Correspondence de / of / van Hans Georg Lundahl: With Habermehl 2017, II

With Habermehl 2017, I · With Habermehl 2017, II

XIII

Me to Habermehl,

and to Damien Mackey

much later

12/15/2017 at 6:47 PM

Calneh, Erech and Akkad revisited ...

Anne, thanks for your work.

Damien, thanks for linking to it.

Both:

Creation vs. Evolution : Neanderthals - Related to Michael Oard's and Anne Habermehl's Work (post-Flood Boundary and Babel Builders)
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2017/12/neanderthals-related-to-michael-oards.html

If you find Michael J. Oard on top, CMI has already been sent a notification letter./HGL

Back again

to January 2017. Above (previous post, that is) in tandem with below exchanges:

XIV

continued from IV

Me to Habermehl

1/27/2017 at 1:10 PM

I am reading some on Göbekli Tepe

As you have dug there, I think my own related work might interest you.

Citing

"How old is Göbekli Tepe? Current estimates date it back to about 10,000 BC (on the secular timeline). This is when the climate changed rapidly and there was a great meltdown of the ice sheet at the end of the Ice Age. If this timing is not a coincidence, we might wonder whether these unknown people built this place on a hill to escape flooding elsewhere. The site was abandoned about 8,000 BC (secular) after being carefully back filled (why they did this is another mystery). Could it be that these people then returned to the place where they had come from? Nobody knows. Whatever, these dates make Göbekli Tepe older than any other known construction of temples or houses in the world, older even than the secular date for earliest Jericho (9,000 BC)."

"In addition, we need to keep in mind that the secular timeline keeps stretching out more and more as we go back in time. The difference between 10,000 BC (end of Ice Age) and 3,000 BC (the beginning of the First Dynasty) looks like a lot of time, to our eyes. But on our biblical timeline, this difference shrinks appreciably; even on the longer LXX timeline this would be only about 600 years. In other words, those people at Göbekli Tepe were not nearly as much earlier in time as secular scholars might have us think."

Me again

Basically

I submitted all of my up to then work for her reviewing if she wanted.

Note

[Later on in discussion, I forgot one of the links was about a table Bouw had given. And in that one, I was not falling for Bouw's arguments, since I was giving an alternative "curve" on the carbon / real date "graph" - an alternative table. I was prepared for Habermehl citing one of my "papers" (blog posts) I linked to, but her reference was a bit too oblique, since I had forgot about Bouw being included in one of the posts and she didn't cite anything I had actually said about Bouw's table. Might I know that Habermehl's work on calibration is a bit like combining the own work I rejected in "Une hypothèse à ne pas retenir" "Examinons une hypothèse qui se trouve contrefactuelle un peu de près" - the one I left out - with other than carbon methods involved too which I kept a separate issue in the essay "Et les autres méthodes radioactives?" - and on top of that Bouw goes one better than Habermehl in restricting the table to correspond Biblical with carbon. On the other hand, if in letter XIX below Habermehl was honest and upright in not being familiar with anything of Bouw other than his geocentrism, this would mean she didn't look. On the other hand again, she could have looked and chosen the words "not familiar with" for technical honesty, if she briefly glanced but did not familiarise herself with it. Now, she can have mentioned Bouw to check if I was familiar with all I had written, forgetting no "paper" - but my posts are strictly speaking either essays or debates, not papers that I put down weeks on each production, the weeks part would be sometimes in series of posts - therefore I cannot be as familiar with each post as a science writer trained as such is with everything in one paper. Clash of cultures, if so, I have no Bachelor of Sciences, if I had had a Bachelor, it would have been in Letters, but I haven't. And writing is not what I took the most cues from Academia on.

New blog on the kid : Examinons une hypothèse qui se trouve contrefactuelle un peu de près
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2015/10/examinons-une-hypothese-qui-se-trouve.html

I wonder if it was left out by my oversight, by my second guessing how Habermehl would react or by someone hacking my session to get it omitted without me noticing here at Nanterre University Library. Such things seem to have happened on other occasions. But in retrospect, I think I was tired, insecure and second guessing when writing that letter./HGL]

XV

Habermehl to me

1/27/2017 at 10:10 PM

Re: I am reading some on Göbekli Tepe

Let me make it clear. I haven't dug at GT. I paid a visit there with a group of archaeologists.

The scholars make GT about 12,000 years old. They have backed it up with carbon dating to their satisfaction.

So now we need to correlate this secular date to the biblical timeline (I'll use LXX). I'll be working on this in my GT paper that I am currently writing for the ICC2018 (ICC = International Conference on Creationism). It's a little hard to tell exactly where the Ice Age ended in the Bible, because we don't have a good marker for this. However, we know that Abraham lived well after the end of the Ice Age, as I show in my Ice Age paper.

For my arguments why Abraham visited Egypt around 3000 BC (possibly slightly before), see my paper here:

REVISING EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY: JOSEPH AS IMHOTEP, AMENEMHAT IV AS PHARAO OF THE EXODUS
Anne Habermehl, B.SC., 25 Madison ST, Cortland, NY 13045 USA
http://www.creationsixdays.net/2013_ICC_Habermehl_Joseph.pdf .

These are based on putting Joseph around 2700 BC (secular); Abraham was before that.

Bad news for you: I am very sorry to see that you have accepted the Bouw arguments. I know his work and I reject it out of hand.

I am somewhat tight for time with the papers that I have on hand, and other things. I make note of the list of links you have sent, and may look at some of them, but not yet. Yes, I read French. But from what you say I doubt that I will agree on your timeline work.

Sorry about that!

Anne

XVI

Me to Habermehl

1/28/2017 at 3:16 PM

Re: I am reading some on Göbekli Tepe

" Bad news for you: I am very sorry to see that you have accepted the Bouw arguments. I know his work and I reject it out of hand. "

Which ones?

" It's a little hard to tell exactly where the Ice Age ended in the Bible, because we don't have a good marker for this. "

If GT is Babel (with the missing rocket as non-built tower), we would have Ice Age ending at Tower of Babel.

I tried to use better markers than Ice Age. For instance, Exodus, and identifying Amenemhet IV with Moses.

Ironically, I have seen others identify him with Pharao of the Exodus./HGL

Note

[I identify Amenemhet IV as corregent of Amenemhet III with Moses up to hitting overseer, others - like Habermehl - identify him=Amenemhet IV with Pharao of Exodus, neither side identifies Moses with Pharao of Exodus. If I identify coregent of Amenemhet III with Moses, it is obviously Sesostris III whom I identify with the killing Pharao. Also, the answer must have been after I had had to skim through her work and before next time forgot she had been among these "ironically ... others". He is a good fit for either in lacking a tomb. If Moses as adopted by Pharao's daughter advanced to Pharaonic position, he lost it when striking the overseer dead and fleeing from Egypt at age 40. And is not buried as a pharao. And pharao of Exodus, by drowning, also had no burial - and Amememhet IV has a cenotaph, no tomb with a corpse in it. I have the idea of Amememhet IV from David Down, whose identification for pharao of Exodus is "Khasekemre-Neferhotep I was probably the pharaoh of the Exodus. His mummy has never been found." See Searching for Moses on CMI]

XVII

Habermehl to me

1/28/2017 at 3:57 PM

Re: I am reading some on Göbekli Tepe

Sorry, I won't get into Bouw's arguments. Those have been well refuted by others. However, you remind me that I do want to post on my web site a piece about how truly bad Bs interpretation of scripture is; unfortunately he hangs a lot of his argument on scripture. My husband wrote a book on biblical interpretation, that I edited and published. It's advertised online here: http://www.creationsixdays.net/god_has_spoken_but_what_has_he_s.htm . But don't tell the Bouw people that you like the LXX; they are "King James Only" people!

There is no way that GT is the Tower of Babel. No way at all. The Tower was built before GT. and the dispersion had taken place essentially at the beginning of the Ice Age or even before. There were Neanderthals up at the Arctic Circle. They had to have been there before the ice built up.We know this because we know that the Ns died out before the Ice Age ended. And there is nothing whatsoever about GT that even faintly resembles a tower!

The pharaoh of the Exodus was Amenemhet IV, not Moses. I show that in this paper: http://www.creationsixdays.net/2013_ICC_Habermehl_Joseph.pdf . (What does this have to do with the Ice Age?) There is nothing ironic about this; simple probability essentially proves it. I have collected 23 pharaohs that people think is the pharaoh of the Exodus! But Moses most certainly is not one of them. He not only was never a pharaoh, he was never in line to be one either.

I would suggest that you place a lot less confidence in carbon dating than you are doing. CD can be used to back something up that is not too far back in time --eg, the age of GT, which is at the outer limits of CD usefulness. But to hang your hat on it (as we say here) is not a good idea. It is a very shaky peg. What you really need to do is look at real history and make your arguments from that.

Anne

XVIII

Me to Habermehl

1/28/2017 at 5:06 PM

Re: I am reading some on Göbekli Tepe / have read c. half of your paper on Egypt.

I never said Moses was the Pharao of Exodus.

I am agreeing with a CMI paper that Amenemhet III = pharao of child killing, his daughter = pharao's daughter, her "brother" Amenemhet IV = Moses. Exodus a bit later, just before the Hyksos.

Here are a few comments on your paper:

"People continued to live in the Nile Valley through the Middle Paleolithic (about 250,000–50,000 yrs. ago) and Upper Paleolithic (about 50,000–12,000 yrs. ago) (Bard, 2007, pp. 73–78)."

Upper Palaeolithic - carbon dated. In my revised timeline divided by Flood.

Middle Palaeolithic - "end" is carbon dated, while "beginning" is not so. If this is not the same timeline, it does not need a uniform revision.

Atapuerca Mountains is somewhat "older". Cranium 5 or Miguelón is dated to 300 000 years BP. This is by U/Th dating, not carbon.

Here is the info:

"El cráneo 5 o AT 700 es un fósil de un cráneo y de su mandíbula de un Homo heidelbergensis adulto, llamado popularmente Miguelón en honor a Miguel Indurain, que está totalmente completo; fue encontrado en la Sima de los Huesos (Sierra de Atapuerca Burgos, España) en el año 1992. Jim Bischoff, geocronólogo estadounidense, dató estos restos en 300 000 años de antigüedad, usando la técnica de isótopos radiactivos uranio/torio."

Cráneo 5 / AT 700, Sima de los Huesos (en la biquipedia)
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cr%C3%A1neo_n%C3%BAmero_5

If I venture it is pre-Flood, there are two indications :

1) Racially, the race which paleos name "Homo heidelbergensis" is absent from all contexts we know to be post-Flood. At least I don't know what modern population could fit the full characteristics of a Homo heidelbergensis.

2) "TD-6 (Aurora stratum): In 1994 and 1995, over 80 bone fragments of five or six hominids found, between 850,000 and 780,000 years old, being at least 250,000 years older than any other hominid yet discovered in western Europe. About 25% of the bones have manipulation marks that suggest cannibalism. Taxation of these remains is still being debated, suggestions range from Homo erectus to Homo heidelbergensis and Homo antecessor."

Atapuerca Mountains (on wikipeejuh)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atapuerca_Mountains

Cannibalism suggests that "[11] And the earth was corrupted before God, and was filled with iniquity. [12] And when God had seen that the earth was corrupted (for all flesh had corrupted its way upon the earth,) [13] He said to Noe: The end of all flesh is come before me, the earth is filled with iniquity through them, and I will destroy them with the earth."

Also, having Mousterian and Acheleuan as pre-Flood styles, Aurignacian as about-Flood style and Gravettian to neolithic as post-Flood styles gives a nice symmetry.

So, your very suggestion that people lived in Nile valley in "middle palaeolithic" as post-Flood, I take as pre-Flood.

"One potential synchronism between the Bible and secular history is Abraham’s temporary migration into Egypt, forced by a severe famine in Canaan (Gen. 12:10–20). The Bible does not tell us the name of Abraham’s pharaoh, and that omission introduces uncertainty as to when in Egypt’s history Abraham was there. An earliest date of about 1920 BC for Abraham’s Egyptian visit is based on 1921 BC for his entry into Canaan (Jones, 2007, p. 25). Scripture does not tell us how long Abraham was in Canaan before going to Egypt. (The LXX reduces these dates by 40 yrs. In I Kings 6:1, the time from th the Exodus to beginning the building of the temple is 440 yrs. instead of 480 yrs. as in the MT.) Abraham’s visit to Egypt would have occurred about 200 years before Joseph became vizier of Egypt. The placement of Joseph in the 3rd Dynasty of Egypt as the famous vizier Imhotep is argued by Habermehl (2013). Imhotep’s era is generally placed around 2700–2600 BC on the secular timeline (Tyldesley, 2009, p. 32). Because we know the secular timeline to be more extended than the biblical one, it would therefore be plausible that Abraham’s visit might have been about 300 yrs. (secular timeline) before Joseph. If so, this would put Abraham’s visit to Egypt somewhere around 3000 BC on the secular timeline, near the beginning of the 1st Dynasty."

1920 BC - 1720 BC.

What would that be on my Fibonacci table?

2957 av. J.-Chr.: 3,90625 % + 26 800 ans, 29 757 av. J.-Chr. (20 000 – 50 000)
2778 av. J.-Chr.: 40,23593 % + 7550 ans, 10 328 av. J.-Chr.
2599 av. J.-Chr.: 62,75068 % + 3850 ans, 6449 av. J.-Chr.
2420 av. J.-Chr.: 76,66562 % + 2200 ans, 4620 av. J.-Chr.
2241 av. J.-Chr.: 86,26541 % + 1200 ans, 3441 av. J.-Chr.
2062 av. J.-Chr.: 91,58056 % + 730 ans, 2792 av. J.-Chr.
1883 av. J.-Chr.: 94,86521 % + 440 ans, 2323 av. J.-Chr.
1704 av. J.-Chr.: 96,89571 % + 260 ans, 1964 av. J.-Chr.
1525 av. J.-Chr.: 98,14985 % + 150 ans, 1675 av. J.-Chr.
1346 av. J.-Chr.: 98,92632 % + 90 ans, 1436 av. J.-Chr.
1167 av. J.-Chr.: 99,40408 % + 50 ans, 1217 av. J.-Chr.
988 av. J.-Chr.: 99,70269 % + 30 ans, 1018 av. J.-Chr.
809 av. J.-Chr.: 99,88185 % + 10 ans, 819 av. J.-Chr.
630 av. J.-Chr.: 100,00129 % 0 ans ±, 630 av. J.-Chr.

New blog on the kid : Avec un peu d'aide de Fibonacci ... j'ai une table, presque correcte
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2015/10/avec-un-peu-daide-de-fibonacci-jai-une.html

1920 BC is between 2062 and 1883 BC, between 2792 and 2323 BC.

1720 is between 1883 and 1704, closer to 1704, which means closer to 1964 than to 2323 BC.

The Biblical 200 years would be expanding to sth approaching 400-500 years in carbon dates. A complication here is that the king lists as such do not depend on carbon dates.

Say a king list has a narrative covering 200 years and its first year is carbon dated. Then we should be looking at a reduction of the carbon date and count 200 years (or perhaps account for Egyptian exaggeration) from there.

Before I was thrown out of NarniaWeb the second time, one member I liked told me that most pharaos have NOT been carbon dated.

"However, those who place Abraham later on in Egyptian history have a problem, in that they have to fit even more historical events into the period between the Ice Age and Abraham’s visit."

Why is that a problem?

Let's see what my table makes of this.

2778 av. J.-Chr. = "10 328 av. J.-Chr." = early Natufian or sth.

Abraham's visit, you said 1920 (Abraham would in that case have been 95 years old?) = 858 years in which to fit in historical events.

Is my somewhat after 2778 BC date for GT="ToB" too close to the Flood?

I had it sth like 2778=179 after Flood.

St Thomas (as at least previously attributed), following the Vulgate timeline (which is shorter) says:

New blog on the kid : Quaesiui an contra patres loquutus sim, dicendo de Turri Babel quod sit intenta ut navis spatialis?
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2016/11/quaesiui-contra-patres-loquutus-sim.html

"Non est credendum quod Sem et ceteri sancti patres illius temporis in hoc consenserunt, et quamquam aliquis ex eis ad opus extrinsecus compelli potuit, praecipue cum videatur quod Noe adhuc viveret: quia secundum literam nostram, a diluvio usque ad ortum Phaleg in cujus diebus divisa est terra, non sunt nisi anni centum triginta et unus: et usque ad mortem ejus sunt trecenti quadraginta: Noe autem post diluvium vixit trecentis quinquaginta annis, decem scilicet post mortem Phaleg."

So, Noah and Sem were alive but didn't agree with it. Peleg lived 131 - 340 after Flood. So, I give some extra time.

On the other hand, let's check the LXX timeline. Full LXX (St Jerome seems to not count the II Kainan), Peleg born 531 after Flood.

2957-531=2426, c. 2420 BC of my table leading to 4620 BC.

Discounting Kainan?

531-130=401
2957-401=2556 BC.

After 2599 which is 6449 BC.

I think even the latest of the dates of my timeline, 2420 for Peleg's birth, will give sufficient time for Abraham's visit.

2420-1920=500 years.

"We can conclude that by Abraham’s time the Ice Age was long past because it had ended earlier at the time of the Nile’s wild flow, and all development of Egypt’s civilization had taken place after that. This also means that Job did not live during the Ice Age, as is believed by various writers (e.g., Northrup, 1996). Job lived several generations after Abraham (Job 42:17 LXX)"

Douay Rheims has Job end at 42:16 And Job lived after these things, a hundred and forty years, and he saw his children, and his children' s children, unto the fourth generation, and he died an old man, and full of days.

What does LXX say here?

"16 And Job lived after [his] affliction a hundred and seventy years: and all the years he lived were two hundred and forty: and Job saw his sons and his sons’ sons, the fourth generation. 17 And Job died, an old man and full of days: and it is written that he will rise again with those whom the Lord raises up. This man is described in the Syriac book [as] living in the land of Ausis, on the borders of Idumea and Arabia: and his name before was Jobab; and having taken an Arabian wife, he begot a son whose name was Ennon. And he himself was the son of his father Zare, one of the sons of Esau, and of his mother Bosorrha, so that he was the fifth from Abraam. And these were the kings who reigned in Edom, which country he also ruled over: first, Balac, the son of Beor, and the name of his city was Dennaba: but after Baac, Jobab, who is called Job, and after him Asom, who was governor out of the country of Thaeman: and after him Adad, the son of Barad, who destroyed Madiam in the plain of Moab; and the name of his city was Gethaim. And [his] friends who came to him were Eliphaz, of the children of Esau, king of the Thaemanites, Baldad son of the Sauchaeans, Sophar king of the Kinaeans."
LXX in English, Job 42
http://www.ellopos.net/elpenor/greek-texts/septuagint/chapter.asp?book=25&page=42

Indeed, it seems here (and I had heard elsewhere that Job could be Jobab, here he is a II Jobab) that Job had heard of the ice age only through tradition.

"One way to overcome this time problem would be to drastically shorten the overall Ice Age. This would mean a very rapid ice buildup, a short duration of the ice, and a fast meltdown. If it could be shown that there was less ice than the Oard model postulates, this would be helpful in attempting to shorten the Ice Age. However, studies published since 1990 indicate that there may have been more ice."

I have a model for a rapid build up of ice.

In the carbon build up which I think best fits history, I have production of new carbon 14 twenty times higher in the year of the Flood than its mid-normal level between 500 BC (or 630 BC) and now. This would mean 20 times more cosmic radiation.

And cosmic radiation can cause cold weather.

Physics World : Did cosmic rays cause ice ages?
12 Jul 2004 | Belle Dumé
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2004/jul/12/did-cosmic-rays-cause-ice-ages

So, my build up for ice age is way more rapid than 500 years, even if I go only by obvious (or what seem so to me) implications, without checking the detail.

"There are two measures that tell us how much ice there would have been at the peak of the Ice Age (maximum glaciation): the amount of ice remaining on land today, plus how much lower the world’s ocean level was then. This latter measurement tells us how much water from the oceans had evaporated and frozen on land to form the ice at its maximum. For a discussion of factors involved in ocean level variation (i.e., eustatic changes), see Siddall et al. (2006, p. 75)."

On my view, some of the Flood water came from a border area between atmospheric oxygen and spatial hydrogen, forming some Brown's gas at flood. Some remaining such explosions could at least marginally have added to Oceans, apart from ice melt.

But most of the border area which was opened by "the flood gates of heaven were opened" would of course have been emptied during Flood. So, probably you would have a point here.

"Secular scientists therefore calculate approximately twice as much ice at the glacial maximum as Oard does. If the higher amount is right, creationist models need to account for a buildup of all this ice in a much shorter time, as discussed earlier. Furthermore, the thesis that end-of-Flood conditions caused the Ice Age imposes considerable constraints on building these models."

Which constraints my model need not follow. I am not excluding post-Flood / end-of-Flood conditions as contributing cause, but I am counting on going from a cosmic radiation very much lower than ours (but with radiation from a pre-Flood nuke war, see Mahabharata) to a radiation immediately Year of Flood / or after Flood 20 times higher than ours (adds up to a little higher than total background radiation at Princeton), which led to three effects:

1) from my p o v as carbon date researcher, to the fastest build up of C14 there was or will be;
2) but also to genetic deterioration, as long lived people were exposed to the radiation longer than we were;
3) and to the Ice Age, probably along with new Oceans contributing to hide nuke war damages and (for ice) Canadian Uranium mines, the one to protect us from even more radiation, locally, if we strayed, the other to prevent Nimrod from killing himself and so many others by trying to fuel a three step rocket with Uranium in his attempt to conquer heaven.

So, there was a reason for God to make a fast ice build up, and the mechanism he used was also contributing to other parts of his plan (like us having a carbon dating reliable for last 2500 years, like lowering human life spans).

"Perhaps we need to consider that the Ice Age might not have been connected to the Flood at all. We know from the Bible that God started and ended the Flood; He could have done the same for the Ice Age. An advantage of this version of events would be that modeling a fast and catastrophic Ice Age would have fewer constraints."

Mine has fewer constraints + some side benefits, from the theoretical pov.

"Why might God have caused the Ice Age, if it was not related to conditions at the end of the Flood? Perhaps He sent the Ice Age as a punishment on the rebellious people who scattered from Babel. If so, the Ice Age most likely would have been initiated immediately after the Babel dispersion."

Or, as a protection for the stone age men who abused their geographic spread to send materials to Babel, to avoid Uranium getting there.

This means that when building the tower - on my view rocket - was abandoned, God could release from ice age : or even somewhat before, so that moving out to the stone age expeditions by the main population would meet fewer constraints.

He could have set the Atlantic between Canada and Göbekli Tepe when Peleg was born (when the earth was divided) before producing the scattering by confusion of tongues.

I am on p. 12/26, I think I will call it a day, for now.

Now, since you don't tell me which arguments by Bouw you meant, I can't decide what you meant at all. He has made more than one argument on more than one topic. I am closer to Sungenis and (formerly) DeLano, through whom I have heard of Bouw, if it's geocentrism you mean.

I wasn't swayed by Bouw's arguments that night to 24 august (St Bartholomew's day) 2001. I had debated creationism, ran into distant starlight problem, as a first given "very skinny triangles", outside the library gotten an astronomy book in used book shop, which I bought (I think) and seen that "proper motion" in the "most moving" cases is 10 arc seconds per year, much wider angle than the "most moving" cases of parallax (0.76 arc seconds for alpha Centauri).

Sorry for the English of "most moving", I am simply a bit tired.

And before you ask what would cause a proper movement to go back and forth, as St Thomas Aquinas, I believe in Angelic movers.

And before you ask on that one, no, Satan is obviously not such of an unmoved earth which doesn't have one, nor of the Sun, at most former such of Venus or Mercury (either of which would probably qualify as morning star and as evening star to Hebrews).

Hans Georg Lundahl

Note

[I later agreed with Habermehl that Imhotep was Joseph in Egypt, but that was some time later, when I had forgotten Habermehl suggesting this. I therefore also revised the carbon table to include Djoser carbon dated to 2600 BC - note, we are here end of January 2017, and I made this revision 27th February. I'm adding a belated acknowledgement to that post. This Morning I Read it's 77 and 68 Years of Radiocarbon]

XIX

Habermehl to me

1/28/2017 at 8:03 PM

Re: I am reading some on Göbekli Tepe / have read c. half of your paper on Egypt.

No, you said that Moses was a pharaoh. The evidences that people give for this are flawed. I do agree that Amenemhat III may have been a "killing" pharaoh, but not the only one. Moses was 80 when he stood before pharaoh Amenemhat IV. You have to go back 80 years, which is long before Amenemhat III. This means that the killing started with earlier pharaohs. Yes, the Exodus would have been just before the Hyksos.

There is no possible way that the Upper Paleolithic is pre Flood. The Bible says that the Flood destroyed everything on the earth. Heidelbergensis was most likely an ape -- it shared characteristics with erectus.

I regret to say that I do not accept your Fibonacci conversion. What you are doing is claiming that real history doesn't count -- only carbon dating, which is a very inexact science! Plus your answers don't agree with real history.

Bouw -- I meant that I reject his geocentrism. I'm not familiar with anything else by him.

I have written an extensive paper on Job (unpublished). I believe him to be Jobab, who lived in the 5th generation after Abraham.

By the way, your English is really quite good. Do not apologize for it.

Anne

XX

Me to Habermehl

1/29/2017 at 11:20 PM

Re: I am reading some on Göbekli Tepe / have read c. half of your paper on Egypt.

"No, you said that Moses was a pharaoh. The evidences that people give for this are flawed."

You say so.

"I do agree that Amenemhat III may have been a "killing" pharaoh, but not the only one. Moses was 80 when he stood before pharaoh Amenemhat IV."

That is supposing Amenamhat IV was the pharao, and not Moses ex-pharao Amenamhat IV adressing a later pharao.

[On David Down's view Khasekemre-Neferhotep I, see note above]

"You have to go back 80 years, which is long before Amenemhat III."

Would be so if you had evidence Amenamhat IV was pharao of Exodus rather than Moses. You aren't presenting any.

"This means that the killing started with earlier pharaohs. Yes, the Exodus would have been just before the Hyksos."

The problem being that there were pharaos between Amenamhat IV and the Hyksos, which means pharao of Exodus would have been a later one and Amenamhat IV could have very well been Moses.

"There is no possible way that the Upper Paleolithic is pre Flood."

PART OF upper Palaeolithic. Gravettian and Magdalenian are clearly post-Flood, share genetic markers with present European population.

"The Bible says that the Flood destroyed everything on the earth"

Exact verse?

"Heidelbergensis was most likely an ape -- it shared characteristics with erectus."

José-Manuel Benito Álvarez, CC BY-SA 2.5 to wikipedia, from where I took it as per Creative Commons conditions (no changes made when you click to full size)
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_heidelbergensis#/media/File:Homo_heidelbergensis-Cranium_-5.jpg

This looks human, not ape.
Here on the contrary is clearly an ape:

Ryan Somma from Occoquan, USA — https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Skulls_of_our_Ancestors 7.jpg, CC BY-SA 2.0 (from wikipedia, no changes made when you click to full size)
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_afarensis#/media/File:AL_444-2._Replica.jpg

"What you are doing is claiming that real history doesn't count -- only carbon dating, which is a very inexact science!"

It is only inexact in having the false presupposition. I am exchanging it for a better one, trying to make rise of carbon level as exact as I can - both in probable preference curve (the Fibonacci table, or most of it) and in setting limits for what can be the errors. Always supposing the LXX chronology of St Jerome, used in Roman Martyrology for Christmas day.

I have never said or implied that real history - Biblical and well recorded secular - don't count.

"Plus your answers don't agree with real history."

You are not giving a detailed argument for that ....

"Bouw -- I meant that I reject his geocentrism. I'm not familiar with anything else by him."

OK, nevertheless, some do become geocentrics without hearing his arguments. Was my case.

What do you do of Joshua 10:12?

"I have written an extensive paper on Job (unpublished). I believe him to be Jobab, who lived in the 5th generation after Abraham."

According to the LXX, you seem to be right.

I have no objection. Reference to his knowing of ice age could as easily be knowledge by tradition as by own experience.

"By the way, your English is really quite good. Do not apologize for it."

Thank you. What would you use instead of "most moving", in the given context? "Moving the most" perhaps?

HGL

XXI

Habermehl to me

1/30/2017 at 5:50 AM

Re: I am reading some on Göbekli Tepe / have read c. half of your paper on Egypt.

I present evidence for Amenemhat IV as the pharaoh of the Exodus in my Joseph-Imhotep paper.

I believe that the Hyksos arrived within 5 years of the Exodus. All the short-lived pharaohs of Dynasties 13 and 14 ruled simultaneously. Only Sobekneferu reigned after Am IV before the Hyksos took over. She had only a small territory. Egypt totally broke up into pieces after the Exodus.

Genesis 9:11 says that the Flood destroyed the whole earth.

I've lost the context where you said "most moving." sorry.

Anne

XXII

Me to Habermehl

1/30/2017 at 9:15 AM

Re: I am reading some on Göbekli Tepe / have read c. half of your paper on Egypt.

Genesis 9:11 says or implies the Flood destroyed all flesh and wasted the earth.

9: [11] I will establish my covenant with you, and all flesh shall be no more destroyed with the waters of a flood, neither shall there be from henceforth a flood to waste the earth.

Douay-Rheims Bible.

In Vulgate:

[11] Statuam pactum meum vobiscum, et nequaquam ultra interficietur omnis caro aquis diluvii, neque erit deinceps diluvium dissipans terram.

... and never more shall all flesh be killed with waters of flood, nor will again there be a flood which scatters the earth.

Neither part says that all traces of the pre-flood world are gone. Also, let's not overdo it. The flesh of the fish was not all destroyed, nor that of the insects.

However, LXX seems to give you some right if translation is 100%.

11 And I will establish my covenant with you and all flesh shall not any more die by the water of the flood, and there shall no more be a flood of water to destroy all the earth.

Now, what about the Greek original? My Greek is rusty.

11 καὶ στήσω τὴν διαθήκην μου πρὸς ὑμᾶς, καὶ οὐκ ἀποθανεῖται πᾶσα σὰρξ ἔτι ἀπὸ τοῦ ὕδατος τοῦ κατακλυσμοῦ, καὶ οὐκ ἔτι ἔσται κατακλυσμὸς ὕδατος τοῦ καταφθεῖραι πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν.

What exactly does καταφθεῖραι mean?

It means "destroy" or "bring down" as with the Persian army.

Here is my research:
Simplex phtheiro - destroy or make perish or ruin : objects like ships or cities.
Composite kataphtheiro - destroy, ruin Aischylos Persai 345; Sophocles O.R. 331; Plato Leg (Leges, laws?) 697d; in passive Aischylos Per.729; Pol. 2.64.3
https://archive.org/stream/BaillyDictionnaireGrecFrancais/Bailly_DictionnaireGrecFrancais#page/n1057/mode/2up/search/%CF%86%CE%B8%CE%B5%E1%BF%96%CF%81

341 [Xerxes]
though, I know this for a fact, had over a thousand ships which he himself led in battle and he also had the two hundred and seven of them, that was the lot of the extra fast ships. That’s what the report says. Does this sound like we were beaten by the numbers, my Lady?

No, my Lady! It was some divinity that tilted the balance in their favour, giving them the better luck in the battle and letting them destroy our army. The gods themselves protect Athena’s city, my Lady.

Atossa:
So, the city of the goddess is still unconquered?

Herald:
That’s right, my Lady. So long as their men live, the city’s towers will be secure.

"and letting them destroy our army." A destroyed army is not an army which vanishes without trace.

720
Atossa:
Both, my husband. It was a twin front by a twin army.

Darius:
But how did he manage to take such a vast land army over to that distant shore?

Atossa:
He cleverly yoked the narrows of the Hellespond and then crossed over.

Darius:
What? So he managed to close the great Bosporous?

Atossa:
That’s right. Perhaps some divine power had helped him in this.

Darius:
Ah! Dreadful! Some great spirit has obviously ripped the reason right out of his mind.

Atossa:
And now we can all see just how great is the damage he caused.

Darius:
All those you’re mourning, what has happened to them?

Atossa:
Once the naval force was destroyed, the land force followed soon afterwards.

Darius:
And that’s how the whole of our army was brought down by the enemy spear.

730
Atossa:
The whole of Susa now wails for its desolation.

"our army was brought down" - but the army was not annihilated without trace.

Correspondence de / of / van Hans Georg Lundahl

Pages

Monday, 19 November 2018

With Habermehl 2017, II

No comments:

Post a Comment