like "Egypt and Babylon didn't get wet in the Flood" or "Sumerian and Akkadian were found before supposed divergence from original language at Babel" are very moot arguments, to say the very least.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Monday in Pentecost Novena
29.V.2017

Notes:

* "proto-hieroglyphic" inscriptions from about 3300 BC (Naqada III; see Abydos, Egypt, Narmer Palette), "proto-literate" period from about 3500 BC (see Kish tablet); administrative records at Uruk and Ur from c. 2900 BC., according to:

List of languages by first written accounts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_languages_by_first_written_accounts

** According to same source:

c. 2690 BC Egyptian Egyptian hieroglyphs in the tomb of Seth-Peribsen (2nd Dynasty), Umm el-Qa'ab,
26th century BC Sumerian Instructions of Shuruppak, the Kesh temple hymn and other cuneiform texts from Shuruppak and Abu Salabikh (Fara period), Some proper names attested in Sumerian texts at Tell Harmal from about 2800 BC. Fragments of the Legend of Etana at Tell Harmal c. 2600 BC.
c. 2400 BC Akkadian A few dozen pre-Sargonic texts from Mari and other sites in northern Babylonia.
c. 2400 BC Eblaite Ebla tablets

Setterfield

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

I think that Setterfield is doing a mistake, much like Habermehl, in taking all of the timeline of Uniformitarian Prehistory as a timeline to telescope onto the Biblical one.

While Carbon 14 is definitely telescopable, I think K-Ar (Potassium 40 - Argon 40) is more depending in how long lava was exposed to fresh air between flowing and solidifying, than on how far back it happened, since the factor I mention can be relevant for "excess carbon".

This means K-Ar timeline should not telescope to a prolongation behind the Carbon 14 one, but simply collapse to a non-timeline, and same with Geological time as Biostratigraphy.

Setterfield does not think so, if you want to take a look at his results, here they are:

CREATION AND CATASTROPHE CHRONOLOGY
© Barry Setterfield, September 1999
http://www.setterfield.org/ccchron/barrychron.html

Short link: http://ppt.li/setterfield

Time, Life and Man
http://www.setterfield.org/timeline.htm

Short link: http://ppt.li/setterf2

ANCIENT CHRONOLOGY IN SCRIPTURE
© Barry Setterfield, September 1999
http://www.setterfield.org/scriptchron.htm#times

Short link: http://ppt.li/3s5

His take is that excess dating years come from a decreased speed of light, meaning that all radioactive processes were much quicker before and that distant starlight problem is no problem.

My takes are, with same speed of light:

• Geological biostrata : diverse biotopes at Flood.
• Geocentrism takes care of Distant Starlight (see previous)
• K-Ar : excess argon.
• U-Pb / Th-Pb : excess lead.
• Other radiometric : I don't know.
• Except :
• Carbon 14 : rising carbon level.
• Possibly thermoluminiscence : calibrated by C14 erroneous due to rising carbon level.

The ones I specialise in are in bold, the non-astronomical ones in several posts on this blog and the astronomical one on several posts on main blogs (successive such), occasionally here too.

So, for Babel, this means I am placing Babel at Göbekli Tepe, Setterfield at Permian extinction event.

For my part, I think Permian fossils are from Flood, from certain biotopes. As readers of the blog will know, if long time such.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
First Saturday in Pentecost Novena
27.V.2017

PS : also like Habermehl, he is very correct in using LXX, not Masoretic./HGL

Is ICR Making a Case for Geocentrism?

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

On FB, I just came across this link:

ICR : Starlight and the Age of the Universe
by Richard Niessen
http://www.icr.org/article/starlight-age-universe/

So far the answers I gave in the group have not yet generated a debate, here they are:

From opening of ICR's article, I am citing and answering point by point:

"Distances in space cannot be accurately measured. Obviously we cannot stretch a string into outer space or measure these distances with a yardstick, and so distances are calculated, rather than measured. This is accomplished by a technique known as triangulation, or parallax."

Technically, triangulation is the mathematical technique, parallax or stellar parallax the name given by Heliocentrics to the 1838 sighted and measured Bessel phenomenon according to its place in their reckoning as fulfilling a prediction of Heliocentric paradigm.

"Short distances of a few hundred thousand miles can be measured by triangulating the simultaneous observations of observatories on opposite sides of the earth, but as the ratio of the unknown to the known distance increases, the baseline angles become greater and greater, so that beyond an altitude-to-baseline ratio of 28.5 to 1, the angle becomes greater than 89º and must be further divided into minutes and seconds of arc. The limitations of this method are evident even within our own solar system, as the apex angle to our sun would be only 10 seconds of arc (1/360 of a degree). The distances to even the nearest stars are so great that a greater triangulational baseline is needed, and so the earth's orbit around our sun is used,"

But what if Earth does NOT orbit the Sun?

"allowing a baseline of about 186 million miles."

In Geocentrism we don't have that baseline. We have that line in solar distances relative to stars, but not in any way involved in the angles of stars as sighted in the Bessel phenomenon.

"Sightings are taken 6 months apart,"

Which in Geocentric cosmology doesn't change the position of Earth a bit.

"the angles are compared,"

Giving you an angle of probably star's proper movement.

"and the distance is computed with trigonometry."

The supposed distance is commputed with misapplied trigonometry.

In this way I avoid:

• exotic Geometry of "Light may take a "shortcut" as it travels through space."
• sheer speculation as to "It is possible that the speed of light was considerably faster in the past."
• and false theological analysis of "There are Biblical indications that the earth and the universe were created with the appearance of age."

I avoid of course also any chronology contradicting the Biblical one!

So, if this gets noticed and there comes some debate, I will make another post on my "FB blog" about the debate on FB. As to now, I will try to contact Richard Niessen.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Day after Ascension
26.V.2017

What was the Sunday Letter for the Year of Creation? V

What was the Sunday Letter for the Year of Creation?

Part I · Part II · Part III · Part IV · Part V

So far, the chronology of St Jerome is ailing.

In Patristics, man need to be created not just any Friday, but Friday 25 of March, or as Roman Calendars was not used, at a point of the year astronomically corresponding to it.

I think I have a solution - very tentative, since involving material which at least scrupulous minds would consider heterodox.

It involves, on the one hand a canonicity or quasi-such at least being possible of Book of Henoch and on the other hand also a somewhat rotating Earth - after the Flood. But first of all, the Sunday letter paradigm : it only applies if years are not even multiples of seven days. With a year of 364 days, all years have the same Sunday letter.

This brings us to the book of Henoch. According to it, not just is it so that the Sun moves around its circuit up and down in 364 days, but also it is said that this will always be so.

This cannot be true (and book of Henoch cannot therefore be canonic) if the Sun has slowed down its orbit around the Zodiak (not mentioned in Book of Henoch, as I recall it, but implicit, probably). But it could still be true if since then Earth has started to move slightly eastward, so that 364 pre-Flood days now come out as 365.2425 sth post-Flood days, each day now about 5 pre-Flood minutes shorter than the pre-Flood day, which disrupts our circadian rythm and helped to shorten human lives just after the Flood.

So, if all pre-Flood years up to or including Year of Flood (2242 Anno Mundi to both St Jerome and Syncellus) were same Sunday letter, that would mean we find the Sunday letter of 2242 AM or possibly 2241 AM and we project it back to all previous years.

We are, as we know, now a A after a leap year CB, and we also know the periodicity of Gregorian calendar in short terms not crossing centurial years without leap years is 28, but in somewhat longer terms is 400 years. Now, the Flood was in 2957 BC, which makes us 4973 Anno Diluvii.

2016 cb
2957
4973 cb
4000
0973 cb
0800
0173 cb
0056
0117 cb
0116 d
0115 e
0114 f
0113 g !		113 ag
0112 a		112 b
0111 b		111 c
0110 c		110 d
0109 d !	109 ed	109 fe
0108 e	108 f	108 g
0084	084	084
0024 e	024 f	024 g
0023 f	023 g	023 a
0022 g	022 a	022 b
0021 ba	021 cb	021 dc
0020 c	020 d	020 e
0019 d	019 e	019 f
0018 e	018f	018 g
0017 gf	017 ag	017 ba
0016 a	016 b	016 c
0015 b	015 c	015 d
0014 c	014 d	014 e
0013 ed	013 fe	013 gf
0012 f	012 g	012 a
0011 g	011 a	011 b
0010 a	010 b	010 c
0009 cb	009 dc	009 ed
0008 d	008 e	008 f
0007 e	007 f	007 g
0006 f	006 g	006 a
0005 ag	005 ba	005 cb
0004 b	004 c	004 d
0003 c	003 d	003 e
0002 d	002 e	002 f
0001 fe	001 gf	001 ag
2242 g	or a?	or b.
2241 a?	or b	(or c).

It depends on how many leap years you omit, two because of centurial year and the one accumulated day in 3200 years (see previous, on this one left column), or one, because of only one of them (mid column), or none (right column), considering the year was perhaps a bit longer in terms of days (or days a bit shorter) just after the Flood.

But let us now a bit discuss both the implications, theological and otherwise, of the solution I propose.

Book of Henoch is by St Augustine explicitly considered as possibly really from Henoch, but even so not canonical. Because there could have been some alteration during the very long transmission (if it was inspired by God, perhaps God knew how to preserve it even so?).



In other words, we cannot consider all Church Fathers consider Henoch Apocryphal in the normal sense of the word. One good item in favour of Henoch I came across through Trey Smith (he is known to be a huge fan of that book) is a passage resembling the Stabunt Iusti passage in Wisdom. It goes on to say that the people who are saying "nos stulti" or "hemeis nepioi" are in fact saved due to the prayers of those they had persecuted, which salvation is however after some punishment - an indication of purgatory. I don't think Luther and Calvin would have liked it, but no Catholic from St Gregory the Great to St Robert Bellarmine could object to that aspect!

The relevant passage in astronomical book as part of book of Henoch:

1 The book of the courses of the luminaries of the heaven, the relations of each, according to their classes, their dominion and their seasons, according to their names and places of origin, and according to their months, which Uriel, the holy angel, who was with me, who is their guide, showed me; and he showed me all their laws exactly as they are, and how it is with regard to all the years of the world 2 and unto eternity, till the new creation is accomplished which dureth till eternity.

So, if the rest of the passage shows Sun to be making a full circle of its variation in height in 364 das before the Flood, this means it must still be doing so, if Henoch is canonic.

This implies that a year taking in average a bit more than 365 days rather than 364 must be due to some rotation of Earth. And that in turn means that sth would have started to rotate the Earth about the time of the Flood:

• theologically it must not violate "non commovebitur in aeternum"; but comments by Heliocentrics considering there is a DAILY more then full rotation of Earth have shown a possibly orthodox way to get around that;
• theologically it must also not violate the conditions of Joshua's long day, but if Earth was budging in a movement which takes 295 pre-Flood days to complete a turn, the relative movement of Sun and Moon (due to Earth's real movement) would have been 1° 13 ' 13" in 24 hours (if I counted right) and this means the Sun and Moon would still be on the spots where Joshua wanted them to be. The difference in angle would not have mattered. The stillness in the orbits was there, and the stillness in appearances was only disrupted so slightly that very fine instruments could have detected it. And:
• theologically it must also not violate any possibly infallible decision against Galileo in 1616 or 1632 wherein Earth "also moving by a proper movement" is qualified as "at least erroneous". And then:
• physically such a rotation could be accounted for by an impact of a meteor, like the one in Yucatan, possibly;
• physically such a rotation, like the presumed daily rotation and yearly circuit, could be accounting for the wobbles.

But if this solution passes, we have what we were looking for a pre-Flood calendar in which all years were, at least for March, Sunday Letter B. And in which therefore also the year of Creation was so. And this with preserved integrity of the chronology of St Jerome, since the years had same length, it was only slightly longer days back then.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Day after Ascension
and in Pentecost Novena
26.V.2017

Pause Post

I am catching up with my reading of CMI articles. They are mostly good, some less interesting to me since far from my own concerns, but usually nearly never bad. When they are, I usually write an answer (I am behind two answers).

This article of theirs is from a nearly double countryman of mine, Carolus Linnaeus, ennobled Carl von Linné.

Carl Linnaeus: the scientist who saw evidence for God in everything in nature
by Russell Grigg
http://creation.com/carl-linnaeus

We are both Swedes. I just thought he could have been Scanian, and then he would have been doubly my canoutryman, since I am Scanian (that means Danish subjects up to 1658) on my maternal grandfather's side.

No, while he was a Lundensian student like me (sic, no, he was Uppsalensian! re-sic, no he was both in turns!), he was from Råshult, in Småland. The letter Å is pronounced like English "aw" or when short "o", and is used as alternative for "o" when etymology is an older A. That is a result of a vowel shift not quite identical to the English one.

So, his dad was a Lutheran "Komminister" while Catholic predecessors to him would have been termed Chaplains and usually have been celibate and not thus dads to anyone. He was a "priest" in the Lutheran sense, which is not recognised by the Catholic Church as valid.

Now, the Lutheran clergy (a term less tied to sacramental validity than "priest" so I will use it) usually had studied at university at a time when studies were conducted in Latin. They therefore took the Latin or Latinised version of certain names. The Wittenberg students culpable of our Reformation were in Swedish probably called Persson or Pettersson or Pedersson - which they latinised as Petri. The dad of our most famous botanist was slightly latinising sth as Linnaeus, I think his father had no clerical name. By the way, his mother's mother was Scanian, and even from the part of Scania where my family is originally from, the North-East.

When he was ennobled, Linnaeus was changed to von Linné - spelling of surname frenchified and adding a "von" like German nobility. Of course, his brother remained Linnaeus.

Clerical and nobility's surnames are usually older ones than the bourgeois or military names like Lundahl. The names in -son were back in these days not hereditary surnames but patronymics : his mother was born Anna Christina Samuelsdotter (patronymic still in feminine) Brodersonia (feminine version of her father's clerical name, Samuel Brodersonius, where everything in the Latin name is perfect Swedish except the ending).

Even Linnaeus itself is - except ending - perfect Swedish, since a more correct latinisation of same Swedish word came out as Tiliander. So, the spelling "lind" must have given Linnaeus rather than **Lindaeus because it was pronounced "linn" at the time (there are plenny of American dialects which have a simblar phenomenon).

Where was I going? Ah, yes. Lutherans tended during the "century of Orthodoxy" (1593 - 1718, a century plus some) to brag about being the "via media" between Catholicism and Calvinism. Linnaeus came in a time when Lutherans started to think less of theology and therefore loosen up certain things a bit.

While he is still a perfect example of Natural Theology, as in Creation reflects God, his generation in general (I cannot say quite certainly for himself) is one in which Revealed Theology is no longer requiring Orthodoxy, there is a certain latitude. One indeed in which it was at the end becoming more fashionable to be a Platonist sympathising with Catholicism than a perfectly Lutheran Lutheran. I am going a bit in advance, since Linnaeus died in 1778 and the fashion I speak of is that of P. D.A. Atterbom : sympathetic to Catholicism, but even more clearly a Platonist or Neoplatonist philosopher to whom thoughts mattered more than what was written in either Bible or let alone Konkordieformeln (the formula of Concord, a piece of Lutheran theology as derived after a quarrel between Martin Luther's disciples).

I think that the or one of the best chances to reconvert the Western world is to get back a bit to the language and thought modes of this period and to meet it with the thoughts of the 13th C. Scholastics, like St Albert or St Thomas Aquinas. To them also thoughts mattered - but not more than the Bible and Church Fathers.

Now, this means I consider this period as the time of birth of our own culture - of what is coherent in it. In English, no Englishman, Aussie or Kiwi would be the least ashamed of spelling words like Doctor Johnson did. But for some reason some Swedes are stuck in a few spelling reforms and have an American attitude about spelling : as if the fact that Webster recommended or a President endorsed a new spelling obliged people to change their ways. Such Swedes may tell you I am in Swedish showing signs of dyslexia (sth I can take with humour on a forum, not knowing how to spell is a charge Cohanim made against the Apostles!), or is put on or is a role play showing signs of mental breakdown, or means I imagine I am not really living now or things like that. In fact, my Swedish is probably more readable (at least since less dialectal) than that of Linné, when he wrote Swedish. And it reflects the spelling of my favourite authors, like Atterbom.

Can Carolus Linnaeus have contributed to the mess the world is in now? Well, he did use the word "species" and "genus" which in Latin Bibles is where you translate to "kind" in English in ways smaller than the probable created kinds. So, no problem for a botanist to see speciation occur, you just need a ccase of cross breeding or other polyploidy, and there you have it. But while cherries and plum trees may or may formerly have been able to cross breed, this is, if true, because they were the same kind of tree back in Eden. And as I read on in the article of Russell Grigg, I see he came to the same conclusion, or that Jonathan Sarfati did:

Also in the Latin (Vulgate) translation of the Bible, the Hebrew word for ‘kind’ (mîn) in Genesis 1:11, 12, 21, 24 & 25 was translated variously with the two Latin words species and genus (plural genera). The meanings of the Linnaean species and the biblical species diverged over time, which led to ambiguity. Jonathan Sarfati comments: “The Bible talks of fixity of kinds, which in the Latin translation became fixity of species, but then an unwarranted switch took place to fixity of Linnaean species.”

However, I am a little nonplussed at the beginning of same paragraph:

The idea of ‘fixity of species’ came from ancient writers like the Greek philosopher Aristotle.

I have elsewhere seen Aristotle blamed for being an Evolutionist, so I wonder at the sentence ... I'd like to know where it comes from!

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Joan the wife of Chusa*
24.V.2017

* Item beatae Joannae, uxoris Chusae, procuratoris Herodis, quam Lucas Evangelista commemorat.

What Sunday Letter was the Year of Creation? IV

What was the Sunday Letter for the Year of Creation?

Part I · Part II · Part III · Part IV · Part V

When we take Gregorian calendar backwards, we get another problem.

You see, it only exists since 1583 and we have not yet here on the blog figured out how its periodicity is.

It differs from that of Julian calendar, insofar as we are certain that some leap years are 8 years apart. Note this was not the case around 1600, since 1600 was a Gregorian leap year.

So, years previous to 1583 are here reconstructed, as they would have been.

1672 CB
0140
1532 CB
0028
1504 CB

Remember that 1904 also was CB?

2016 CB
0084
1932 CB
0028
1904 CB

And 1904 is of course exactly 400 years after 1504. This means that the periodicity is 400 years, precisely as for leap days in general. As we will see, there will be quirks when approaching beginning of time, but this hardly changes the general picture - or does it?

Byz. Lit.		Sync.		St. Jer.		Ussher
1672 CB		1672 CB		1672 CB		1672 CB
5508		5500		5199		4004
7180 CB		7172 CB		6871 CB		5676 CB
5600		-		6800		5600
1580 CB		7180 CB		0071 CB		0076 CB
1200		7172 CB		0056		0056
0380 CB		0008		0015 CB		0020 CB
0056		-		0014 D		0019 D
0324 CB		0092 CB		0013 E		0018 E
0040		0008		0012 F		0017 F
0284 CB		0084 CB		0011 AG		0016 AG
0056		0056		0010 B		0015 B
0228 CB		0028 CB		0009 C		0014 C
0040 !		"0000" CB		0008 D		0013 D
0188 CB				0007 FE		0012 FE
0056				0006 G		0011 G
0132 CB				0005 A		0010 A
0040 !				0004 B		0009 B
0092 CB				0003 DC		0008 DC
0084				0002 E		0007 E
0008 CB				0001 F		0006 F
0007 D						0005 G
0006 E						0004 BA
0005 F						0003 C
0004 AG						0002 D
0003 B						0001 E
0002 C
0001 D

But what if we just missed out on omitting a secular leap day?

Here are remakes of lower parts of tables:

(5508)		(5199)		(4004)
0008 B !		0007 E !		0004 A !
0007 C		0006 F		0003 B
0006 D		0005 G		0002 C
0005 E		0004 A		0001 D
0004 GF		0003 CB
0003 A		0002 D
0002 B		0001 E
0001 C

Should one omit more leap years than Gregorian postulates? Check this:

31556952 seconds mean Gregorian year
31556925 seconds mean tropical year
52-25=27

3200 is how many years it takes for the 27 seconds to add up to a day which would need to be retracted.

In over 7000 years, this has happened twice. Would the above missed centurial day count in these?

(5508)		(5199)		(4004)
0008 B !		0007 E !		0008 C !
0007 C		0006 F		0007 D
0006 D		0005 G		0006 E
0005 E		0004 A		0005 F
0004 F !		0003 B !		0004 G !
0003 G		0002 C		0003 A
0002 A		0001 D		0002 B
0001 B				0001 C

Or would it not count, so we need one omitted leap day more? Giving both for Syncellus, below:

(5508)		(5500)		(5199)		(4004)
0092 CB		1672 CB		0015 B !		0016 G !
0056		5500		0014 C		0015 A
0036 CB		7172 CB		0013 D		0014 B
0035 D		6800		0012 E		0013 C
0034 E		0372 CB		0011 F !		0012 D !
0033 F		0140		0010 G		0011 E
0032 G !		0232 CB		0009 A		0010 F
0031 A		0028		0008 B		0009 G
0030 B		0208 CB		0007 C !		0008 A !
0029 C		0012		0006 D		0007 B
0028 D !		0196 CB		0005 E		0006 C
0027 E		0084		0004 F		0005 D
0026 F		0112 CB		0003 AG		0004 FE
0025 G		0040		0002 B		0003 G
0024 A !		0072 CB		0001 C		0002 A
0023 B		0071 D				0001 B
0022 C		0070 E
0021 D		0069 F
0020 FE		0068 G !
0019 G		0067 A
0018 A		0066 B
0017 B		0065 C
0016 DC		0064 D !
0015 E		0056
0014 F		0008 ED
0013 G		0007 F
0012 BA		0006 G
0011 C		0005 A
0010 D		0004 CB
0009 E		0003 D
0008 GF		0002 E
0007 A		0001 F
0006 B		-
0005 C		0008 D !
0004 ED		0007 E
0003 F		0006 F
0002 G		0005 G
0001 A		0004 BA
		0003 C
		0002 D
		0001 E

We are seeing how St. Jerome's chronology is in some trouble, none of above versions will give a B for year 1, not even a CB (a CB for "0000" or "years zero" or "year before God created" would of course give an A for the year in which God created).

Can we get around this somehow? See next part.

Hans Georg Lundahl
ut supra
uel, sicut in bloggo legitur
ut infra.

What Sunday Letter was the Year of Creation? III

What was the Sunday Letter for the Year of Creation?

Part I · Part II · Part III · Part IV · Part V

So, we got back to 1672 for both Gregorian year with CB and Julian year with GF.

Now, going back to Creation is a bit delicate, in the sense that Gregorian years were introduced less than a C before 1672, and Julian years only half a century before AD.

And, I suspect I will in the following be missing a few things about transitional matters about leap years when going from counting Ab Urbe Condita to two versions of Anno Mundi (Byzantine and St Jerome) and from then on to AD.

But, let's pretend, for arguments sake, for a first approximation, that these transitions had not happened, that the series of leap years go straight back to AD 4 without any break in Julian and with the one break 1583 (later in some countries) for Gregorian.

What would the consequence be?

Another thing I will ignore is of course - for a better and systematic reason - that "365 days + 1 leap years every four years (except 3 secular years out of 4)" was never in any kind of calendar most of the time we are talking about.

Whether Church Fathers knew it or not, and I think some did, Adam would not literally have been calling the day of his Creation "March 25" or celebrating it literally on "March 25" of all subsequent years.

He certainly had a calendar, he certainly knew sufficient from God (or if making it after Eden, from the talents God gave him and observation) to have one. We know for a fact, since Flood story is an eye-witness account (unlike the Sumerian versions, where poet admits from the first lines he is writing about things happened very long ago), and since in that eye-witness account, years and months and dates on months are named.

But it is far more likely it was a Hebrew than a Roman one.

And St Jerome would certainly have known that when calculating Roman dates for this or that event (like Friday March 25 for Crucifixion, for Good Friday, for Our Salvation) he was dealing with sources who, themselves, had ultimately been using a Hebrew calendar. I am saying this lest anyone accuse me of contradicting all the Church Fathers by saying this without having explicitly found it in any one of them, yet.

That said, March 25 is an earthly convention, but in the best astronomically correct calendars, it corresponds to a rather precise alignment between Sun and Zodiac, different from other alignments like March 23 or March 27 (there is some leeway to neighbouring days, insofar as the cycle of alignments - known as years - and the cycle of day and night - known as successive calendar days have a glitch : a certain exact alignment may be a few hours into March 25 one year and a few hours back in March 24 next or previous year, depending on how this glitch works out).

And we will now proceed to studying the proleptic Julian and Gregorian calendars, from that point of view.

In the time of the Church Fathers, the Julian was thought to be astronomically exact, meaning, they would have used that one proleptically. This does not amount to an unanimous statement from all Church Fathers that Julian calendar is in fact astronomically perfect and cannot be improved, as Gregorian was an imrovement of it.

Now, shall we begin our studies of proleptic calendars, using the Anno Mundi dates as per two Byzantine, one Roman, one Anglican (but used by Catholics) and one Jewish chronology?

We begin with Julian Calendar, as this one will give us cycle repeat every 28 years.

For Jewish 5777, we will for Julian have to check what date was the first Sunday which in Julian calendar fell on this year. Remember that any letter will be the same for the 1, 8, 15 of each month? This means Sundays in our January were 1, 8, 15. But our January 14 = Russian January 1. So, Julian Dominical letter for this year is B.

Byz Lit		Sync.		St. Jer.		Ussh.		Jew.
1672 GF		1672 GF		1672 GF		1672 GF		5777 B
5508		5500		5199		4004		5600
7180 GF		7172 GF		6871 GF		5676 GF		0177 B
5600		-		5600		5600		0140
1580 GF		7180 GF		1271 GF		0076 GF		0037 B
1400		7172 GF		0560		0056		0036 DC
0180 GF		0008		0711 GF		0020 GF		0028
0140		-		0560		0019 A		0008 DC
0040 GF		0009 C		0151 GF		0018 B		0007 E
0028		0008		0140		0017 C		0006 F
0012 GF		0001 C		0011 GF		0016 ED		0005 G
0011 A				0010 A		0015 F		0004 BA
0010 B				0009 B		0014 G		0003 C
0009 C				0008 C		0013 A		0002 D
0008 ED				0007 ED		0012 CB		0001 E
0007 F				0006 F		0011 D
0006 G				0005 G		0010 E
0005 A				0004 A		0009 F
0004 CB				0003 CB		0008 AG
0003 D				0002 D		0007 B
0002 E				0001 E		0006 C
0001 F						0005 D
						0004 FE
						0003 G
						0002 A
						0001 B !

In the Julian Calendar, thus, the Palm goes to the Ussher chronology.

We'll be back later (yes, tables take time) with Gregorian and a few other considerations. For now, man created March 25 on a Friday implies March 25 fell on a Friday, which as previously seen implies Dominical Letter B. In Julian calendar projected back to Creation, it is Ussher who takes the palm of accuracy.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St. Rita of Cascia
22.V.2017