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

Neanderthals - Related to Michael Oard's and Anne Habermehl's Work (post-Flood Boundary and Babel Builders)

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!)

On today's article, Michael Oard enumerates three schools about Flood / post-Flood boundary. I am citing a minimum to show what they have in common:

• "The first believes that the Flood/post-Flood boundary is generally in the late Paleozoic"
  
  
• "The second school of thought believes the Flood/post-Flood boundary is near the Cretaceous/Tertiary (K/T) boundary."
  
  
• "The third school of thought believes the Flood/post-Flood boundary is near the end of the Cenozoic."

All of above seem to say a "defined Geologic period" is either from the Flood or from post-Flood, anywhere on earth. That Cretaceous and Jurassic could be a biotope type which was recreated after the Flood too doesn't occur to him. Or biotope types which were. To me a Hadrosaurus date by Armitage suggests that.

CMI : Defining the Flood/post-Flood boundary in sedimentary rocks
by Michael J. Oard
https://creation.com/defining-the-flood-post-flood-boundary-in-sedimentary-rocks

Of course, some geologic layers, like "recent humus soil" on top of all rocks and clay, are automatically post-Flood. No one would dispute that.

I would add some back onto that list : Younger Dryas is Post-Flood, since just before Babel, if my theory of Babel = Göbekli Tepe is correct.

Upper Palaeolithic in archaeology - or the parts carbon dated to after carbon date of last fully Neanderthal skeleton in Europe - is post-Flood. I take this to be 40 000 YA, but some have argued that Neanderthals "could have survived to 28 000 BP", which I think is based on charcoals in a cave in Gibraltar, the charcoals being from 28 000 YA, the cave including previous Neanderthal occupation.

Gibraltar 1 skull - undated.
Gibraltar 2 skull - dated to "between 30 000 and 50 000 BP"

"The original find was done in a time where the palaeontological dating was still in its infancy, and no stratigraphic information was supplied with the skull, making dating at best guesswork. Another specimen from a different locale on Gibraltar (Gibraltar 2) has however been dated to between 30 thousand to 50 thousand years old."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibraltar_1

Giving reference 4:

Smith, T. M.; Tafforeau, P.; Reid, D. J.; Pouech, J.; Lazzari, V.; Zermeno, J. P.; Guatelli-Steinberg, D.; Olejniczak, A. J.; Hoffman, A.; Radovcic, J.; Makaremi, M.; Toussaint, M.; Stringer, C.; Hublin, J.-J. (15 November 2010). "Dental evidence for ontogenetic differences between modern humans and Neanderthals". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 107 (49): 20923–20928. doi:10.1073/pnas.1010906107. PMC 3000267 Freely accessible. PMID 21078988.

Not finding the reference for Gibraltar 1 / Gibraltar 2.

The reason is excellent. I had used a wikipedian article in another shape than the present one.

Here is from my article:

Creation vs. Evolution : Neanderthal Pre-or Post-Flood?
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2017/02/neanderthal-pre-or-post-flood.html

Common name

Gibraltar Woman

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibraltar_1

Species

Homo(sapien) neanderthalensis

Age

30,000 to 40,000 years

Place discovered

Forbes' Quarry, Gibraltar

Date discovered

1848

Discovered by

Edmund Flint

Now, same article on wiki has age as "unknown". Revision as of 01:49, 8 November 2016 - it was there. Revision as of 18:54, 28 April 2017 - it goes, replaced by "unknown", courtesy of wikipedian user Nicolas Perrault III.

Now, anyway, my point is, if her skeleton was in terms of carbon dates so much older than the charcoal at Gorham Cave, then she could be pre-Flood, the charcoal early post-Flood (of same cave).

Apart from charcoal at Gorham cave, I don't know anything which would put Neanderthals as recent, in carbon terms, as 28 000 BP.

I suppose all cave paintings to be post-Flood, not from a creationist karstological view point that caves "perhaps only formed during and after Flood", but more in terms of water of the Flood would have washed away or severely smudged the colours.

In Neanderthal caves we don't find paintings, we have found a hashtag. In Cro Magnon caves, we do find paintings ... meaning, on my view, Cro Magnon is the race which came out of the Ark.

This detail about Neanderthals will also be relavant to a point about Habermehl's theory of the "ziggurat of Babel".

AiG : Where in the World Is the Tower of Babel?
by Anne Habermehl on March 23, 2011
https://answersingenesis.org/tower-of-babel/where-in-the-world-is-the-tower-of-babel/

I am nearly totally agreed with her on the geographic sites:

Agreed

and I am relying on her effort:

36°50′24″N 40°4′7″E

Calneh (Tell Fekheriye)

37°3′29″N 40°53′44″E

Erech (Tell Aqab)

36°40′03.42″N 41°03′31.12″E

Akkad (Tell Brak)

Disgreed

37°13′23″N 38°55′21″E

Babel - HGL (Göbekli Tepe)

36.5117°N 40.7422°E - 36°51′01″N 40°04′14″E

Babel - Habermehl (Khabur triangle)

I am disagreeing with her on other topics, and this shows in her rejection of Göbekli Tepe as Babel:

"It is widely believed that the Tower of Babel was a ziggurat, also called a stepped pyramid; a quick search on the internet will bring up any number of sites that state this (for example, Livingstone 2008). There is good reason to believe this, because the many ziggurats that are known around the world20 clearly point back to a time when there was an original ziggurat, the knowledge of which traveled with people as they spread out to populate the earth. For creationists, who believe the Bible story in Genesis 11 literally, this original ziggurat has to be the Tower of Babel."

Not necessarily. To Babel in Shinar one came from the East. And there seems to be a ziggurat carbon dated in parts to 20 000 BC (pre-Babel on my view) very far indeed in the East - if Graham Hancock is right about Gunang Padang. Here is my reference between Josephus / Comestor and Gunang Padang:

Now, let's reason a bit about this. Ethann, Helioschora ... could it be Gunung Padang?

• 1) It is clearly further East than Göbekli Tepe;
• 2) If Younger Dryas involved some gigantic Floods (though inferior to Flood of Noah), this would explain the shyness of getting onto a plain (and would explain a preference for a plain where it is fairly high, like GT, now 760 meters above sea level, over a lower plain, like 34 m (100 feet) above present sea level;
• 3) Gunung Padang flourished (or started to get built) 20 000 BP, 18 000 BC, carbon dates, if Hancock is right about drill holes. This would be before Younger Dryas - and Younger Dryas is very evocative of "But they were so ill instructed that they did not obey God; for which reason they fell into calamities, and were made sensible, by experience, of what sin they had been guilty:"

My article:

Creation vs. Evolution : Is Graham Hancock Right on Göbekli Tepe? Part 4
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.fr/2017/07/is-graham-hancock-right-on-gobekli-tepe_18.html

Referring to a Hancock interview here:

Ancient Extinction Revealed: Atlantis, Göbekli Tepe & Mysteries of the Gods with Graham Hancock
TheLipTV2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62EkJlZE3jY

I therefore submit, earliest ziggurat was not Babel, but before it, in the east.

"We also do not know how many able-bodied men were available to do the building work; estimates of the total population at the time of the dispersion have varied greatly, from under a thousand (Morris 1966) to 65,000 (Tower of Babel 2010), to name two. Whatever the number was, this author takes the view that the long-lived people at Babel were Neanderthals, and thus known to be physically very strong (Cuozzo 1998; Habermehl 2010; Trinkaus 1978); they would have been able to do much harder physical work than humans today."

I disagree with Habermehl on this one.

Neanderthals are not long lived post-Flood men, they are another pre-Flood race. On the Ark, no full Neanderthal was on board, but one daughter in law of Noah (at least) would have been half Neanderthal, or less. This is why no strict Neanderthal race survives today, but some races have more Neanderthal traits than others.

That is why I set Flood / Post-Flood limit in carbon dates as last carbon date of a Neanderthal skeleton. As said above, in connection with Michael Oard.

"According to Genesis 11:3, the Tower was built of “burnt” brick—that is, kiln-baked brick. This is a very durable material, and because of this, remnants of the Tower may well have survived the ages."

You know, I heard some rocket engineers at NASA are using basically same material = ceramics = burnt brick as shields for heat or against radiation.

This obviously has to do with what I think the tower was (or was meant to be, not claiming it would have been functional) : a three step rocket at takeoff looks like a tower and only the top section actually makes it to deep space.

Also, technically, the text does not say that both tower or city or either of them was burnt brick, just that they had invented the technique.

"Remote Sensing: What Are the Chances That We Will Ever Find the Tower and City of Babel?"

Göbekli Tepe : city found, three step rocket not yet found. Perhaps not even left in place.

You see, the narration says they ceased to build on the city.

This is arguably true for Göbekli Tepe, it was even covered in sand, deliberately.

It does not say they ceased to build on the Tower. If it was a rocket prototype, one of the groups would have been able to take it away. I suppose to China, where I suppose gunpowder was invented to replace Uranium as Nimrod's planned (and very ill planned, fortunately not tried) rocket fuel. Meaning China in one way continued to build the "tower" - each Chinese forework rocket being a miniature of it. Others in other ways, like ziggurats (recall the Gunang Padang one?) and stone circles (Stonehenge and a few more).

Since it is a few months back at least that I argued about Nimrod was probably going to use Uranium as rocket fuel, and that is part of why God "stopped the Babel building," (not totally, but the immediate concerted effort, delaying millennia to Cape Canaveral and Bajkonur, so a safer fuel was discovered, H2+O2), Nimrod would have known Uranium from the probably pre-Flood times described in Mahabharata : part of the Ghita resembles an atomic exposion and was cited by Oppenheimer, and other parts reflect radioactive contamination properties). For those who consider Mahabharata matters as post-Flood, Nimrod would have known Uranium at first hand, and have been even more stupid to want to try it. I consider he knew it from hearsay (a bit less reflected than that in the later poem Mahabharata) and that the ice age as part goal from God's side, was to prevent Nimrod's getting Uranium from Canada.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Octave of the Immaculate
Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary
15.XII.2017

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

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.

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

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.

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

This Morning I Read it's 77 and 68 Years of Radiocarbon

77 years, on the day, since Carbon 14 was discovered in 1940, and about 68 years since in 1949 the first radiocarbon actual datings were done. These then within Egyptology.

Carbon-14 was discovered on 27 February 1940, by Martin Kamen and Sam Ruben at the University of California Radiation Laboratory in Berkeley, California. Its existence had been suggested by Franz Kurie in 1934.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-14

Citing:

Kamen, Martin D. (1963). "Early History of Carbon-14: Discovery of this supremely important tracer was expected in the physical sense but not in the chemical sense". Science. 140 (3567): 584–590.

Early History of Carbon-14
Science 10 May 1963:
Vol. 140, Issue 3567, pp. 584-590
DOI: 10.1126/science.140.3567.584
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/140/3567/584

Libby and James Arnold proceeded to test the radiocarbon dating theory by analyzing samples with known ages. For example, two samples taken from the tombs of two Egyptian kings, Zoser and Sneferu, independently dated to 2625 BC plus or minus 75 years, were dated by radiocarbon measurement to an average of 2800 BC plus or minus 250 years. These results were published in Science in 1949.[8][9] Within 11 years of their announcement, more than 20 radiocarbon dating laboratories had been set up worldwide.

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

Arnold, J.R.; Libby, W.F. (1949). "Age determinations by radiocarbon content: checks with samples of known age". Science. 110 (2869): 678–680.
[dead link? hbar.phys.msu.ru/gorm/fomenko/libby.htm ]

Aitken (1990), pp. 60–61.

"The method". www.c14dating.com. Retrieved 2016-10-09.
http://www.c14dating.com/int.html

If Djoser had been dated by Cambridge halflife to 2800 BC in 1950, the remaining C-14 would have been 56.293 %. A full Cambridge half life is however further back.

However, as usual, this presumes that the C-14 content back then was c. 100% of the present value.

Also, the Libby date is off, so instead of 4750 years, 4892,5 years. 4892 years gives a content of 55.334 %.

Why is this important?

Well, Djoser, as well as Neferkasokar seem to be Joseph's pharao.

Look what I found on Famine Stela (which by the way as physical object is far later):

The Famine Stela is an inscription written in hieroglyphs located on Sehel Island in the Nile near Aswan in Egypt, which speaks of a seven-year period of drought and famine during the reign of the 3rd dynasty king Djoser. It is thought that the stela was inscribed during the Ptolemaic dynasty, which ruled 332–31 BC.

...

The story told on the stela is set in the 18th year of the reign of king Djoser. The text describes how the king is upset and worried, as the land of Egypt has been in the grip of a drought and famine for seven years, during which time the Nile has not flooded the farm lands. The text also describes how the Egyptian people are suffering as a result of the drought and that they are desperate and breaking the laws of the land. Djoser asks the priest staff under the supervision of high lector priest Imhotep for help. The king wants to know where Hapy (a river deity directly identified with the Nile) is born and which god resides at this place.

Imhotep decides to investigate the archives of the temple Hut-Ibety (“House of the nets”), located at Hermopolis and dedicated to the god Thoth.

...

At the time of first translating the stela, it was thought that the story of a seven-year-famine was connected to the biblical story in Genesis 41, where also a famine of seven years occurs. But more recent investigations have showed that a seven-year famine was a myth common to nearly all cultures of the Near East. A Mesopotamian legend also speaks of a seven-year-famine and in the well known Gilgamesh-Epos the god Anu gives a prophecy about a famine for seven years. A further Egyptian tale beside the Famine Stela about a long-lasting drought appears in the so-called “Book of the Temple”, translated by German Demotist Joachim Friedrich Quack. The ancient text reports about king Neferkasokar (late 2nd dynasty), who faces a seven-year-famine during his reign.

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

Neferkasokar (Ancient Egyptian Nefer-Ka-Seker; which means “beautiful soul of Sokar” or “the soul of Sokar is complete”) is the name of an Ancient Egyptian king (pharaoh) who may have ruled in Egypt during the 2nd dynasty. Very little is known about him, since no contemporary records about him have been found. Rather his name has been found in later sources.

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

So, we cannot carbon date Neferkasokar differently than Djoser, we can rather assume he is a double of Djoser.

And of course, the seven year famine happened, and while Gilgamesh can't be dated as a person by it, the writing of the Gilgamesh poem could be in the time of Joseph or later.

Thus, assuming the c-14 measure Libby found was 55.334 % of present carbon 14 or 55.334 pmc (percent modern carbon), we can by conferring what date Joseph's famine was determine sth more on radiocarbon.

Abraham was born in 2015 BC, which is later than Djoser dates too, but Djoser ruled later than Abraham, in the time of Joseph.

Note : very many pharaos have not been carbon dated as to their coffin.

Note also, Imhotep may be a Pagan rationalisation of Joseph. Precisely as the Christians in Legio whatever the number Fulminatrix were rationalised into an Egyptian Magician, so as to not disturb the Paganism and persecution of Christians prevailing under Marcus Aurelius.

The location of Imhotep's self-constructed tomb was well hidden from the beginning and it remains unknown, despite efforts to find it.

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

So we cannot check "Imhotep" was buried as a Pagan. Was Joseph then by Pagans elevated to a false godhood? Very probable. Unless Joseph was Imhotep's apparently companion Hordadaf.

Djedefhor or Hordjedef was an ancient Egyptian prince of the 4th dynasty. His name means "Enduring Like Horus". ... Djedefhor was a son of Pharaoh Khufu and half-brother of pharaohs Djedefre and Khafre.

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

Or perhaps not. Djedefhor or Hordjedef was perhaps later, and Hordjedef could have been named in a fashion of names in -ef coming after Joseph.

Or Djedef (as such, without the Horus reference) could even be how Egyptians pronounced Joseph.

Haydock comment, using Ussher's chronology, has in Genesis 41 : 1: Year of the World 2289, Year before Christ 1715. 54: Year of the World 2296, Year before Christ 1708.

This shall be compared to Vocation of Abraham, Genesis 12:10: Year of the World 2084, Year before Christ 1920. (So, Ussher is 20 years off for birth of Abraham).

1995
1708
0287

2015
0287
1728

This means that carbon dated 2800 BC = 1728 or rather less, later, BC.

We can get a little closer even. Supposing Djoser was still ruling when Jacob blessed his sons in Genesis 49, this was in 32: Year of the World 2315, Year before Christ 1689.

1995
1689
0306

2015
0306
1709

Carbon dated 2800 = 1709.

2800 C-14 year
1709 real year
1091 excess age due to lower carbon content.

The carbon content in Joseph's time when Jacob died was therefore about 87.636 pmc.

So, the content noted in a previous post, of 90.86 pmc was too high.

Let's redo the table a bit.

Mid pt. 1928 BC

83.689 % + 1472 years, 3400 BC

XIII 1883 BC

84.882 %

XIV 1794 BC

89.378 %

XV 1704 BC

90.86 %, + 790 years, 2494 BC

87.636 %, + 1091 years, 2800 BC

XVI 1614 BC

93.634 %

XVII 1525 BC

94.553 %

XVIII 1436 BC

96.269 %

XIX 1346 BC

96.839 %

XX 1256 BC

97.895 %

XXI 1167 BC

98.245 %

XXII 1078 BC

98.905 %

XXIII 988 BC

99.125 %

XXIV 898 BC

99.52 %

XXV 809 BC

99.652 %

XXVI 720 BC

99.872 %

XXVII 630 BC

100.004 %, 0 years ±. 630 BC

Mid pt. 1928 BC

83.689 % + 1472 years, 3400 BC

XIII 1883 BC

84.882 %

XIV 1794 BC

89.378 %

XV 1704 BC

90.86 %, + 790 years, 2494 BC

87.636 %, + 1091 years, 2800 BC

90.86-83.689 = 7.171 %
87.636-83.689 = 3.947 %

XIII 84.882-83.689 = 1.193
1.193 / 7.171 = 0.1663645237763213
0.1663645237763213*3.947 = 0.6566407753451401711
0.6566407753451401711+83.689=84.3456407753451401711
84.35 %, + 1400 years, 3283 BC

XIV 89.378-83.689 = 5.689 %
5.689 / 7.171 = 0.7933342630037652
0.7933342630037652*3.947 = 3.1312903360758612444
3.1312903360758612444+83.689= 86.8202903360758612444
86.82 %, + 1150 years, 2944 BC

Mid pt. 1928 BC

83.689 % + 1472 years, 3400 BC

XIII 1883 BC

84.35 %, + 1400 years, 3283 BC

XIV 1794 BC

86.82 %, + 1150 years, 2944 BC

XV 1704 BC

87.636 %, + 1091 years, 2800 BC

What about what comes after?

XV 1704 BC

100-90.86 % = 9.14 %

100-87.636 % = 12.364 %

12.364 / 9.14 = 1.3527352297592998

XVI 1614 BC

100-93.634 % = 6.366 %

6.366*1.3527352297592998 = 8.612

100-8.612 = 91.388 %, + 740 years, 2354 BC

XVII 1525 BC

100-94.553 % = 5.447 %

1.3527352297592998*5.447 = 7.3683487964989060106

100-7.368 = 92.632 %, + 630 years, 2155 BC

XVIII 1436 BC

100-96.269 % = 3.731 %

1.3527352297592998*3.731 = 5.0470551422319475538

100-5.047 = 94.953 %, + 430 years, 1866 BC

XIX 1346 BC

100-96.839 % = 3.161 %

1.3527352297592998*3.161 = 4.275996 ... %

100-4.276 = 95.724 %, + 360 years, 1706 BC

XX 1256 BC

100-97.895 % = 2.105 %

1.3527352297592998*2.105 = 2.847507658643326079

100-2.848 = 97.152 %, + 240 years, 1496 BC

XXI 1167 BC

100-98.245 % = 1.755 %

1.3527352297592998*1.755 = 2.374050328227571149

100-2.374 = 97.626 %, + 200 years, 1367 BC

XXII 1078 BC

100-98.905 % = 1.095 %

1.3527352297592998*1.095 = 1.481245076586433281

100-1.481 = 98.519 %, + 120 years, 1198 BC

XXIII 988 BC

100-99.125 % = 0.875 %

1.3527352297592998*0.875 = 1.183643326039387325

100-1.184 = 98.816 %, + 100 years, 1088 BC

XXIV 898 BC

100-99.52 % = 0.48 %

1.3527352297592998*0.48 = 0.649312910284463904

100-0.649 = 99.351 %, + 50 years, 948 BC

XXV 809 BC

100-99.652 % = 0.348 %

1.3527352297592998*0.348 = 0.4707518599562363304

100-0.471 = 99.529 %, + 40 years, 849 BC

XXVI 720 BC

100-99.872 % = 0.128 %

1.3527352297592998*0.128 = 0.1731501094091903744

100-0.173 = 99.827 %, + 10 years, 730

XXVII 630 BC

100-100.004 % = "-0.004 %"

1.3527352297592998*-0.004 = -0.0054109409190371992

100-(-0.005) = 100.005 %, 0 years ±. 630 BC

And cleaning up:

Mid pt. 1928 BC

83.689 % + 1472 years, 3400 BC

XIII 1883 BC

84.35 %, + 1400 years, 3283 BC

XIV 1794 BC

86.82 %, + 1150 years, 2944 BC

XV 1704 BC

87.636 %, + 1091 years, 2800 BC

XVI 1614 BC

91.388 %, + 740 years, 2354 BC

XVII 1525 BC

92.632 %, + 630 years, 2155 BC

XVIII 1436 BC

94.953 %, + 430 years, 1866 BC

XIX 1346 BC

95.724 %, + 360 years, 1706 BC

XX 1256 BC

97.152 %, + 240 years, 1496 BC

XXI 1167 BC

97.626 %, + 200 years, 1367 BC

XXII 1078 BC

98.519 %, + 120 years, 1198 BC

XXIII 988 BC

98.816 %, + 100 years, 1088 BC

XXIV 898 BC

99.351 %, + 50 years, 948 BC

XXV 809 BC

99.529 %, + 40 years, 849 BC

XXVI 720 BC

99.827 %, + 10 years, 730

XXVII 630 BC

100.005 %, 0 years ±. 630 BC

That would perhaps do for today.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Gabriel of Our Lady of Sorrows
27.II.2017

PS, forgot som credits due to myself and others.

• For table :
  
  Creation vs. Evolution : If Göbekli Tepe is Tower of Babel ...
  http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2017/02/if-gobekli-tepe-is-tower-of-babel.html
  
  
• For idea about Legio Fulminatrix :
  
  somewhere else : History vs Hume
  http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.com/2013/01/history-vs-hume.html
  
  
• AND for calculations, both mathematical and carbonic:
  
  http://web2.0calc.com/
  
  https://www.math.upenn.edu/~deturck/m170/c14/carbdate.html
  Short link : http://ppt.li/3m8

PPS, 19.XI.2018 I discovered that Habermehl had suggested Joseph as Imhotep one month before I wrote this. Belated credits. Also, the ppt.li shortlinks are down, new shortlink to carbon calculator is tiny.cc/usk8wy/HGL

PPPS - it's while editing this post that I discovered my oversight. With Habermehl 2017, II

Is there an Urban Legend that Grendel and His Mother were Dinosaurs Among Creationists?

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!)

I recall some years ago a Kent Hovind theory in which Kent Hovind seemed to take not just the final monster, the wyrm, a dragon with wings, or the monsters on the swimming tour of Kattegatt, the nicor, but also Grendel and his mother for reptiles.

I now saw an article* on CMI, where Russell Grigg is enumerating all monsters in Beowulf, presumably including Grendel, in dinosaur kinds:

The epic Anglo-Saxon poem Beowulf tells how Beowulf (c. AD 495–583) of Scandinavia killed a monster named Grendel, and its supposed mother, as well as several sea-reptiles,11 but eventually lost his life at the age of 88 in the process of killing a flying reptile. The Saxon description of this creature fits that of a giant Pteranodon—it was ‘fifty feet in length (or possibly wingspan)’. The monster called Grendel, which Beowulf killed many years previously, is described as follows. He was apparently a youngster (having been known for only 12 years), man-like in stance (i.e. bipedal), and he had two small forelimbs that the Saxons call eorms (arms), one of which Beowulf tore off. He was a muthbona—one who slew with his mouth or jaws—and his skin was impervious to swordblows.

The sea-reptiles, nicor, on the swim over Kattegatt, OK. The final dragon being a pteranodon (or perhaps the poet mixing tradtitions between pteranodontes and dimetrodontes, the sail of the latter could be taken from a distance as a wing), OK.

But when Russell Grigg says Grendel's forelimbs were just called eorms, it looks as if he thought they were not arms.

That Neanderthals belong to the human kind is obviously true. But whether they do so as true and full men or more like monstruous Nephelim is another matter.

Now, the description of Grendel is the description of a "post-Flood nephelim". The poet explicitly calls him "Caines cynne" - kinsman of Cain.

Here are two interpretations of Neanderthals:

UNiesert - Eigenes Werk, Neues Model eines Neandertalers (Mann und Frau) im Neanderthal-Museum, Mettmann, Deutschland, CC BY-SA 3.0 File:Neandertala homo, modelo en Neand-muzeo.JPG Erstellt: 8. April 2009		Copyright: themandus.org ***

The one to the right may or may not be correct about the Neanderthal fossils, but it is certainly fairly much what Grendel is described as.

It is from the site Them+Us**. The text under the picture is With their more robust skeletons and heavier musculature, it’s estimated Neanderthals were six times stronger than humans. Other texts are : An illustration (above) from ‘Them and Us’ reveals that the the skull of a Neanderthal fits perfectly into the profile of a chimpanzee, suggesting the appearance of Neanderthals (at least in profile) more closely resembled non-human primates than a modern humans. And : Vendramini demonstrates that the optical orbits (eye sockets) of Neanderthals were considerably larger than humans. He theorizes Neanderthals evolved these extra large eyes because, like most mammalian predators, they were nocturnal hunters.

Nocturnal hunters? Fits Grendel and his mother perfectly.

Now, look at this:

If you’re disturbed by these images, there’s a good reason for it. Like other prey species, humans have an innate capacity to recognize our natural predator. What Neanderthals ‘felt’ like is hardwired into our genes. Neanderthal predation was so traumatic that even 28,000 years after the last Neanderthal disappeared, they can still push our buttons.

Sounds very much like descriptions of the pre-Flood world and like the indication there may have been a kind of "return of the Nephilim" after the Flood in the verse Genesis 6:4.

KJV : There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

DRBO differs : Now giants were upon the earth in those days. For after the sons of God went in to the daughters of men, and they brought forth children, these are the mighty men of old, men of renown.

Probably "and also after that" and "for after" translate the same Hebrew phrase. It is the former translation which indicates a possible return of nephelim after the Flood.

Now, Neanderthals probably had language, they do have the human version of the FOXP2 gene. They had tools. They were not simply animals. But they can have been monstruous perversions of mankind.

And, as said, by Rob Skiba, if giants returned after the Flood, one explanation is, while Noah and his wife were pure human, not perverted by nephelim, not all of his daughters in law were genetically untainted by them.

Danny Vendramini might possibly agree that tales of trolls could be related to experience of Neanderthals (if his reconstruction is correct), and if so, I would be disagreeing with him (with the reservation mentioned) only about the time scale. 28 000 years ago is not a valid date - it is derived from false interpretations of carbon 14 levels, as if derived from original levels in samples being close to 100 percent modern carbon.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Feast of the Immaculate Conception
of the Blessed Virgin Mary
8.XII.2017

* Dinosaurs and dragons: stamping on the legends
by Russell Grigg
https://creation.com/dinosaurs-and-dragons-stamping-on-the-legends

** THEM+US: DANNY VENDRAMINI : The real Neanderthals
What neanderthals really looked like
http://themandus.org/gallery/

*** I will have to ask the webmaster on whether the fact of including the image here makes an exception to my own terms of reuse or not. If you try, at least do not use it on the front cover or back cover, that is explicitly excluded.

"what biblical, young earth creationists have always maintained"

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!)

Perhaps Kent Hovind too ... now, here* is the quote:

More and more every year, researchers are inadvertently proving what biblical, young earth creationists have always maintained: that Neandertals are an extinct group of people that lived shortly after Noah’s flood and the Tower of Babel incident and eventually died out.

I definitely agree that they were a group of people. Fred Butler on CMI* cites:

Archaeological evidence now suggests they were capable of symbolic thought, had a basic knowledge of chemistry, medicine and cooking, and perhaps some capacity for speech.**

When they are supposed to have been a distinct such is another matter.

That some dating methods not by carbon spell out the underground circles to have been 175,000 BP has no bearing, K-Ar dating is useless; or if it was dating by length of stalagmites and stalactites. But when carbon dates for Neanderthals are consistently c. 40,000 BP or older, and when CMI has more than once pointed out that carbon dates like "50,000 to 20,000" or "45,000 to 35,000" BP are likely to be Flood date, I think that Neanderthals being a pre-Flood race is at least a distinct option.

As to Cro-Magnon population of Europe, it is genetically identical to the modern European one, so it must be post-Flood (it is especially close to what a century ago anthropologists would have called Nordic and Westic race types of Europe). But post-Babel?

That would depend on how long it was between Flood and dispersion of nations after Babel.

In Masoretic and King James one would be stuck with Babel c. 101 after Flood, at birth of Peleg according to those genealogies.

Vulgate agrees with Masoretic here, and is the basis for Douay Rheims, which is probably why Father Haydock choose Ussher's chronology to accompany the DR text in the commented Bible of 1859. However, Roman Martyrology disagrees with Vulgate, using LXX filtered by Sextus Africanus, possibly, and by St Jerome.

Now, here is DR:

Genesis 11:[10] These are the generations of Sem: Sem was a hundred years old when he begot Arphaxad, two years after the flood.

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

[16] And Heber lived thirty-four years, and begot Phaleg.

Flood
Arphaxad + 2
Sale + 35
Heber + 30
Phaleg + 34

Phaleg or Peleg born 2, 37, 67, 101 years after Flood. Most would even say he got his name after the final dispersion, and so the Tower of Babel project would have been going on a bit before his birth in 101 after Flood, when God would have ended it.

To squeeze in all of Upper Palaeolithic into the 101 years between Flood and Babel would be impossible. To put it before Flood is impossible due to Cro-Magnon genetics. So, Upper Palaeolithic or at least some of it comes "after Babel". And of course, some would add Mid or Lower Palaeolithic, with Neanderthals for good measure.

Well, let's look at that theory a bit.

Genesis 11: [17] And Heber lived after he begot Phaleg, four hundred and thirty years: and begot sons and daughters. [18] Phaleg also lived thirty years, and begot Reu. [19] And Phaleg lived after he begot Reu, two hundred and nine years, and begot sons and daughters. [20] And Reu lived thirty-two years, and begot Sarug.

[21] And Reu lived after he begot Sarug, two hundred and seven years, and begot sons and daughters. [22] And Sarug lived thirty years, and begot Nachor. [23] And Sarug lived after he begot Nachor, two hundred years: and begot sons and daughters. [24] And Nachor lived nine and twenty years, and begot Thare. [25] And Nachor lived after he begot Thare, a hundred and nineteen years: and begot sons and daughters.

[26] And Thare lived seventy years, and begot Abram, and Nachor, and Aran. [27] And these are the generations of Thare: Thare begot Abram, Nachor, and Aran. And Aran begot Lot. [28] And Aran died before Thare his father, in the land of his nativity in Ur of the Chaldees. [29] And Abram and Nachor married wives: the name of Abram's wife was Sarai: and the name of Nachor's wife, Melcha, the daughter of Aran, father of Melcha, and father of Jescha. [30] And Sarai was barren, and had no children.

[31] And Thare took Abram, his son, and Lot the son of Aran, his son's son, and Sarai his daughter in law, the wife of Abram his son, and brought them out of Ur of the Chaldees, to go into the land of Chanaan: and they came as far as Haran, and dwelt there. [32] And the days of Thare were two hundred and five years, and he died in Haran.

Ur of the Chaldees could be either Urfa / Edessa in Easternmost Turkey (as some Jews and Muslims think, and perhaps Christians of the region find credible too) or Woolley's Ur. Or possibly Uruk. No, not quite if that is Biblical Erech.

Phaleg (as stand in for Babel)
Reu + 30
Sarug + 32
Nachor + 30
Thare + 29
Death of Thare + 205

So, after Babel project we add 30, 62, 92, 121, 326 years to when Abraham was dwelling in Haran after leaving Ur. If you take this as Urfa or Edessa, you could take Göbekli Tepe (GT in the following), carbon dated 9600 - 8600 BC.

This would mean squeezing carbon dates of 50,000 BP or at least 40,000 BP (after Neanderthals) reaching up to at earlist 9600 BC into 326 years.

Wait, sorry. Ur is the land of Aran's nativity (v. 28), who was brother of Abram. So:

Phaleg (as stand in for Babel)
Reu + 30
Sarug + 32
Nachor + 30
Thare + 29
Abram, Nachor, Aran + 70

... 121, 191.

1656 AM, Flood
0101 to Babel
0191 to Birth of Abram
1948 AM

4004 BC
1948 AM =
2052 BC

2052 BC
+191
2243 BC

9600 BC
2052 BC
7548 extra years, an initial carbon level in any sample of 40.129 pmc

38000 BC
02243 BC
35757 extra years, an initial carbon level of 1.323 pmc

Supposing in 2243 BC carbon level was that, and carbon 14 ceased forming, just continued decaying, we would in 191 years get to a level of ... well, what?

97.716 pmc is the level in a sample from 191 years ago. So, 97.716 % of 1.323 pmc would have been left in 2052 BC - purely theoretically, so far. That would be 1.29278268 pmc.

In 191 years, normally carbon in atmosphere stays c. 100 pmc, meaning the down to 97.716 pmc is compensated by new carbon to a level of 2.284 pmc.

If carbon 14 was forming at our rate, 1.29278268 pmc + 2.284 pmc = 3.57678268 pmc.

But the actual new carbon would be getting instead 40.129 pmc - 1.29278268 pmc (yes, this is why I did what would have seemed a queer assumption a few lines ago, this is how you calculate how much carbon 14 was formed): 38.83621731999999 pmc

38.83621731999999 pmc / 2.284 pmc = 17.00359777583187 times as fast. In medium.

One of my tables got that much fast a formation for C14 for first period after Deluge. I had to conclude that is feasible. It means the Cosmic radition, today a minor part of total background radiation most places, would then have been about as great as now the total background radiation in Princeton. It is feasible.***

If I had taken instead 48000 BC as equivalent for 2243 BC, the carbon rise would not have been much faster, since 97.716 % of ... 0.395 pmc (checking for 45757 instead of 35757 extra years) is not very much lower than 97.716 % of already mentioned 1.323 pmc.

But it is more feasible to put such a fast carbon rise closer to the Flood, and also to space out things so that you don't even get such a fast carbon raise, as I have done in more recent tables.

It is also questionable if birth of Abraham, Nachor and Aran in Ur should at all be dated to GT.

Could Abraham have been born in pre-pottery Neolithic A (early GT) and at about 80 have been contemporary to En-Geddi's chalcolithic?

For one thing, supposing birth of Aran occurs in early GT, which is dated 9600, GT would still have had to be around when they left for Haran, as Ur is considered the land of his nativity, not another Ur.

So, perhaps wiser to say Abraham was born in Woolley's Ur. Or in Urfa, close by ruined GT. But this means more recent datings for 2052 BC and fewer extra years and therefore an even steeper carbon rise.

If, instead, GT is the city with the Tower of Babel and we use LXX chronology, we get 529 years between Flood and Babel, which would be quite enough to accomodate Upper Palaeolithic and starts of Neolithic.

Then there are more years after Babel for Abraham to be born in, and placing his 80 or so year old appearance in Genesis 14 along with Chalcolithic Amorrheans in Asasonthamar / later known as En-Geddi is fairly feasible.

That is one reason why I prefer LXX chronology and placing Neanderthals pre-Flood, not just pre-Babel.

Why did God not wipe Neanderthals totally off the face of the earth (Genesis 6:7) if God wanted to leave no traces even of pre-Flood humanity?

Well if God were judging humanity for certain things happening in New York and Paris and Tell Aviv (yes, I was caught in Paris during the Pride Parade this year, because I didn't see it coming, usually I leave Paris for a few miles out for the days it lasts), perhaps some First Nations, whether Canada or Greenland, whether US or Australia, would perhaps get an easier judgement.

And if Neanderthals were contemporary with Nodians, their shelters do not allow us to conclude they were Nodians engaged in city life. You see where I am heading?

Also, Genesis 6:7 does not specify tracelessness of all pre-Flood men.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Sts Joel and Ezra
13.VII.2017

Credit and notes:

Credit to this carbon calculator:

https://www.math.upenn.edu/~deturck/m170/c14/carbdate.html
short link = http://ppt.li/3m8

Credit to Osgood for Chalcolithic of En-Geddi involved in Genesis 14:

The Times of Abraham
By Dr A.J.M. Osgood
http://creation.com/the-times-of-abraham

Notes:

* Neandertal-Human Hybrids:
Old earth apologetics gone real bad
by Fred Butler Published: 19 July 2016 (GMT+10)
http://creation.com/neandertal-human-hybrids-hugh-ross

** Note one on previous gives Colin Barras, Neanderthals built mystery underground circles 175,000 years ago, 25 May 2016, newscientist.com.

*** Cosmic radiation today : world average 0.39 milliSieverts per year, and the 70 tons of C14 would in 191 years involve a decay and effective replacement of 1.5988 tons. In order to get instead 1.5988 * 17 = 27 tons in 191 years, we also need a radiation to have been 17*0.39 = 6.63 milliSieverts per year. And that is about the total background radiation at Princeton. But I am not sure it would be so to have Abraham leave GT even at 30 before carbon date 8600 BC (abandoning and presumably covering of GT) and at 80 be in chalcolithic of En-Geddi. You check, I have shown you how! (As an aside, the article claims the level has been 70 tons for 100,000 years in atmosphere, that is both not true and not checkable if it had been true./HGL)