What Sunday Letter was Year of Creation? II

What was the Sunday Letter for the Year of Creation?

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

We will be starting from the present year, and we will be counting backwards, so, here is how we go when counting backwards in time:

2017	a
2016	c, b
2015	d
2014	e
2013	f
2012	a, g
2011	b
2010	c
2009	d
2008	f, e
2007	g
2006	a
2005	b
2004	d, c
2003	e
2002	f
2001	g
2000	b, a
1999	c
1998	d
1997	e
1996	g, f
1995	a
1994	b
1993	c
1992	e, d
1991	f
1990	g
1989	a
1988	c, b

2016
1988
0100 (20-19, but move over)
0030 (11-8, but move over 1, remain 20)
0028 (16-8)

So, the periodicity is once every 28 years - and in the Julian calendar that is always so.

In the Gregorian calendar, there are times, three per four centuries, when leap years are 8 years apart, which of course changes things.

28
56 (2*28)
84 (adding both, 3*28)

1988 c, b
0084
1904 c, b

Here we will be getting our first centurial year back which was not divisible by 400:

1904	c, b
1903	d
1902	e
1901	f
1900	g !
1899	a
1898	b
1897	c
1896	e, d
1895	f
1894	g
1893	a
1892	c, b

1904
1892
0100 (19-18, but move over)
0010 (10-9)
0012 (4-2)

1892 c, b
0084
1808 c, b
0012
1800 (18-0, but move over one)
1790 (10-9)
1796 (8-2) c, b
0084
1712 c, b

We are in trouble, we cannot use c, b for 1700 by 1712-12, since 1700 was not in Gregorian a leap year.

1712	c, b
1711	d
1710	e
1709	f
1708	a, g
1707	b
1706	c
1705	d
1704	f, e
1703	g
1702	a
1701	b
1700	c !
1699	d
1698	e
1697	f
1696	a, g
1695	b
1694	c
1693	d
1692	f, e
1691	g
1690	a
1689	b
1688	d, c
1687	e
1686	f
1685	g
1684	b, a
1683	c
1682	d
1681	e
1680	g, f
1679	a
1678	b
1677	c
1676	e, d
1675	f
1674	g
1673	a
1672	c, b

And let's check wikipedia on the matter:

1672 (MDCLXXII) was a leap year starting on Friday (dominical letter CB [ - yes!]) of the Gregorian calendar and a leap year starting on Monday (dominical letter GF) of the Julian calendar.

Of course, week days were the same in countries with Gregorian and Julian calendars, what was different was the dates. In countries with Julian calendar, January 1 had been 10 days later, as in 16th C. since the year in which Gregorian calendar was introduced (1600 was a leap year and did not change the glitch between the calendars, 10 days after as before).

Does 10 days glitch match up with CB corresponding to GF?

1672, first Sunday of Gregorian year was January 3. So, January 3 (C) being ten days later in Julian style, it fell on January 13. An N+5, with January 3 being an N+2. 5-2=3.

C+3=CDEF

Seems to me, Julian year should have had Sunday letter or Dominical letters FE rather than GF, in 1672? Is that just me? If so, what did I do wrong?

Hans Georg Lundahl
ut supra
uel in bloggo
ut infra

PS, found the problem! If Gregorian January 3 was a Sunday, obviously Julian January 3 would be on Gregorian January 13, but 10 days is not a week, so that was not a Sunday. Here we get the table:

Jan 1672
Greg.		Jul.
A 1	F
B 2	Sa
C 3	Su
D 4	M
E 5	Tu
F 6	W
G 7	Th
A 8	F
B 9	Sa
C 10	Su
D 11	M	A 1
E 12	Tu	B 2
F 13	W	C 3
G 14	Th	D 4
A 15	F	E 5
B 16	Sa	F 6
C 17	Su	G 7

So, yes, it was GF after all./HGL

PPS Julian GF, that is./HGL

What Sunday Letter was the Year of Creation? I

What was the Sunday Letter for the Year of Creation?

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

In Gregorian and Julian Calendars, every date on a whole year or on the two parts of a leap year gets a weekday connected to other dates that year / part of leap year.

This is possible because lunar months are eliminated, all months have standardised day numbers. When lunar months really are lunar, you don't know the weekdays of the dates until the month arrives, but this is not our case. February some years gets a day extra, we know which years, and it is the only month which varies in length. So, it os possible.

It is also interesting because the Sunday letter shifts from year to year, and at leap day in leap years. In a year with 364 days, the Sunday letter would be the same every year. 350 = 7*50, 14 = 7*2, 350+14=364.

But Julian and Gregorian calendars are about a year with 365.25 or 365.2425 days, not 364. So, some years have 365 days and the last day, December 31, has same Sunday letter and Week day as the first, January 1 had had. But this December 31 is also followed by January 1 of next year, which therefore has on each Sunday letter (starting with A on January 1) one weekday later than the year before. In leap years, when the similar shift occors on leap day too, December 31 is however 366th day, and will have its A already one weekday later than January 1, so the ensuing January 1 will be two weekdays later than the one at beginning of the leap year.

One can also put it this way : which Sunday letter will Sunday be on?

A - January 1, like years beginning on Sunday?
B - January 2, like years beginning on Saturday?
C - January 3, like years beginning on Friday?
D - January 4, like years beginning on Thursday?
E - January 5, like years beginning on Wednesday?
F - January 6, like years beginning on Tuesday?
G - January 7, like years beginning on Monday?

Obviously, if Sunday letters went forward each year, January 1 would next year be falling on previous weekday, it is not the case, it would be the case with a year of 363 days.

This means, Sunday letters are instead going backwards.

And since this year is Sunday letter A, previous leap year was Sunday letters C and B. 2015 was Sunday letter D.

And after I tell you how I checked, I will tell you why this is relevant for Creationism.

It is already some way into the year. You can't recall what weekday New Year's Day was on. How do you check the Sunday letter?

Well, you pick up the latest newspaper, ideally daily, you can lay hands on. I am not doing it, but if I were, I guess from computer I would be getting May 19 as a Friday. The above means, every year (or second part of leap year) when May 19 is a Friday should be Sunday letter A. Is this true?

Well, first of all, we look at Sunday letters within a month, how they relate. Not specifically "A", but since the months start on different Sunday letters (some repeating), "n" and then n+1 - n+6.

N		1	8	15	22	29
N+1		2	9	16	23	30
N+2		3	10	17	24	31
N+3		4	11	18	25
N+4		5	12	19	26
N+5		6	13	20	27
N+6		7	14	21	28

In the case of February 29th on a leap year, it is actually same Sunday letter as February 28th a normal year. But all other 11 29ths of the month have same Sunday letter as 1st of same month.

Now, how do we know which Sunday letter the first of a month is? January is A, obviously, but then?

January 29 - A
January 30 - B
January 31 - C
February 1 - D

So February is D, shall we go on? No, it would be tedious. The result is already known, you can check it for yourself with some patience. But the already known fact has already been set in memory verse. In Swedish it is:

Alla De Dagar Gud Böd Eder Gå, Christeligen Fram Att Dem Fullborda

If I can goof around with English a bit, as with "go" instead of "walk", and "dem" instead of both "the" and "them", and especially radically replacing "ye" with "ee" here we have a translation:

All Dem Days God Bade Ee Go Christianly Forth As Dem Fulfilling.

Is it true that December 1 is Sunday letter F? Well, December 31 is supposed to be A, it is supposed to be N+2, and FGA means this is F.

May is 5th month, take 5 words:

All Dem Days God Bade ...

So, May 1 is Sunday letter B, and May 19 like May 5 is B+4, BCDEF, it's an F today. But B+6 is not "H" - a Sunday letter not existing, but A. So, the Sunday letter for 2017 is A.

Now you will want to know how this relates to Creationism?

Well, we know the weekdays of the days of Creation : Sunday to Friday were the six days of new creatures being made, Sabbath was the seventh day, on which God was only blessing the types already made.

What if we also knew the year and the date?

Well, Patristics both East and West of 1054 do claim man was created on March 25, so Friday March 25 in Creation year corresponds perfectly to Good Friday March 25 on which Christ died for us.

What does March 25 as a Friday imply? 25 of a month is N+3. March 1 = D. D+3 = DEFG. Friday G. And that means Sunday is B, since G+2 = GAB = B.

And this brings us to the years calculated in diverse chronologies!

Here we have been discussing the carbonic implications of Syncellus (differing 8 years from normal Byzantine liturgic chronology, Christ born 5500 AM instead of 5508 AM), of St Jerome even more often (Christ born 5199 AM) and I was testing carbonc implications of Ussher (Christ born 4004 AM) and of Jewish calendar (in which 5777 overlaps with 2017).

So, how about testing the Sunday letter implications of them?

I'll be back.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Celestine V*
19.V.2017

* Natalis sancti Petri de Morono Confessoris, qui, ex Anachoreta Summus Pontifex creatus, dictus est Caelestinus Quintus. Sed Pontificatu se postmodum abdicavit, et in solitudine religiosam vitam agens, virtutibus et miraculis clarus, migravit ad Dominum.

Answering Koukl & Keaton Halley and Gary Bates

Two paragraphs from CMI:

Avoiding the obvious

According to Koukl, “There is nothing in the language of those passages that requires something like a global or universal Flood,” and he has offered arguments in defense of a local Flood on his radio program.2 For example, Koukl noted that in Genesis 8:9 Noah’s dove returned because “the waters were still on the face of the whole earth” (emphasis added), but earlier in verse 5 the text says that the waters had already receded enough so that “the tops of the mountains were seen”. So, Koukl reasoned, if “the whole earth” was still under water after some dry land had already been exposed, then “the whole earth” cannot refer to the globe.

However, this argument is flawed. If the planet was surrounded by water with some peaks poking up here and there, one would still be accurate in saying that the globe as a whole was covered. It wouldn’t mean every square inch of land, but rather that the land, broadly speaking, was submerged.3 The words are perfectly consistent with a global Flood, which the wider context demands.

Faltering on the Flood
by Keaton Halley and Gary Bates
Published: 18 May 2017 (GMT+10)
http://creation.com/local-flood

I disagree on the solution. As to "with some peaks poking up here and there", one could pretend tribes of mankind had survived at Andes and Himalayah's independently of Noah's Ark.

And I think this is wrong, even if an Inca Flood myth speaks of a sibling couples using Andes as Ark.

I think this is not what “the tops of the mountains were seen” really means.

In clear weather, you can see mountain tops down in the water some depth (say at least 1 to 2 yeards, depending on clearness of waters).

If you object that a raven (sent out before the dove) must have been surviving on one peak poking up somewhere, it could have survived on a mat of vegetation which included some carcasses as well. I take it that in verse 5, as yet no piece of land was both visible above waves sometimes and not at other times submerged by water. Or raven can have survived in a tree, hacking down on carcasses floating around it, while a dove needs to pick its food on the ground.

And whether raven survived or not is also moot on whether ravens were a pure bird, with seven individuals or couples, or an impure one, with only one couple. Only in the latter case need the raven have survived. But I think that is the case.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Venantius the Martyr
18.V.2017

I am Not Generally Against Armstrong

Dave Armstrong, Creationist*, says Creationists must not be divisive · Answering Armstrong on Vast Majority of Experts Argument and Flood Geology · I am Not Generally Against Armstrong

Let no one think I am generally against Dave Armstrong on all issues, just because I took issue with his non-inerrantism (de facto, if not intended) on Age of Earth.

I think he shows he has some fair Fundamentalist credentials in this one:

Catholics & the Historicity of Jonah the Prophet
February 16, 2017 by Dave Armstrong
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2017/02/catholics-historicity-jonah-prophet.html

And I have nothing against his clearly Catholic credentials in his debate with Geisler, here:

“Armstrong vs. Geisler”

#1: Purgatory (Mt 12:32)
#2: Purgatory (Lk 23:43)
#3: Merit & Penitential Suffering
#4: Prayer for the Dead
#5: Prayer to Creatures
#6: Sinless Mary
#7: Mary’s Assumption

Meaning, if he were just only Young Earth Creationist as well and Geocentric, he would be a Catholic after my heart.

It is just that, to me, as I suppose to His Holiness Pope Michael, a Fundamentalist credential is just as Catholic as a Catholics vs Protestants credential when it comes to somes faith, whether in heart or in statements.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St. Robert Bellarmine
13.V.2017

Tas Walker and Myself on C14 : Glacial Maximum and End

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

You know the remark how Schubert said about Beethoven, it is like hearing and feeling a giant breathing behind your neck, well, that is how I feel at times about Tasman Bruce Walker.

Today he gave a preliminary for his view of how uniformitarian dates recalibrate to Biblical ones, and I feel somewhat challenged.

Here is my response, linking to his post and giving first his results before mine in the table which follows:

A preliminary age calibration for the post-glacial-maximum period
by Tas Walker
http://creation.com/age-calibration-for-post-glacial-maximum-period

While he is concerned with all uniformitarian dates, I am specifically concerned with carbon dates - and the other ones only insofar as they can be presumed to coincide with these, since my hobby horse is "carbon 14 levels have been rising"./HGL

Table:

TW/HGL ?
Secular / Carbon?
Point	Secular / Carbon BP	Biblical Date BP	Calibration factor
TW
Secular Dates
Present time	0	0	1
End of Ice Age	7000	3800	0.5429
Ice Age Maximum	22000	4000	0.1818
HGL
Carbon Dates
Present time	0	0	1
500 BC	2500	2500	1
"End of Ice Age"*	7000	4293 BP - 4562 BP	0.6133 - 0.6517
"End of Ice Age"**	7000	(3648 BP - 3675 BP)	(0.5211 - 0.525)
"Ice Age Maximum"*	22000	4885 BP - 5234 BP	0.222 - 0.2379
"Ice Age Maximum"**	22000	(4068 BP - 4354 BP)	(0.1849 - 0.1979)
Update:
Flood CMI***	20 - 50 000	4400 - 4500 BP	0.088 - 0.225
Flood me/St. Jer.	37 000	4974 BP	0.1344
Flood me/Syncel.	37 000	5275 BP	0.1426

Notes:

* Note, I have never myself tried to figure out Biblical dates corresponding to End of Ice Age or Ice Age Maximum per se. That is Tas Walker's terminology and that of the Evolutionists.

I have however tried curves in order to correspond such and such years via presumable pmc level rise - with several tables differing among them. This means I can give my own view of Biblical timeline for those years, I will even include views not my own, such as Ussher timeline or Jewish chronology timeline. The latter however not for 500 BC, where I suppose they have too short a time of the Second Temple, as I suppose most other Christians agree with.

I have for this post gone through my tables and taken extremes for both own and parenthetic values, and if seeing an older or more recent value only than previous, replacing it for the orevious extreme.

** The Ussher / Jewish chronologies which I do not subscribe to are given here in parentheses.

*** Not specifically Tas Walker, but someone else commenting on where Flood fossils date in C14 - Oard?

Answering Armstrong on Vast Majority of Experts Argument and Flood Geology

Dave Armstrong, Creationist*, says Creationists must not be divisive · Answering Armstrong on Vast Majority of Experts Argument and Flood Geology · I am Not Generally Against Armstrong

I just saw this from Armstrong:*

I am not deciding truth based on majority vote. And if you have read my papers on evolution, you would (or should) certainly know that. The two following propositions are distinct:

1. Truth is determined by a head count.

2. If the vast majority of experts and scholars in a given field believe something to be false, chances are that it is. It may still be true, but that is exceedingly unlikely.

Part of my reasoning for rejecting flood geology is #2, but it is not #1 at all, because that is clearly a falsehood.

Armstrong, is it so sure your #2 which you reason from is very distinct from #1 which you call clearly a falsehood?

The vast majority of experts in astrology believe it is false to say our characters are totally independent of our horoscopes (even if they consider the dependence as being only a common one on a temporal coincidence between otherwise unrelated periods).

So, should you now therefore try to study my character from the known fact I am born in astrological zodiac sign of Virgo and with Pisces in the Ascendant? If you were to say, that has nothing to do with my character, at all, you are disagreeing with the vast majority of experts in the field of astrology!

If only because most who reject astrology don't bother to become experts in it (I try to catch on to some expertise in everything, including things I don't believe in, but that is being a geek, not being a very typical person in my relation to astrology).

But you can argue, of course, you are taking your cues from people who have very legitimate expertise about for instance how the Earth looks now, stone- and soilwise?

While most people who now study the stars are on the contrary not astrologers.

Well, at least that used to be generally assumed in the 1970's, not sure if it is still true. And in the Middle Ages, it was not true. Expert astronomers, who could tell you exactly how many days after Venus had passed the Sun it would do so again, typically would also consider that Sun and Venus had influence on - not directly our immortal souls, perhaps, but at least material things on Earth, including our bodies.

They would perhaps cautiously agree your horoscope can't tell whether you go to Heaven or Hell in the end, but they would insist it shows something of what kind of damned sinner or what kind of great saint you are normally tending to. Soldiers in both categories belong to Mars ... lovers in both categories (conjugal, extra-conjugal, celestial love like St Thérèse) to Venus, and so on.

And in their day, they were the majority of all astronomers, whose expertise in certain data, like periods of movements in celestial bodies, was a clearly good and scientifically legitimate one - and still is, except when they were overrelying on Ptolemy who, just as Copernicus, was less accurate than Tycho Brahe, Kepler and Riccioli.

So, perhaps you are instead of your pretended #2 "If the vast majority of experts and scholars in a given field believe something to be false, chances are that it is. It may still be true, but that is exceedingly unlikely."

... really saying #2 b "If the vast majority of experts and scholars in a given field in a given moment believe something to be false, chances are in that moment that it is. It may still be true, in that moment, but that is exceedingly unlikely." Is that the deal?

Well, that would mean truth is changing, wouldn't it?

The vast majority of Geologists in Steno's day (like Steno himself), as back in the days of St Albert OP (the teacher of St Thomas Aquinas) were believers in Flood Geology, so Flood Geology was true then.

The vast majority of Geologists in our own day (unlike Tas Walker who agrees with Steno, as does Emil Silvestru), are dissers of Flood Geology, now, so now Flood Geology is not true any more.

And if the vast majority of Geologists in a future will be Flood Geologists, well, then Flood Geology will be true again, of course.

Or, you could, a bit more simply, say that a Medieval Astronomer was roughly right about movements of celestial bodies, but grossly wrong about how horoscopes interact with your character.

But, in that case, I can equally make a distinction, as do Tas Walker and Emil Silvestru, between what Geologists right now have in legitimate expertise on how things regularly look now, and what they are projecting back into "whenever the rocks were formed".

I noticed that you did not yourself try to argue the Geological point about Grand Canyon which was in a caption under a picture of it. I suppose then that these words are not really yours, but those of someone you trusted, as being in majority of Geological expertise:

"Was the Grand Canyon formed from one deposit after Noah’s Flood?"

I can frankly tell you, this is a strawman argument against Flood Geology. Tas and Emil, both of whom** are Geologists, will tell you that from the Geological Point of View, the Flood Layers are Se. Ve. Ral. Deposits.

However, they will tell you all of them were still soft right after the Flood, which is why the Canyon could form.

I wonder whether your #2 is very able to remain standing in a situation where it is really #2 c:

"2. If the vast majority of experts and scholars in a given field believe something to be false, and regularly strawman it, with a cultural avoidance of seriously discussing it, chances are that it is. It may still be true, those few who discuss it seriously and find no fault with it may be right, but that is exceedingly unlikely."

And I wonder how your view of expertise would have looked in face of race biologists and eugenicists in the thirties ...

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Sts Philip and James, Apostles***
11.V.2017

PS 1. Was sent him, here is his response [Armstrong's]:

It was polite, but I'm not interested in arguing it. Out of courtesy, I'll link to your piece on my Facebook cross-post.

How nice he does that, at least!/HGL

PS 2. Regiomontanus is a case in point. His tables for eclipses saved Columbus in a stitch. See this link:

The Eclipse That Saved Columbus
By Ivars Peterson 11:12am, October 4, 2006, Science News
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/eclipse-saved-columbus

And he designed the House System for Astrology which became one of the most commonly used. See:

Regiomantanus on Wickipeejuh
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regiomontanus

which in turn footnotes to:

Lewis, James R. (1 March 2003). The Astrology Book: The Encyclopedia of Heavenly Influences. Visible Ink Press. p. 574.
https://books.google.fr/books?id=lmv4930JbY0C&pg=PA574&redir_esc=y

Real expertise in astronomy & superstition of astrology (at least I presume so), though not mortally sinful, I hope, in the very same person, a top Medieval astronomer./HGL

* Here is his post, by the way:

Old Earth, Flood Geology, Local Flood, & Uniformitarianism
May 10, 2017 by Dave Armstrong
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2017/05/old-earth-flood-geology-uniformitarianism.html

** Here are their profiles on CMI, btw:

Emil Silvestru I and ES II

Tas Walker I and TW II

*** Natalis beatorum Philippi et Jacobi Apostolorum. Ex his Philippus, cum omnem fere Scythiam ad Christi fidem convertisset, tandem apud Hierapolim, Asiae civitatem, cruci affixus et lapidibus obrutus, glorioso fine quievit; Jacobus vero, qui et frater Domini legitur et primus Hierosolymorum Episcopus, e pinna Templi praecipitatus, confractis inde cruribus, ac fullonis fuste in cerebro percussus, interiit, ibique, non longe a Templo sepultus est.

On Request : If we were 5777 Anno Mundi

Quoting informations from the requester, one Robert Pearlman:

years in AM

1656 Global Mabul Year
1996 dispersion from Bavel approx. end of The Ice Age
2448 Exodus then 480 years until
Holy Temple I 410 years than 70 year Exile Bavel until
Holy Temple II 420 years until 70 CE

if you need more detailed reference points such as Bithy year of Abraham 1948 AM, or when the first great pyramid by Joseph just over 210 years before the end of the old kingdom Exodus year 2448 AM..

2248 = Joseph's Great Pyramid? S'pose so (didn't ask).

Update: it appears it was the Pyramid of Sakkara, a stepped pyramid.

Anno Mundi dates:

2448
0480
2928 Holy Temple I
0410
3338 Off to Bavel
3408 Back from Bavel, Holy Temple II
0420
3828 70 AD ?

Checking!

5777 AM
3828 AM
1949 Years

2017 AD
0070 AD
1947 Years (negligible)

Now to the BP dates:

5777
1656
4121 BP, Flood

5777
1948
3829 BP, Abraham born!

Note that Abraham is here born before dispersion at Babel!

5777
1996
3781 BP, Babel!

5777
2248
3529 BP, Joseph's Great Pyramid

5777
2448
3329 BP, Exodus

5777
2928
2849 BP, Holy Temple I

5777
3338
2439 BP, Babylon

5777
3408
2369 BP, Holy Temple II

5777
3828
1949 BP, AD 70

3338
1656
1682 years between Flood and Captivity

1682:16=105.125
2/16=1/8=0.125

4121.000, 4015.875, 3910.75, 3805.625, 3700.5, 3595.375, 3490.25, 3385.125, 3280, 3174.875, 3069.75, 2964.625, 2859.5, 2754.375, 2649.25, 2544.125, and 2439.

I requested supplementary info:

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I have made a draft today, but before I publish, I would like one more date: when was Eli judge of Israel?

Roger M Pearlman

2832-2871 right after Samson until Samuel.
reference Legacy of Sinai by R' Z. Fendel

Quoting

Syncellus table:

1172 BC

Syncellus' date for taking of Troy.

1151 BC

Eli is Judge (21 years after taking of Troy)

2832
0021
2811

5777
2811
2966 BP

AND, here is the resulting table:

I 4121 BP, Flood

2.142 pmc, + 31 800 years = 35921 BP

II 4016 BP

25.609 pmc, + 11 250 years = 15266 BP

III 3911 BP

40.195 pmc, + 7550 years = 11461 BP

3829 BP

Abraham born!

IV 3806 BP

54.721 pmc, + 5000 years = 8806 BP

3781 BP

Dispersion of tongues and nations at Babel!

V 3701 BP

63.751 pmc, + 3700 years = 7401 BP

VI 3595 BP

72.689 pmc, + 2650 years = 6245 BP

3529 BP

Joseph's Great Pyramid (the one usually called that of Cheops? If so, this predicts that a carbon date for Cheops' building time would be predynastic. Correction as per update: for Sakkara pyramid, a stepped pyramid.)

VII 3490 BP

78.256 pmc, + 2050 years = 5540 BP (3523 BC, still predynastic!)

VIII 3385 BP

83.844 pmc, + 1450 years = 4835 BP

3329 BP

Exodus of Israelites from Egypt

IX 3280 BP

87.316 pmc, + 1100 years = 4380 BP

X 3175 BP

90.665 pmc, + 810 years = 3985 BP

XI 3070 BP

92.752 pmc, + 620 years = 3690 BP

XII 2965 BP = c. 2966 BP, Taking of Troy

94.992 pmc, + 430 years = 3395 BP

2986 BP

Eli is judge. Philistine remnants predicted for sometimes between 3395 BP and 3170 BP, carbon dated.

XIII 2860 BP

96.376 pmc, + 310 years = 3170 BP

2849 BP

Holy Temple I

XIV 2754 BP

97.486 pmc, + 210 years = 2964 BP

XV 2649 BP

98.188 pmc, + 150 years = 2799 BP

XVI 2544 BP

99.298 pmc, + 60 years = 2604 BP

XVII 2439 BP, Babylonic Captivity

100 pmc, no extra years = 2439 BP

So, let's see how this matches up ...

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bibl. Marguerite Audoux
Day after Finding of the Holy Cross
4.V.2017