Correspondences on Carbon Dating, Often Davidic and Exodus Times

I

Me to CMI

12/23/2023 at 9:30 PM

Did Finkelstein reassign 10th C to 9th C based on carbon dates?

Because, if organic material actually from the 10th C is dated as 9th C, that would mean, as I had originally predicted, when doing my recalibration, that carbon 14 levels continued to rise, after the fall of Troy PAST 100 pmC.

A 10th C organic object carbon dated as a 9th C such reads like ... an object dated 100 years too young. Which means 101.217 pmC in the original atmosphere surrounding it.

Which makes sense if the 100 pmC in 1180 BC (fall of Troy, historic and carbon date coincide) was from a rise after Fall of Jericho (real date 1470 BC, carbon date as per Kenyon 1550, 80 years too old, 99.037 pmC).

I am very intrigued to hear this ...

https://creation.com/en/podcasts/evidence-for-saul-david-and-solomon

And I'd be happy to have the details!

Hans Georg Lundahl,
wishing you about 24 hours in advance

Merry and Holy Christmas!

II

CMI to me

12/23/2023 at 9:30 PM

CMI Australia Brisbane office is closed for the Christmas holidays Re: Did Finkelstein reassign 10th C to 9th C based on carbon dates?

Thank you for contacting Creation Ministries International.

CMI Australia is closed for the Christmas holiday. Our office will re-open on Tuesday the 2 January 2024.

Warm regards,

Creation Ministries International (Australia)
ABN 31 010 120 304

PO Box 4545, Eight Mile Plains
QLD 4113 Australia
Ph: +61 (07) 3340 9888

visit us on the web at Creation.com CMI on Facebook CMI on Twitter
Vision: To see the Lord Jesus Christ honoured as Creator and Saviour of the world

Mission: To support the effective proclamation of the Gospel by providing credible answers that affirm the reliability of the Bible, in particular its Genesis history

--

Marivic Tang
Administration

Creation Ministries International (Australia)

P: +61 7 3340 9888

creation.com

Host a faith-building creation presentation—contact us today!

III

RE: (#MJV-004-31952) Fwd: Did Finkelstein reassign 10th C to 9th C based on carbon dates?

Dear Hans-Georg Lundahl,

A staff member has replied to your ticket.

CMI is a faith funded ministry. Answers are provided freely. Please consider helping the vital mission of CMI in getting out more creation information. Please support CMI

Robert Carter

Staff - 2024-01-04 2:51 PM

Hans,

I am skeptical that any simple recalibration is possible. Consider the Halstatt Plateau (aka 1st millennium BC radiocarbon disaster). This period covers some of the most important periods of biblical history, yet carbon dating fails to properly date any of it. If we have rapidly rising ¹⁴C levels, we cannot even assume the atmosphere would be fully mixed during the transition period. Throw in an Ice Age, shifting atmospheric circulation patterns, vast amounts of old carbon being dumped into the biosphere via vulcanism and via the erosion of calcium-containing rocks, a collapsing magnetic field, and who knows what bombarding us from outer space, and I fully suspect that the oldest measurements will be far from precise.

Have you seen our article How carbon dating works? I go through many of these issues there and I include a sketch of a possible calibration curve for the early post-Flood era.

How carbon dating works
by Robert W. Carter
https://creation.com/how-carbon-dating-works

Sincerely,
Robert W Carter, PhD
Scientist, Speaker, Author

Creation Ministries International (US)
Phone: (770) 439-9130 x 204
Website: creation.com
The trusted source for truth about origins

From:

Questions & Answers

Sent:

Tuesday, January 2, 2024 12:19 PM

Subject:

(#MJV-004-31952) You have been assigned to a ticket from Hans-Georg Lundahl

IV

Me to CMI / Robert Carter

1/5/2024 at 8:09 PM

Re: RE: (#MJV-004-31952) Fwd: Did Finkelstein reassign 10th C to 9th C based on carbon dates?

"If we have rapidly rising14C levels, we cannot even assume the atmosphere would be fully mixed during the transition period."

How long does mixing of new carbon take?

I'm assuming a transition period of 1772 years from 2958 BC (Noah's Flood, 1.625 pmC, carbon dated as 39 000 BP) and 1180 BC (fall of Troy, 100 pmC, we have a carbon date coinciding with the historic date by Eratosthenes).

The Hallstatt Plateau is when the level is already roughly speaking flat. It's carbon dates around 550 BC for anything between 750~760 (including the traditional date for the founding of Rome, and oldest city-scape was dated to 550 BC, presumably before the Hallstatt Plateau was discovered) and 450 BC. 200 years too young => 102.449 pmC sinking (mostly) to 100 years too old => 98.798 pmC.

When carbon 14 is being mixed into the atmosphere at a 10 to 11 times higher speed than today, as I take from Flood to both beginning and end of Babel, 350 and 401 years later (death of Noah, birth of Peleg, LXX without the II Cainan as per Julius Africanus reused by St. Jerome, whose chronology is available via Historia Scholastica and the martyrology reading for Dec 25), that means that that kind of wiggle is smoothed out compared to the rise in carbon 14 overall.

There is more room for wiggles near the end, like, I agree with David Down's Egyptology, and make Moses' birth in 1590 BC coincide with Sesostris III's death, I agree with Kenyon's carbon date as a raw one, and calibrate the raw date 1550 as an actual 1470, this would put the Exodus date in 1511 BC in principle between carbon dated 1671 and 1618 BC, but a wiggle would allow eruption of Thera to be God's tool for the ten plagues or some of them (the tenth is of course angelic beings taking action independently of that one, which could not target eldest sons), and to have the carbon date instead at c. 1609.

If you accepted that the carbon 14 mixing in the preflood world was very much slower than since, than even now, that would leave the last pre-Flood remains also near 39000 BP, or whenever you prefer to calibrate that, and this means that if you accepted Göbekli Tepe, you'd have carbon rising 25 times as fast (up to 101 after the Flood, assuming Peleg is neither a prophecy only later fulfilled nor a later assumed nickname), but of you don't, your carbon rise up to 1935 BC (Abraham is around 80 in Genesis 14, already some year after his vocation and also before the birth of Ishmael) dated as 3500 BC (as per reed mats evacuating Amorrhean treasures from Chalcolithic En-Geddi, Osgood gave me the clue, even if I disagree on his general dissing of C14), you'd still have the carbon 14 dates pass by the conventional dates of Göbekli Tepe (from charcoal, so radiocarbon), which makes it likelier than either Ziggurat of Eridu or Palaeolithic.

As mentioned, the wiggle known as Hallstatt Plateau is 3.75 pmC units, and, I happen to underline that the "ten times faster" (on my view) or "25 times faster" (on my schematic approach to Ussher), that concerns, not so much the production as production as the final mixing. 1180 BC we do have Eratosthenes date for Troy falling, we also do have a carbon date for the probably relevant level of Troy. This doesn't simply mean that enough carbon 14 exists for the atmosphere as a whole to have 100 pmC, it means mixing at ground level has already reached 100 pmC.

So, what kind of vulcanism would for instance get carbon 14 levels down from, say, 20 or 40 pmC, to c. 1 pmC, if on your view Neanderthals carbon dated to 40 000 BP are post-Babel?

And after such a fall in radiocarbon, what kind of radioactive shock would boost it up again?

I admit, I have been too schematic to calculate in that the Younger Dryas (on my view just before Noah died) would have been speeding up carbon 14 production.

Anyway, thanks, and my point was, if Finkelstein did, after such a drastic carbon rise as I posit, it could be that levels rose past 100 pmC even before the Hallstatt Plateau, which would explain Finkelstein's mistake.

Blessed Epiphany!

Hans Georg Lundahl

Creation vs. Evolution: New Tables
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/08/new-tables.html

V

Me to CMI / Robert Carter

4/1/2024 at 3:58 PM

Re: RE: (#MJV-004-31952) Fwd: Did Finkelstein reassign 10th C to 9th C based on carbon dates? / more on carbon dates

For how long does Robert Carter / do you, Robert Carter, suppose that carbon dates are "far from precise"?

To the time when Kenyon dates Jericho?

Here is an answer to a video by Gary Bates, as long as it takes him to show he doesn't master the subject of carbon rise:

https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2024/04/gary-bates-egyptian-matches-bungle.html

Here is a model for early on divergence of dates that are contemporary:

HGL'S F.B. WRITINGS: Table I to II Perhaps Doubled Beginning (Upper / Lower Limits) ? · Creation vs. Evolution: Convergence of Uneven pmC?

The latter link is part of a series I updated today, all on Creation vs. Evolution:

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

Hans Georg Lundahl

(I'm not confident about wishing someone happy Easter if he has Calvinistic views on the Blessed Sacrament, as I suppose many of you have).

VI a

background, I saw:

Dating Methuselah's Death: Pre or Post Flood? with Henry B. Smith Jr.
Associates for Biblical Research | 8 April 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HwPmoxrK04

VI b

HGL to Biblical Archaeology Comments

4/5/2024 at 5:57 PM

Lamech 753, 707 or 777?

753 is famously how many years BC Rome was founded.

But the two other numbers also have a Roman connexion. We can agree that Il Duce ruled that city not very long ago? I mean, his Marcia su Roma was not in the pre-Flood or even at all BC era?

That was some gematria in ASCII, simple and atbash.

More seriously, thank you very much for the Methuselah problem dealt with by Henry B. Smith Jr.!

Here is my first attempt at:

a) proving the carbon 14 rise after the Flood did not happen so quickly it would have destroyed all vertebrate life
b) doing some calibration of C14 in a Biblical chronology:

1) Datation de Carbone 14, comment ça carre avec la Chronologie Biblique, 2) Correction de la table, taux de C14, et implications, 3) Multiples échecs de trouver une meilleure table que les précédentes, 4) Une hypothèse à ne pas retenir, 5) Encore un échec ... C14 ... et un double, probablement (mais je serais bref), 6) Examinons une hypothèse qui se trouve contrefactuelle un peu de près, 7) Un essai, décision de demander l'aide à un professeur de maths, 8) Avec un peu d'aide de Fibonacci ... j'ai une table, presque correcte, 9) Une table peut-être évitable ou contournable?, 10) Et les autres méthodes radioactives?

Here is my curent status of same question, with recent updates added:

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

AND here is why I prefer the Egyptian pharaonic matches of David Down from 2001 over the ones which are being promoted now:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Gary Bates' Egyptian Matches Bungle the Carbon Rise
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2024/04/gary-bates-egyptian-matches-bungle.html

Notwithstanding the date of it, it is not an April Fools Prank.

Enjoy!

Hans Georg Lundahl

Damien Mackey Seems to Run Out of Arguments

You see, he gives vocational advice. But, before I serve you that, let's get through the arguments we had, shall we?

I

Me to Damien Mackey

2/2/2024 at 2:04 PM

Who's the astute commentator?

"rightly described Creationism as a form of modernism, attempting to reduce Genesis to science."

Is "rightly" your own assessment?

Either way, I disagree.

Here is the answer to that one, from my essay today:

Damien Mackey is, if so, very far from à jour with current Creationist literature. We regard Genesis, not as true systematic science, but as true, chronological, sequence of events history. When I say "history" and not "historiography", some may object that it's not historic research conducted in the way that modern scholars conduct historic research. It's a very ancient historiography. Yes, but history the way that modern scholars conduct historic research is a very modern historiography. History primarily, throughout history, means what certain modern historians would call historiography.

I don't think modern historians are to be confused with scientists, and the ones doing so are not us Creationists, it's the ones pretending we confuse Genesis with science, when in fact we don't.

And here is the essay:
Does Genesis 1 through 11 have an author prior to Moses?

I'm sorry, but the adverb "rightly" makes your status as fellow Catholic moot, and therefore I leave to God either way how you spend your own experience of the feast day. Btw, it's probably already late on Hobart, maybe even tomorrow, from where I write.

Hans Georg Lundahl

II

Damien Mackey to me

2/3/2024 at 9:02 PM

Re: Who's the astute commentator?

I hope your leaders can understand that H-G, because I had difficulty.

Creationists I know believe that the Flood had a tabula rasa effect - nothing whatsoever left of the old world.

The Bible tells differently, the 4 rivers of Genesis, for instance, were still there after the Flood, still at the time of Sirach, still there today.

From the blood of Abel to Zechariah, a sweep of history from the Beginning to the time of Jesus.
Where is the connection, where the continuity, if the Garden of Eden wasn't the same site as Jerusalem?

III

Me to Damien Mackey

2/4/2024 at 2:19 PM

Re: Who's the astute commentator?

"Creationists I know believe that the Flood had a tabula rasa effect - nothing whatsoever left of the old world."

That's a totally different issue. Habermehl is of that school.

It's an overreading into Genesis 6:7 (much as the Protestants overread a mistranslation of Matthew 6:7, against the Rosary).

You cannot make that a definition of Creationists, just because it happens to be a common position.

You also cannot go from that overreading into the definition you made in the paper.

I highly agree with you the location of certain things very much can be reseen in the post-Flood world.

That does not the least imply I cannot agree with them, that a) there was no significant time (less than a full week) before the creation of Adam and Eve; b) the timeline of the Bible in some of the text versions needs to be believed for what happened after Adam was created. People who don't know you would be prone to see your comment here:

"rightly described Creationism as a form of modernism, attempting to reduce Genesis to science"

as implying you deny the full factual historicity of Genesis. For the record, I think Adam was buried (with Eve) where he was created, and that spot is Calvary, which is therefore West of Eden.

Things certainly have been totally buried by the Flood, some of them, like Henoch in Nod would have been buried under the Himalayas. But some things were simply buried in the ground, also "off the face of the earth" for millennia, like the men laying around under lava that's dated to 100 ky or more. And some had already been buried in caves before, like the cannibals of Atapuerca or of the Neanderthal site in Belgium. El Sidrón, by contrast, is where Neanderthals ate mainly pine nuts and other veggies, which is why I don't think Neanderthals need to have been full blood Nephelim.

ANY reading of the text which states that ANY of the things actually happened as described is very likely to be, by "astute observers" stamped as a "modernist heresy, attempting to reduce Genesis to science" .... that's how I know the liturgically conservative modernists (a category where both Ratzinger and Kirill certainly fit).

Abel was probably also killed West of Eden.

If the Holy Sepulchre is East of Calvary, I think Calvary would have been West of Eden, Holy Sepulchre more likely just inside the borders of Eden. Because the Old and the Last Adam were gardeners ...

Did you read Does Genesis 1 through 11 have an author prior to Moses? or did you miss the point by pretending any defense of Creationism involves automatically subscribing to total annihiliation of the pre-Flood world, none of it recovered, none of it traceable as to place?

I don't think Creationism means that any more than Creationism meant believing in a pre-Flood water canopy.

And if it did, it would still not be more than a misreading, rather than what the "astute observer" claimed it to be, "reducing Genesis to science" ...

Hans Georg Lundahl

IV

Damien Mackey to me

2/5/2024 at 7:39 PM

Re: Who's the astute commentator?

Aren't you hedging your bets, H-G, with a global Flood that would have dumped miles of sediment upon the world - but a world that is still accessible to archaeology?

And I would rather take Our Lord's authoritative geographical connection between Jerusalem and Abel than your "probably" west of Eden.

V

Me to Damien Mackey

2/6/2024 at 10:26 AM

Re: Who's the astute commentator?

1) Our Lord never said Abel was killed inside Eden. Genesis 3 actually implies the opposite.

He also doesn't explicitly state that the moral unity (of Himself with Abel, of Pharisees with Cain) is matched by geographic unity.

2) Miles of sediment depends on area. Henoch in Nod East of Eden is probably buried under the Himalayas. The Sima de los Huesos is accessible to archaeology, but it's still in Mountains, where the Flood dumped Sediments:

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

The archaeological significance of this part of the province of Burgos became increasingly apparent in the 20th century as the result of the construction of a metre-gauge railway (now disused) through the Atapuerca Mountains. Deep cuttings were made through the karst geology exposing rocks and sediments of features known as Gran Dolina, Galería Elefante and Sima de los Huesos.

See, without those deep cuttings, the Sima de los Huesos would still be covered by huge chunks of sediment. Pre-Flood archaeology also covers El Sidrón, Denisova Cave and some similar ones:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidr%C3%B3n_Cave

The total length of this huge complex is approximately 3,700 m (12,100 ft), which contains a central hall of 200 m (660 ft) length and the Neanderthal fossil site, called the Ossuary Gallery, which is 28 m (92 ft) long and 12 m (39 ft) wide.[2]

In 1994, human remains were found accidentally in the cave. They were initially suspected to be from the Spanish Civil War because Republican fighters used to hide there; however, later analysis shows that the remains actually belong to Neanderthals.[3]

So, if a cave is 12 thousand feet deep, how much sediment does the mountain above contain?

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

Located in Altai Krai, near the border with Altai Republic, both in Russia, the cave is near the village of Chorny Anui (Чёрный Ануй), and some 150 km (93 mi) south of Barnaul, the regional capital. The cave, which is approximately 28 m (92 ft) above the right bank of the Anuy River (a left tributary of the Ob), has formed in upper Silurian limestone and contains a floor area of about 270 m2 (2,900 sq ft). The cave is composed of three galleries. The central chamber, the Main Gallery, contains a floor of 9 m × 11 m (30 ft × 36 ft) with side galleries, the East Gallery and the South Gallery.[9][10] It has been described both as a karst cave[2] and as a sandstone cave.[10]

It would seem that here the Anuy River did the digging, or cutting, or some post-Flood stream did so, otherwise the Denisova cave would have been inaccessible.

Goreham cave on Gibraltar contains no Neanderthals, only Mousterian tools. It contains charcoals dated to after the Flood, but ... nearby you have caves where Neanderthals have actually been found and carbon dated to before my Flood date.

Show me one item of the things I call pre-Flood archaeology, anything containing a Neanderthal or a Denisovan, is as shallow beneath the surface of a plain as Göbekli Tepe is under the "potbelly hill" that gave the site its name. THEN you'll have a case.

Other wager that you might want to check: I have presumed the "very high mountain" on top of which Noah built the Ark was lifted up above the now flattened by the Flood Meseta. If this is true, no Neanderthals or Antecessors / Denisovans / Heidelbergians should be found there, since the present level is one that in pre-Flood times were covered by a no longer extant mountain. My other alternative for where he built the Ark would be in the vicinity of Denisova cave, another site where both Neanderthals and Denisovans were in pre-Flood times, since the eight on the Ark involved were mainly of the Cro-Magnon or Sapiens sapiens race, but included "half breeds" both Neanderthal and Denisovan ancestry. That's why we find those genes today.

By the way, kudos to Wellington's men for defending the last homestead of Noah (if I'm right) against the Revolutionaries.

Hans Georg Lundahl

VI

Damien Mackey to me

2/7/2024 at 4:17 AM

Re: Who's the astute commentator?

Henoch in Nod East of Eden is probably buried under the Himalayas.

I hope that was meant to be funny, H-G.
I always appreciate a good joke.

If it was not a joke, then I think that you might be better occupied doing something you are good at.

VII

Me to Damien Mackey

2/7/2024 at 10:19 AM

Re: Who's the astute commentator?

I am good at spotting people who prefer snobbery over actual argument.

You just made it to that list.

I am also good at spotting people who don't really believe the Bible.

You gave me a reminder you are on that list too.

I am extremely good at spotting people who want censorship in Academia (de facto, none with hard rules they might actually find applied to themselves, of course) and do that by pretending to give vocational advice.

I'm actually a magnet to those. If everyone who had done me that "favour" (in his own view) had done me the favour of finding me a reader, perhaps a publishing company even, I'm not saying I'd have the income to buy something in Beaconsfield, like Chesterton, but it's not all that far off.

Hans Georg Lundahl

VIII

Damien Mackey to me

2/7/2024 at 8:34 PM

Re: Who's the astute commentator?

It's not a case of snobbery or not believing in the Bible, H-G.

Your comment about Cain's city would have to rank as one of the silliest I have ever read. Please don't buy a publishing company, at least for that.

Wishing you all the best for the future,
Damien.

IX

Me to Damien Mackey

2/7/2024 at 9:20 PM

Re: Who's the astute commentator?

The etymology of "silly" is "sælig" ... I am obviously not intending to put all my carreere or success on hold until I happen to please you.

The silliest thing I have seen in this debate is a tendency on one of the parts to decide things by "it's silly" rather than by an argument.

Perhaps you have misunderstood what "miles of sediment" means. It's not like one single flood layer which is equally high everywere, it's like (according to the Flood geologists I have seen) six different layers, all over the world, deposited in unequal intensity and left in place in unequal depth for each as abrasion events would succeed each other.

What would a) get buried rather than swept away in smaller and smaller scraps, and b) get buried so shallow, or have the depth shallowed by abrasions, would be an extreme lottery.

As for a post-Flood rise of the Himalayas, my mathematical model is supported by the fact that all the time from Flood to Babel and some more, no human occupation is visible even in the lower hills.

Care for a look?

Himalayas ... how fast did they rise? · Himalayas, bis ... and Pyrenees · ter · quater · quinquies ... double-checked

And, like for the widening of the Atlantic (more recently), the overall destructivity and violence is less than what many other Flood Geologists (who actually are Geologists), count it as.

Width of the Atlantic

Hans Georg Lundahl

X

Damien Mackey to me

2/8/2024 at 3:29 AM

Re: Who's the astute commentator?

All the best with your writing endeavors.

Challenge to Bishop (if such?) Robert Barron

Before the actual letter exchange:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Bishop Barron Against Rad Trads
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2024/01/bishop-barron-against-rad-trads.html

Was sent to Word on Fire Institute, on the 8.I.2024.

Also, that day, a letter was sent to Dr. Holly Oardway, as associate of that institute, to to Dr. Stephan Borgehammar, friend of myself, but on the other side of the question, to David Palm and to Michael Lofton. If responses are made to my challenge, and if I am free to read them and answer them, you should have more than just these lines on the 5.II.2024.

"Course of Abiah" — I am referring to a Defense of Christmas, Defending the Sinlessness of the Blessed Virgin

I

Me to Edward Bromfield

12/21/2023 at 1:48 AM

Course of Abiah

I prefer Kurt Simmons' take over yours:

Answering Tovia Singer on December 25 · Sharing on December 25, Kurt Simmons

However, I find it interesting that you said this on a related topic:

The first greeting was given to Gideon, whom God called to be a deliverer of Israel, while the second was used by Boaz who was to act as a kinsman redeemer for Naomi and Ruth, and such was to be the case of Jesus especially for Israel, but also for the world.

There is another "Gideon" connexion.

There are exacly 3 women in a full Bible (or 2 in a 66 book one) who are called in some sense "blessed among women" ...

1) Jael (Judges 5)
2) Judith (Judith 13, lacking in 66-book Bibles)
3) The Blessed Virgin Mary (twice in Luke 1, by Gabriel and by Elisabeth).

Who having heard, was troubled at his saying, and thought with herself what manner of salutation this should be.

I take that as referring to the words, not to hearing a voice without seeing anyone.

If your mother had been ever greeted with words like "congratulations for killing Sisera" ... how would she have reacted.

I bet she might have been a bit ... puzzled.

So, when the cousin tells Her the same again, but this time involves Jesus, the Genesis 3:15 reference is very much more apparent.

Note, Mary had "killed Sisera" even before being pregnant, and as per Luke 1:42 -- Genesis 3:15, the only "Sisera" that would qualify was Satan.

So, how could She, even without yet having been with child with God inside Her, have already "killed" Satan?

Well, the one possibility that comes to mind is, She must have been sinless. Reversed already in Her person the agency of Eve and Adam.

Remark the difference in mood between being told She is Mother of God and being told She is sinless (second time, and getting it this time). She was obviously happier at always having done the will of the Father, than at Her breasts were going to suckle God in the Flesh. On a famous occasion, Her Son echoed that sense of priorities.

Hans Georg Lundahl

II

Edward Bromfield to me

12/21/2023 at 6:42 AM

Re: Course of Abiah

Greetings Hans-Georg Lundal, and thank you for reading my studies and for your email/comment. Lord bless you.

You said: “I prefer Kurt Simmons' take over yours:” with the link, Answering Tovia Singer on December 25 · Sharing on December 25, Kurt Simmons

That’s fine; we don’t have to agree on everything. Then you thought it interesting that the greeting that Mary received from Gabriel may also be found in Judges 6:12 and Ruth 2:4, which you used to point to another ‘connection’ in Judges. In a similar form the phrase: “blessed among women” can be found in Judges 5:24, but since I do use the accepted 66 books, I didn’t find the ‘Judith’ connection.

Then you said: “Who having heard, was troubled at his saying, and thought with herself what manner of salutation this should be.” – “I take that as referring to the words, not to hearing a voice without seeing anyone.

I agree with you that Mary was troubled by the angel’s words, and I believe what I said later in the study shows that. My point here was to differentiate between what troubled Mary and Zechariah. He was troubled over the “appearance” of an angel, which according to Daniel was a fearful thing to behold. Mary, however, wasn’t troubled with an “appearance” according to the text but with what she heard. Words, yes, but my point here was to show Mary did not have a vision. She had to deal only with what the angel said, and his saying did trouble her.

You lose me with the mention of “Mary had "killed Sisera" even before being pregnant, and as per Luke 1:42 -- Genesis 3:15, the only "Sisera" that would qualify was Satan.”

At first, I found you hard to follow at this point and was about to send for clarification, but before I sent the email, I had a thought. You seem to be replacing Jael with Mary and making this point to Genesis 3:15. How you can say that Mary slew Satan prior to her pregnancy is troubling. I don’t see that. However, I have two points to make here. Genesis 3:15 doesn’t point to “Mary” Jesus’ mother. Instead, it points to the “Woman” in Revelation 12 who brought forth the child. The “Woman” is a **sign** or a constellation in the heavens, Virgo. The mother of Christ was the Jews, believing Jews, and as Paul said to the Roman church: “And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly” (Romans 16:20).

Genesis 3:15 has more to do with the Church than it does with Mary. Both are considered to be Jesus’ “mother,” according to the scriptures.

III

Me to Edward Bromfield

12/21/2023 at 7:01 AM

Re: Course of Abiah

"You seem to be replacing Jael with Mary"

The angel and Elisabeth seem to be doing that!

Blessed among women be Jahel the wife of Haber the Cinite, and blessed be she in her tent.
And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

"Genesis 3:15 has more to do with the Church than it does with Mary. Both are considered to be Jesus’ “mother,” according to the scriptures"

Can you give an example?

And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly.

Note the future tense.

The "blessed among women" is a title up to then belonging to one or two heroines who had already killed an enemy of Israel.

Hans Georg Lundahl

IV

Edward Bromfield to me

12/21/2023 at 3:53 PM

Re: Course of Abiah

Good morning Hans-Georg,

Concerning replacing Jael with Mary, you said: “The angel and Elisabeth seem to be doing that!”

I don’t think so. This is how you interpret the two events, which, by the way, are not similar events.

I said: “Genesis 3:15 has more to do with the Church than it does with Mary. Both are considered to be Jesus’ “mother,” according to the scriptures.”

You said: “Can you give an example?”

I did give an example from scripture, but you don’t accept it. Nevertheless, you don’t seem to play by the rules you set for me. What is your example that Mary’s name should be applied to Judges 5:24, 26? Where is the evidence in scripture that she had “already killed an enemy of Israel?”

V

Me to Edward Bromfield

12/21/2023 at 8:26 PM

Re: Course of Abiah

In Judges 5:24
a) the phrase (very rare in the Bible, only parallels in Judith and in Luke 1) "blessed among women" is used
b) in Judges 5, as well as in Judith, this highly rare phrase was only applied to a woman who had already killed an enemy of Israel, not to someone who was going to

"I did give an example from scripture"

You didn't explicitate that you meant the occasion of Mark 3.

And in Mark 3:35, I hold, with the Church that Christ founded, that "my mother" actually does refer to the Blessed Virgin.

If you meant Romans 16:20, the glaring difference is tense.

"shall bruise ... briefly" is not the same as "has already killed" implicit in the parallels (the only ones) for the title twice given the Blessed Virgin, namely blessed among women.

Good evening, by the way, from my pov!

VI

Edward Bromfield to me

12/21/2023 at 11:12 PM

Re: Course of Abiah

Good evening Hans-Georg; you said: “the phrase (very rare in the Bible, only parallels in Judith and in Luke 1) "blessed among women" is used…”

We agree that the phrase occurs only three times, if we include the extrabiblical, Judith.

“in Judges 5, as well as in Judith, this highly rare phrase was only applied to a woman who had already killed an enemy of Israel, not to someone who was going to…”

I’ll take your word for the ‘Judith’ occurrence, the phrase in the Old Covenant text concerns a woman who had already slain a man.

“You didn't explicitate that you meant the occasion of Mark 3. And in Mark 3:35, I hold, with the Church that Christ founded, that "my mother" actually does refer to the Blessed Virgin.”

I’m getting the impression that you are Roman Catholic. If this is correct, I don’t mean to attack what you believe. I was born Roman Catholic, but I’m not now. Most of my family is Catholic, so I don’t make a point to put Catholicism down, nor would I seek to embarrass anyone who holds to the beliefs of Catholicism. That said, I disagree with your interpretation of Mark 3:35. However, as I mentioned in the beginning, we don’t have to agree on everything to be brethren.

“If you meant Romans 16:20, the glaring difference is tense. "shall bruise ... briefly" is not the same as "has already killed" implicit in the parallels (the only ones) for the title twice given the Blessed Virgin, namely blessed among women.”

We agree that the tense is future in Romans 16:20, but why would you think otherwise for Mary, if, indeed, she were to crush the head of Satan? Moreover, if your interpretation is true, what does Paul mean in Romans 16:20: “And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly,” if Satan’s head was already crushed by Mary?

Lord bless you, Hans-Georg, as you think upon these things.

VII

Me to Edward Bromfield

12/22/2023 at 9:50 AM

Re: Course of Abiah

Satan is not a mortal.

He was / will be crushed three times:

1) By the sinlessness of Mary prior to the pregnancy
2) By the sinlessness of Jesus and Mary up to the Cross and to Jesus descending into Hades
3) By the triumph of the Church after Harmageddon, which seems to be what St. Paul is referring to.

Satan as said is not mortal, and does not disappear from existence just because he's crushed, but he can be defeated even if already damned, and these three crushings are beyond how St. Michael threw him into Hell.

I think that answers your question.

Hans Georg Lundahl

VIII

Edward Bromfield to me

12/22/2023 at 1:11 PM

Re: Course of Abiah

Thank your Hans-Georg, and may the Lord bless and protect you always.

Your brother in Christ,

Eddie

IX

Me to Edward Bromfield

12/22/2023 at 3:54 PM

Re: Course of Abiah

Thank you.

May I feature our correspondence on a blog of mine, each mail marked out separately for the correct limits?

And, best wishes for the day that actually is the real day when Christ was born!

Hans Georg Lundahl

X

Edward Bromfield to me

12/22/2023 at 4:45 PM

Re: Course of Abiah

Merry Christmas, Hans-Georg, and Lord bless you. I have no problem with what you wish to do with our discussion. You may do whatever you please with it.

XI

Me to Edward Bromfield

12/22/2023 at 7:03 PM

Re: Course of Abiah

Thank you very much!

Richest possible blessings, and Merry Christmas, whenever you celebrate it!

Hans Georg Lundahl

QQ to Those Accepting Pope Francis, so called, as being that

I

Me to

Where Peter Is, Reason and Theology, Mercedarian Friars

11/3/2023 at 11:57 AM

QQ to three full accepters of "Pope Francis" (not directly on his supposed papacy)

The first I have already posted on snail mail to FSSPX, more precisely St. Nicolas du Chardonnet.

It's this.

Given that Pope St. Pius X was a Pope and a good Pope, and enjoyed papal authority even when not speaking infallibly, and given that he endorsed the Pontifical Biblical Commission,

can I, without disrespect to the papacy, hold that

30 June 1909, Q 8, stating that "days" could mean periods of time and interpreting this as longer ones consider:

1) this was not the fullness of orthodoxy
2) it was even than somewhat heterodox
3) it has since then accumulated heterodoxies in the light of more recent scientific data to the point of now amounting to an implication of heresy or even apostasy.

The second I did not pose them, since they don't accept CCC. It's this:

given YOU consider "John Paul II" as having been in full exercise of papal authority in the early 90's, do you find it compatible with the respect for papacy to be opposed to §283?

Hans Georg Lundahl

II

Me to

Decrevi, Dominican Friars

11/3/2023 at 11:57 AM

Fw: QQ to three full accepters of "Pope Francis" (not directly on his supposed papacy)

Forwarding to two more.

[+ identical to previous]

Tomasello Not Answering

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl: Tomasello Not Answering · New blog on the kid: How did human language "evolve from non-human"? · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Adam Reisman's Response, Mr. Flibble's Debate · Andrew Winkler's Response and Debate · Creation vs. Evolution: Odd Perfect Numbers? Less Impossible than Abiogenesis or Evolutionary Origin of Human Language!

I

From: Hans-Georg Lundahl (hgl@dr.com)

To: scholars@duke.edu

Monday, September 18, 2023 at 8:14 PM

Subject: For Tomasello, please ...

// Tomasello also resorts to an evolutionary two-step scenario (see below), and to philosophical concepts borrowed from Paul Grice, John Searle, Margaret Gilbert, Michael Bratman, and anthropologist Dan Sperber.
At one point in time, after the emergence of the genus Homo two millions years ago, Homo Heidelbergensis[9] or other close candidate became obligate foragers and scavengers under ecological pressures of desertification that led to scarcity of resources. Individuals able to avoid free-riders and to divide the spoils with collaborative partners would have gained an adaptive advantage over non cooperators. The heightened dependence on joint effort to gain food and the social selection of partners are supposed to account for an evolution toward better skills at coordinating individual's roles and perspectives under a common attentional frame (that of the hunt or scavenging) and under a common goal, giving rise to joint, interpersonal intention. Later, around 200,000 years ago,[10] new ecological pressures presumably posed by competition within groups put those in "loose pools" of collaborators at a disadvantage against groups of coherently collaborative individuals working for a common territorial defense. "Individuals ... began to understand themselves as members of particular social group with a particular identity".[11] //

So ... in apes, we find phoneme = morpheme = phrase.

In man we find phonomeS => morpheme, morphemeS => phrase.

Human speech is subdivided not just once but twice in relation to ape communications, so, which subdivision came first and how does it correspond to your two steps of human evolution ?

Do you admit there is such a thing as notionality and that it is lacking in apes, but present in man?

That man can and apes can't say "I ate riz-au-lait instead of yoghurt today at noon"?

That this makes for making the double subdivision (or double articulation to use the standard term) interesting, but also needs it ?

If you first subdivide phrase into morphemes, as each morpheme is still just one phoneme, you can't get enough notions to have an interesting playfield for phrases.
If you first subdivide phrase/morpheme into phonemes, the increase in phrases will be negligible, since there is no true notionality without a judgement structure, predicating X of Y, and you can't have that without phrase subdivided into morphemes.

Hans Georg Lundahl

[When this is published, he'll have had 10 days.]

With Ken Wolgemuth on Carbon Dating and its Calibration

HGL'S F.B. WRITINGS: Radiocarbon and Tree Rings with Ken Wolgemuth · Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl: With Ken Wolgemuth on Carbon Dating and its Calibration

wed 13.IX.2023 22:30

Ken Wolgemuth

Hello Hans-Georg,
Here is our paper about Lake Suigetsu.

thu 14.IX.2023

Holy Cross

12:07

HGL

ok, where

14:29

Ken

Oops. Sorry about that.

[attached, but can apparently not be shared by a url accessible to the public here?]

Were you able to download it? Please note that this describes the foundations of radiocarbon dating, and hiccups of understanding by young earth creationists. This does not have the calibration curve used by the radiocarbon research community.

20:59

HGL

ok, I just found it

21:16

Ken Wolgemuth

Good. I understand from your profile that you live in Paris, and are from Switzerland. Is that correct? What is your viewpoint about how these American young-earth creationists handle this geochemistry data?

I see a reference to a paper that gives "A Complete Terrestrial Radiocarbon Record for 11.2 to 52.8 kya B.P. Are you the type of person who wants to pursue these questions about creation to find the truth?

21:42

HGL

I don't know where you get Switzerland from, unless Sweden and Switzerland are synonyms to you.

Or Austria and Switzerland. I am a Swedish national, and I was born in Austria.

Now, I have started my refutation of your article, it's a bit long for an answer here, I'll make it several answers instead.

HGL

The primary requirements for determining age are (1) a constant radioactive decay rate, (2) knowledge of the original carbon-14 content, and (3) quantification of any old carbon that may have been incorporated into the specimen. The last requirement applies mostly to marine samples, in which oceandwelling organisms, even today, extract carbon from seawater that has been “pre-aged” by long isolation from the atmosphere.4 Terrestrial samples, such as tree rings and lake sediments, are less susceptible to this complicating factor, limiting the primary requirements to the first two.

The reservoir effect can also apply to men, who have eaten lots of marine food, or drunk water with lots of old calcium (which isn't the pure element, but involves carbon).

In fact, when it comes to Mladec cave people dating back too close to the flood for it to be believable so many so big people had died, I rely on the reservoir effect, there is chalk in those caves.

As you mentioned "(2) knowledge of the original carbon-14 content," this is where I differ from both you and CMI, or most of them, I think that barring reservoir effect and contamination, the C14 content can be known very well year by year between Flood and Fall of Troy, and was radically rising (1.625 to 100 pmC in 1772 years).

To turn a measured carbon-14 value into an age, independent methods are employed to first provide realistic assessments of past atmospheric production rates.

Mine is Biblical chronology.

The conventional geologic model gives us specific expected outcomes for how much carbon-14 should be present in tree rings or varves of particular ages. This is a natural outgrowth of assuming constant radioactive decay rates, and annual production of tree rings and varves. The young-earth model (also known as flood geology), in contrast, does not have any inherent expectations, for purported fluctuations in natural processes during and after the flood could produce virtually any outcome.

Mine are:

• bigger atmosphere with lower percentage of nitrogen before the Flood (part of the oxygen was reacting with high layer atmosphere hydrogen to form Flood water), and probably also lower incoming cosmic radiation, even than now;
• possibly also more carbon dioxyde in the pre-flood world, as pmC is a value in relation to the overall (atmospheric, especially) carbon content
• just after the Flood, when the atmosphere had been reduced, a much higher production rate, than now, through higher incoming radiation, producing:
  • 1) 10 times faster production of C14
  • 2) lowered lifespans
  • 3) cooler weather, resulting in the ice age.

For the conventional model, the plot will assume (1) carbon-14 decay rates have been constant, (2) sampled trees grew one ring per year, (3) cross-dating of tree rings was done correctly, (4) sampled sediment layers are varves (one per year), (5) terrestrial tree rings and varves are free of “pre-aged” carbon, and (6) variation in atmospheric production of carbon-14 over the period of interest was limited within a discernable range.

We generally presume, the further back you go, the likelier it its, that cross-dating was done incorrectly and enters into a de facto circular proof along with C14.

Also, varves are usually laminations. How fast supersaturated water flows will determine if these form.

One way to establish these limits is using beryllium-10 concentrations in sediments that contain carbon-14 above background levels.

My model does not presume carbon-14 was present ABOVE background levels, but BELOW them.

Beryllium-10 is also produced in the atmosphere by cosmic rays, but unlike carbon, it readily falls to the ground, potentially preserving a record of variations in cosmic flux. From this record of flux, we can calculate proportional carbon-14 production.

Exactly how is unclear. Recall my model.

• 1) starts out with radically LOWER carbon-14
• 2) presumably the higher production of carbon-14 would involve a higher production of beryllium-10
• 3) BUT this would be interpreted over a stretched out chronology, since the higher production of carbon-14 results in a drawn out carbon chronology.

E. g. if between 2607 BC (death of Noah) and 2556 BC (birth of Peleg) carbon 14 rose from 43 to 49 pmC, this means that the 51 real years are interpreted as a stretch of 1000 years, since the extra years diminish as carbon-14 goes up, from 7000 extra years to 6000 extra years.

This means, if ten times more beryllium-10 is produced during the actual stretch of 51 years, it is to "the observer" spread out over a 20 times longer period, namely 1000 years.

In general, however, the lower concentrations (lower flux) tend to be found in layers containing higher current carbon-14 (deposited in the recent past), and the highest concentrations (higher flux) tend to be in layers containing lower current carbon-14 (deposited in the more distant past).

I'd expect exactly the same things from my model.

40 000 - 10 000 BP, a higher concentration, supposing beryllium-10 produces more in proportion to cosmic rays than carbon-14.

10 000 - 5 500 BP, a medium high concentration.

5 500 BP to 3 500 BP, lowering down to today's concentration.

Given conventional expectations, even if atmospheric carbon-14 was double today’s level, the low carbon-14 samples should be on the order of 50,000 years.14

But the problem with this reasoning is, my model presupposes exactly NO higher concentration of carbon-14 in the atmosphere. It only goes up from 1.625 to 100 pmC, not higher or significantly.

For the lower boundary, we will start at 95 pMC to accommodate lower rates in the recent past, and allow it to increase linearly to 120 pMC.15

95 pmC was reached and slightly bypassed in the year 1610 BC, which is therefore dated as 2020 BC.

It's in my table V-VI, which starts out with 87.575 pmC in 1700, and ends in 97.0681 pmC in 1588.

1700 - 1588 = 112 years, normal decay 98.654 % and normal replacement 100-98.654 pmC, i e 1.346 pmC.

98.654 * 87.575 = 86.3962405 pmC remaining
97.0681 - 86.3962405 = 10.6718595 pmC actual replacement
10.6718595 / 1.346 = 7.9285731797919762 times FASTER production

We are then ready to apply the radioactive decay equation (2) to each point along the upper and lower boundary to determine how much carbon-14 should still be present today for a sample of a particular age, up to 50,000 years.

I think these blogposts of mine (the one linked to and the ones it links to) are doing the corresponding type of work for YEC:

New blog on the kid : Raffiner et finir ma table de Fibonacci?
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2017/02/raffiner-et-finir-ma-table-de-fibonacci.html

[1.) 50% du "carbone récent", quel âge? Si on divisait une demi-vie en "demi-notes" ....? · 2.) 25% du "carbone récent"? Divisons la distance en 48 parties? · 3.) Trêve de Maths pour l'instant : a-t-on des restes antédiluviennes d'Européens ou non? · 4.) 12,5% du carbone présent : au paléolithique tardif · 5.) Encore "plus bas" dans le paléolithique : 6,25 % restent · 6.) Paléolithique inférieur, alors? · 7.) Raffiner et finir ma table de Fibonacci? · 8.) Table modifiée, analysée par convergence avec l'a priori]

As you are now going on to step 2, I propose a pause so you can have time to defend your step one, against my alternative reading, is that OK?

Ken Wolgemuth

It was obviously my mistake about your nationality.

When you are going into this detail, I would prefer email for east of printing to read. My email is [omitted]

I have identified a paper with this title: "A Complete Terrestrial Radiocarbon Record for 11.2 to 52.8 kya B.P." Do you read this type of geochemistry papers?
Ken

HGL

Mistakes happen, I'll be back on your mail.

But as it is your turn to respond in defense of previous, you get my email first, it's hgl@dr.com* ...

"Do you read this type of geochemistry papers?"

I haven't read that one, and am not sure yet whether it's the kind of thing I can read or not. We'll see.

* note:

it is my official public correspondence email.

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl — If you wish to correspond with me
http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/p/if-you-wish-to-correspond-with-me.html

HGL

one more thing, as I am sharing this debate with the public, I'd like to share the pdf with them, is that possible?

22:20

Ken Wolgemuth

Yes, of course.

23:36

HGL

the problem is, I don't have a functioning url for sharing it?