lundi 19 juin 2017

Continuing Interim III to Joseph in Egypt


Tas Walker and Myself on C14 : Glacial Maximum and End · Interim III, Flood to Abraham with Syncellus · Continuing Interim III to Joseph in Egypt

How do we do that?

Well, for one thing, we know the Joseph in Egypt episode is misdated to whenever Djoser is misdated to, since Joseph according to hunger stele was in all probability Imhotep.

Then we look for a clue when Joseph would have been there according to Syncellus.

2189 BC Birth of Abraham
0075 (take away)
2114 BC Promise to Abraham
0430 (take away)
1684 BC Exodus after promise = 1685 BC, Exodus acc to Syncellus
0215 (add back)
1899 BC Jacob to Egypt c. about time when Pharao Djoser is going to die.

Interim III ended on:

XXIX 2208 BC
86.572 pmc 3400 BC


2208
1899
0307 : 8 = 38.375 (actually 309, sorry!)

XXIX 2208  XXX 2170  XXXI 2131
XXXII 2093  XXXIII 2055  XXXIV 2016
XXXV 1978  XXXVI 1939  XXXVII 1901


1900 BC, misdated as 2800 crude C-14 year (Djoser redated on historical grounds to 2600 BC).

This is 900 extra years.

1192
0900
0292 : 8 = 36.5 extra years

XXIX 1192  XXX 1155.5  XXXI 1119
XXXII 1082.5  XXXIII 1046  XXXIV 1009.5
XXXV 973  XXXVI 936.5  XXXVII 900


This means what in percent modern carbon (pmc)?

XXIX 86.572 pmc  XXX 86.955 pmc  XXXI 87.34 pmc
XXXII 87.726 pmc  XXXIII 88.115 pmc  XXXIV 88.504 pmc
XXXV 88.896 pmc  XXXVI 89.289 pmc  XXXVII 89.685 pmc


And which are the "apparent years"?

XXIX 3400  XXX 3325  XXXI 3250
XXXII 3175  XXXIII 3101  XXXIV 3025
XXXV 2951  XXXVI 2875  XXXVII 2801


Let's make a table, inserting our previous knowledge too:

I 3358 BC
1.514 pmc 38 000 BC

Arphaxad *
3356 BC

II 3317 BC
1.962 pmc 35 815 BC

III 3276 BC
2.543 pmc 33 631 BC

IV 3235 BC
3.295 pmc 31 446 BC

Cainan *
3223 BC

V 3194 BC
4.271 pmc 29 262 BC

VI 3153 BC
5.535 pmc 27 077 BC

VII 3112 BC
7.173 pmc 24 892 BC

Shelah *
3093 BC

VIII 3070 BC
9.297 pmc 22 708 BC

IX 3029 BC
12.049 pmc 20 523 BC

Noah +
3008 BC

X 2988 BC
15.616 pmc 18 338 BC

Eber *
2963 BC

XI 2947 BC
20.239 pmc 16 154 BC

XII 2906 BC
26.23 pmc 13 969 BC

XIII 2865 BC
33.994 pmc 11 785 BC

Shem +
2858 BC

Peleg *
2829 BC

XIV 2824 BC
44.057 pmc 9600 BC

Arphaxad +
2791 BC

XV 2780 BC
49.459 pmc 8600 BC

Cainan +
2763 BC

XVI 2739 BC
51.476 pmc 8229 BC

Reu *
2699 BC

XVII 2698 BC
53.577 pmc 7857 BC

XVIII 2657 BC
55.763 pmc 7486 BC

Shelah +
2633 BC

XIX 2617 BC
58.038 pmc 7114 BC

XX 2576 BC
60.405 pmc 6743 BC

Serug *
2567 BC

XXI 2535 BC
62.87 pmc 6371 BC

XXII 2494 BC
65.435 pmc 6000 BC

Peleg +
2490 BC

Eber +
2459 BC

XXIII 2453 BC
68.105 pmc 5629 BC

Nahor *
2437 BC

XXIV 2412 BC
70.883 pmc 5257 BC

XXV 2371 BC
73.775 pmc 4886 BC

Reu +
2360 BC

Terah *
2358 BC

XXVI 2331 BC
76.785 pmc 4514 BC

XXVII 2290 BC
79.918 pmc 4143 BC

Abraham *
2288 BC

XXVIII 2249 BC
83.178 pmc 3771 BC

Serug +
2237 BC

Nahor +
2229 BC

XXIX 2208 BC
86.572 pmc 3400 BC

Isaac *
2188 BC

XXX 2170 BC
86.955 pmc : 3325 BC

Terah +
2153 BC

XXXI 2131 BC
87.34 pmc : 3250 BC

Jacob and Esau *
2128 BC

Abraham +
2113 BC

XXXII 2093 BC
87.726 pmc : 3175 BC

XXXIII 2055 BC
88.115 pmc : 3101 BC

XXXIV 2016 BC
88.504 pmc : 3025 BC

Isaac +
2008 BC

Jacob +
1981 BC - ERROR WHERE?

XXXV 1978 BC
88.896 pmc : 2951 BC

XXXVI 1939 BC
89.289 pmc : 2875

XXXVII 1901 BC
89.685 pmc : 2801

Jacob +
1881 BC


I seem to have come to an impass with the chronology, it seems Jacob dies way too early in relation to his arrival in Egypt.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St. Juliana Falconieri
Sister of the Servite Founder
19.VI.2017

PS, note very well that if this is an error in Syncellus and not in my understanding of him, there is no such paradox in St Jerome:

2015 Abraham born (acc. to Christmas chronology)
1915 Isaac born (when his father was 100)
1855 Jacob born (when his father was 60)
1725 Jacob to Egypt (at 130 years of age)
0215
1510 Exodus (acc. to Christmas chronology)

All years BC./HGL

PPS, Error fixed, simply subtraction error in year of when Jacob died./HGL

dimanche 18 juin 2017

News on C14 Front


  • When it comes to carbon dates of millions of years old pretendedly things to 40,000 or sometimes even 20,000 years (depending on the presumption original carbon content was 100 pmc or so), I have heard a new argument from Evolutionists : carbon 14 could have formed due to background radiation in the object itself.

    When the object is coal, supposed to be 20,000 years old, I would think it would not have had any nitrogen left and therefore not be able to produce carbon 14 by background radiation. See here:

    http://creation.com/dating-in-conflict

    In the same rock, right alongside the fossil mussels, are fragments of coalified wood. ... So I arranged for this coalified wood to be radiocarbon ‘dated’ by the Physikalisches Institute of the University of Bern, Switzerland.2 I assumed that such a prestigious laboratory would take all necessary precautions to eliminate contamination, and allow for all other sources of error.3 The result: 36,440 years BP ± 330 years.


    Also, this would mean that the explanation nwould have to go for things as recent as dated by carbon 14 to 36,440 years BP, not just objects older than 40,000.

  • Other item: I have extensively here used a fact from Osgood. Abraham must have been alive when Chalcolithic En Geddi was inhabited. I credited his article for the fact, but I had read it so hastily I first now had time to credit him for his detective work. I did it day before yesterday, and here is an article which already has 60 views:

    Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... Pyramids, Flood, Babel, LXX, Dead Sea Scrolls
    http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2017/06/pyramids-flood-babel-lxx-dead-sea.html


    Citing which:

    The one place where I can't credit you [= Nathan Hoffman] with excellent detective work is accepting Saqqara pyramids as centuries before 2000 BC.

    Abraham lived around that time, and we should probably group him with Narmer in time. That is, Narmer, carbon dated raw date to 3400 BC or so, must have lived more like 2000 BC.

    Abraham coincides with sth else which requires carbon date 3400 BC, namely chalcolithic of En-Geddi. I failed to properly credit Dr A.J.M. Osgood for his detective work, but it was because I trusted him so much I didn't read all of the article carefully. I didn't even look up whether En-Geddi was mentioned in Genesis 14. Its synonym is:

    // As is often the case, the positive clue comes from the most insignificant portion of this passage. In Genesis 14:7 we are told that the kings of Mesapotamia attacked ‘the Amorites who dwelt in Hazezon-tamar’. Now 2 Chronicles 20:2 tells us that Hazezon-tamar is En-gedi, the oasis mentioned in Scripture a number of times on the western shore of the Dead Sea. //


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


    Great detective work, Osgood, even if you missed this has an implication for carbon levels - or didn't like the implication it had! In c. 2000 BC, the carbon level was so low that things from back then, if organic then, carbon date to c. 1400 years older than they are, i e to 3400 BC.

    A Masoretic reading making Abraham more recent would of course add even more extra years to make same apparent date. This means that Saqqara pyramids are too young to disprove the Masoretic text - but nice try!

mercredi 14 juin 2017

Variation of carbon level during Flood?


1.218 pmc now per 36440*
0.792 pmc now per 40000**

/54.788 % per 4974 years since Flood.

0.01218/0.54788 = 0.0222311455063153
0.00792/0.54788 = 0.0144557202307075

2.22311455063153 pmc - 1.44557202307075 pmc - a reasonable variation of carbon level? Perhaps so./HGL

Using for pmc and percent in relation to years : https://www.math.upenn.edu/~deturck/m170/c14/carbdate.html

* See http://creation.com/dating-in-conflict

** See my theory of Neanderthal extinction = Flood.

jeudi 8 juin 2017

Here goes my Howlibird theory ...


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


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

They found no evidence for feathers.

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


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

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


I look up wikipedia and see this:

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

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

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

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

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


Two hypotheses apart from that of the evolutionists:

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


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

mercredi 7 juin 2017

Shem the Cave Painter? Or Japheth?


It should be known by now that I differ on when Palaeolithic mainly occurred from CMI, them preferring after Babel, me preferring from Flood to soon before Babel.

Today's article on CMI accentuates this:

Cave art—more recent than you might think!

Cave paintings of horses and other animals would have been created after the Babel dispersion recorded in Genesis 11. As small populations of human beings migrated from Babel across the continents, some sheltered/lived in caves and daubed the cave walls with images of horses and other animals they saw. Many of these creatures (including the classic ‘prehistoric’-looking horse) subsequently became extinct. In one way, the work of people like the Stroebels has served to bring this ‘cave painting era’ psychologically closer to the present.17 It also raises the question of whether these creatures and the paintings really date to many tens of thousands of years ago, as is popularly claimed.18


I obviously agree cave art is more recent than evolutionists tend to think.

But I think it ended before Babel.

Here is a wikipedian article on these items:

"Cave painting" on the Wickipeejuh
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave_painting


And here are salient dates:

The oldest date given to an animal cave painting is now a pig that has a minimum age of 35,400 years old at Pettakere cave in Sulawesi, an Indonesian island. Indonesian and Australian scientists have dated other non-figurative paintings on the walls to be approximately 40,000 years old. ... Other examples may date as late as the Early Bronze Age, but the well-known Magdalenian style seen at Lascaux in France (c. 15,000 BCE) and Altamira in Spain died out about 10,000 BCE, coinciding with the advent of the Neolithic period. Some caves probably continued to be painted over a period of several thousands of years.


Pettakere in Sulawesi, 35,400 years old, 33,400 BC. This is fairly close to the 33,631 BC (carbon dated) which in my table goes with (extended) LXX chronology 3276 BC, about 80 years after the Flood. "Death" of Magdalenian style, 10,000 BC, comes between the 11,785 BC and the 9600 BC (beginning of Göbekli Tepe / Babel, 40 years before dispersion) which in this table come to the years 2865 BC and 2824 BC. Between which years Shem dies and Peleg is born:

III 3276 BC
2.543 pmc 33,631 BC

XIII 2865 BC
33.994 pmc 11,785 BC

Shem +
2858 BC

Peleg *
2829 BC

XIV 2824 BC
44.057 pmc 9600 BC


Interim III, Flood to Abraham with Syncellus
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2017/05/interim-iii-flood-to-abraham-with.html


On the view of CMI, the cave art would be from one short epoch, but spontaneously arising independently, and this despite having very many commonalities. On my view, it could be from one single artist. On second thoughts, perhaps not Shem, after all, but his brother Japheth, who might be presumed to have lived about as long - or his wife.

Unity of style argues that cave art of Magdalenian type at least was by one artist or one school of artists. It was a style like the Gothic or Renaissance or Baroque. It would have taken a man kind very different from ours in mental capacities to extend this style over 20,000 years or even 10,000 years with so little variation. But it would be easy as cake for the people living longer than we after the flood to extend the style something like 432 years, simply because whoever took the initiative to the style took longer to die off than we do now.

If this was before Babel, we get two implications, which have so far neither to the best of my knowledge been overturned, nor confirmed:

  • There was no idolatry.
  • The language was Hebrew (not yet called so, since not yet restricted to Heber's family and descendants).


While they have not been overturned, I say, they are contested, this or that can be supposed to be one or other shaman or even idol of fertility.

Now, the "sorcerer" in the Cave of Trois-Frères must if so have known about the true God:



On wiki:
Wizard or Cuckold God of the Trois-Frères Sanctuary.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave_of_the_Trois-Fr%C3%A8res#/media/File:Pintura_Trois_Freres.jpg


Date
2001

Source
http://www.celtiberia.net/verimg.asp?id=534

Author
Clottes, J y Lewis-Williams


It could be Cainan or Nimrod up to some bad things. Or it could mean sth entirely other than sorcery. It is at least not proof the people back then had already turned away from the true God to idols.

The other aspect is that everyone was still speaking Hebrew. A figurative painting as such can neither validate nor invalidate it. The so far thought to be oldest piece of writing being the Dispilio tablet - carbon dated to 5202 ± 123 BC, that is between 2412 BC and 2371 BC on my table - could be non-Hebrew and would not refute my observation, since, unlike cave paintings this is after Babel. Or Tărtăria tablets dated around 5300 BC, that is before 2412 BC - we are speaking with birth of Nahor and death of Reu on this table.

But it would be interesting to follow up what Genevieve von Petzinger will have to say on the 32 late palaeolithic signs:

Her video : Why are these 32 symbols found in caves all over Europe | Genevieve von Petzinger
TED
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJnEQCMA5Sg


My response : Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Genevieve von Petzinger's 32 late palaeolithic signs
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2017/03/on-genevieve-von-petzingers-32-late.html


If I am right this could be alphabetic signs, or some of them, it would be very interesting if it turned out to be compatible with Hebrew alphabet and some stone had for instance Yod Gimel Resh (corresponding to, not same shapes!) for Japheth Gomer Riphath, somewhere, and somewhere else some other genealogy in nuce. I have tried to reach her about this, but so far no response. Not even as much as a "not interested", I can't tell if that is the case or if it was not forwarded to her.

And if I am wrong, if nothing can be reconstructed as Hebrew language genealogies or other phrases, perhaps a simple Shin for shalom (once one looks), that would of course boost CMI and their position palaeolithic cave arts were post Babel.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Ember Wednesday of Pentecost
7.VI.2017

CMI's article for today is:

Resurrecting a ‘prehistoric’ horse
by Philip Bell
http://creation.com/resurrecting-a-prehistoric-horse

mercredi 31 mai 2017

What is Flammarion's Wood Cut Doing Illustrating a CMI Article on Galileo?


Back in October 1997, Russell Grigg published an article on Galileo.

It finishes with, just before the notes, a fact box about the Ptolemaic system.

One could of course ask what such a fact box is doing there, since the Church was in 1616 and 1633 very much not defending the integral Ptolemaic system, but only two of its data in common with other Geocentric and Geostatic systems: 1) Sun moves around Earth daily and 2) moves its daily movement around Earth from South to North and back across Equator yearly.

In fact, the Church was supporting astronomers like Riccioli, who thought that Almagest needed an update badly, because Ptolemy was wrong on so many things, hence the title of Riccioli's work Almagestum Novum. Discoveries by Tycho Brahe and Kepler were taken into account, while two positions (not discoveries) by Kepler were rejected:

  • that Earth moves in a yearly orbit around the Sun and also in a daily rotation around itself*;
  • that the mechanism of movements of celestial bodies is mechanistic.**


But there is another twist to this. Using Flammarion's woodcut when talking of Ptolemaic system is a somewhat dishonest bait and switch tactic. And here is alas what I saw on the article:



Can we get a little close up of the illustration to the right? Here:

A traveller puts his head under the edge of the firmament in the original (1888) printing of the Flammarion engraving.
Anonymous - Camille Flammarion, L'Atmosphère: Météorologie Populaire (Paris, 1888), pp. 163

The Flammarion engraving is a wood engraving by an unknown artist that first appeared in Camille Flammarion's L'atmosphère: météorologie populaire (1888). The image depicts a man crawling under the edge of the sky, depicted as if it were a solid hemisphere, to look at the mysterious Empyrean beyond. The caption underneath the engraving (not shown here) translates to "A medieval missionary tells that he has found the point where heaven and Earth meet..."

Image and captions from:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flammarion_engraving#/media/File:Flammarion.jpg


OK, if we go to the mere text in the fact box by Russell Grigg, there is no indication whatsoever that Ptolemaic world view involves a place where heaven and earth meet, like in the wood cut or engraving. Nor any other indication that a Ptolemy reader, believing what he read, would be involved in Flat Earth. Precisely as in the fact text by Flammarion.

In the illustration, however, there is a very clear suggestion that, as there was in Medieval times (it looks like a Medieval wood cut, except it is not clumsy enough***!) a kind of imagination around of a place where heaven and earth met, there was also a kind of imagination that Earth was flat, rather than a globe surrounded by Heaven on all sides. While no actual word, only the fact it is given as illustration of other words, suggests this was a part of Ptolemaic world view, nothing stops the reader (especially the lazy reader, taking things in as a unity) from making the association and actually believing this.

Is Russell Grigg unaware that the original illustration by Flammarion was also given a caption much more directly misleading, one saying basically that the Medievals were willing to believe a Catholic missionary on such detail? If not, and if he is an honest person, rather than as some Ian Paisley creatures willing to twist facts to get at the Catholic Church, why did he include the illustration? Was someone else doing so on the CMI staff?

And if he was not aware of this ulterior dishonesty, even so, why include the wood cut at all, since obviously it was not about the Ptolemaic world view at all?

Was he sentimental about old school books, or did he lose the sense of relevance? I mean, even if he is now one of the older guys on CMI, or even retired, back then he was just 70 years, and people who live to ninety don't tend to be Alzheimer patients, so I can't believe that. However, he could have been a wee bit too faithful to some of the less honest teachers he had met in his childhood or teens or young carreer as a chemist, at university or after.

He is perhaps not the only chemist, who, while learning useful things about chemistry, learned useless things about History of Science.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Wednesday of
Pentecost Novena
31.V.2017

Notes:

* Riccioli, like the Church, said probably : definitely wrong - but I have not read that passage, I have not read the whole work. ** Riccioli, in absence of definition by the Church but in presence of a preponderance in favour of angelic movers among writers of the Church considered Kepler probably wrong. That particular passage I have read. I quoted it in this article:

New blog on the kid : What Opinion did Riccioli call the Fourth and Most Common One?
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2014/08/what-opinion-did-riccioli-call-fourth.html


Written in response to Sungenis and DeLano who while fellow Catholics and fellow Geocentrics were more on Kepler's than on Riccioli's side when it comes to angelic movers.

*** The level of technique in wood cuts shown in this one would be that acquired by the time of the Reformers or even later - after Magellan had settled the issue.

Update:

On Facebook:

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Actually, I just detected a place where Russell Grigg was using a fraudulent or fraudulently placed illustration too: [linking here]

Creation Ministries International
Hans-Georg Lundahl: Links outside of creation.com aren't allowed (our rules on our main Facebook page explain why). You can re-post in fresh thread without the link. As per rule #7, comment hidden.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
My article was my argument fleshed out.

Feel free to just forward it to him.

I have given him an opportunity to respond.


[I was then given and used a good method of forwarding.]

PS : It seems that the article was changed in response to this request. It seems also that the article was changed from a magazine October 1997 to one in September 1997.

lundi 29 mai 2017

Interim III, Flood to Abraham with Syncellus


Tas Walker and Myself on C14 : Glacial Maximum and End · Interim III, Flood to Abraham with Syncellus · Continuing Interim III to Joseph in Egypt

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

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

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


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

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

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

  • This chart is non-St Jerome, I will be treating this as Syncellus.

    5500 Creation BC
    2242 Flood Anno Mundi
    3358 Flood BC

    3358 BC
    0534 Babel begins
    2824 BC

    3358 BC
    0578 Babel ends
    2780 BC

    3358 BC
    1150 Abraham in En-Geddi
    2208 BC

  • Archaeological identifications of Flood, Babel and Abraham in En-Geddi, with the carbon dates:

    • Displacement of Neanderthals by Cro-Magnon in Europe (40 000 BP).

      40 000 BP =
      38 000 BC carbon
      03 358 BC real
      34 642 extra years

    • Göbekli Tepe (9600 - 8600 BC)

      9600 BC carbon
      2824 BC real
      6776 extra years

      8600 BC carbon
      2780 BC real
      5820 extra years

    • Chalcolithic of En-Geddi (3400 BC)

      3400 BC carbon
      2208 BC real
      1192 extra years


  • In detail

    • Flood to Babel

      3358
      2824
      0534/13=41.0769230769230769

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


    • Extra years therein:

      34 642
      06 776
      27 866/13=2143.5384615384615385

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


    • Babel to Chalcolithic En-Geddi

      2780
      2208
      0572/14=40.8571428571428571

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


    • Extra years therein:

      5820
      1192
      4628/14=330.5714285714285714

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


    • Apparent years:

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


    • Pmc as per atmospheric level

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


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

I 3358 BC
1.514 pmc 38 000 BC

Arphaxad *
3356 BC

II 3317 BC
1.962 pmc 35 815 BC

III 3276 BC
2.543 pmc 33 631 BC

IV 3235 BC
3.295 pmc 31 446 BC

Cainan *
3223 BC

V 3194 BC
4.271 pmc 29 262 BC

VI 3153 BC
5.535 pmc 27 077 BC

VII 3112 BC
7.173 pmc 24 892 BC

Shelah *
3093 BC

VIII 3070 BC
9.297 pmc 22 708 BC

IX 3029 BC
12.049 pmc 20 523 BC

Noah +
3008 BC

X 2988 BC
15.616 pmc 18 338 BC

Eber *
2963 BC

XI 2947 BC
20.239 pmc 16 154 BC

XII 2906 BC
26.23 pmc 13 969 BC

XIII 2865 BC
33.994 pmc 11 785 BC

Shem +
2858 BC

Peleg *
2829 BC

XIV 2824 BC
44.057 pmc 9600 BC

Arphaxad +
2791 BC

XV 2780 BC
49.459 pmc 8600 BC

Cainan +
2763 BC

XVI 2739 BC
51.476 pmc 8229 BC

Reu *
2699 BC

XVII 2698 BC
53.577 pmc 7857 BC

XVIII 2657 BC
55.763 pmc 7486 BC

Shelah +
2633 BC

XIX 2617 BC
58.038 pmc 7114 BC

XX 2576 BC
60.405 pmc 6743 BC

Serug *
2567 BC

XXI 2535 BC
62.87 pmc 6371 BC

XXII 2494 BC
65.435 pmc 6000 BC

Peleg +
2490 BC

Eber +
2459 BC

XXIII 2453 BC
68.105 pmc 5629 BC

Nahor *
2437 BC

XXIV 2412 BC
70.883 pmc 5257 BC

XXV 2371 BC
73.775 pmc 4886 BC

Reu +
2360 BC

Terah *
2358 BC

XXVI 2331 BC
76.785 pmc 4514 BC

XXVII 2290 BC
79.918 pmc 4143 BC

Abraham *
2288 BC

XXVIII 2249 BC
83.178 pmc 3771 BC

Serug +
2237 BC

Nahor +
2229 BC

XXIX 2208 BC
86.572 pmc 3400 BC

Terah +
2153 BC

Abraham +
2113 BC


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

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

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

Notes:

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

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


** According to same source:

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