Correspondence de / of / van Hans Georg Lundahl: Anne Habermehl

Showing posts with label Anne Habermehl. Show all posts

Monday, 19 November 2018

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.

Sunday, 18 November 2018

With Habermehl 2017, I

With Habermehl 2017, I · With Habermehl 2017, II

I

Me to Habermehl

"On 1/25/2017 9:08"

Neanderthals and Tower of Babel

Neanderthals, first:

1.) I think Flood year organic things date to c. 55,000 to 30,000 BP.

Anything thought to be "Flood" fossil but say 22,000 BP is post-Flood, including dinos.

This would mean that La Ferrassie II is a pre-Flood remnant. Her dates are "68-74 k-years BP".

2.) Genetic "non-humanity" of Neanderthals concerns Y-chromosome and mitochondrial.

I think the pre-Flood Neanderthals are related to us by one woman whose father was Neanderthal but whose mother was Sethite or Cainite, probably Sethite (I consider that Japheth married a Neanderthal or half Neanderthal who was so by her father only, thus missing out on mitochrondrial, but whose brothers if any drowned, thus missing out on the Y too; while Ham married a Cainite).*

3.) That would mean that Homo erectus if human was probably also pre-Flood. I would say, yes, human.

Shinar and Tower of Babel:

Shinar would probably mean Mesopotamia, any piece of land between two rivers Euphrates and Tigris.

Parts of Eastern Turkey are geographically included.

I tentatively identify Tower of Babel with Göbekli Tepe, and consider that Urfa/Edessa close by was the Ur of the Chaldees.

This means that T o B was c. 11,000 BP / 9000 BC as to carbon dates, which mean late Palaeolithic is between Flood and Babel.

Glad to hear** you are not inimical to LXX, since this fits better with a LXX timeline.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre University Library
St Paul's Conversion
25.I.2017

* You might enjoy : Creation vs. Evolution : Damien Mackey & The Flood
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2017/01/damien-mackey-flood.html

** Or rather read, here : Anne Habermehl: Let Creationists Think!
http://www.youngearth.org/index.php/safaris/icalrepeat.detail/2014/12/12/28/-/anne-habermehl-let-creationists-think

II

Habermehl to me

1/26/2017 at 5:28 PM

Re: Neanderthals and Tower of Babel

Hi, Hans-Georg!

It's nice to hear from you. I am always glad to hear that someone is reading my papers and thinking about them!

Neanderthals:

1. My first point is that there are two timelines.There is the biblical timeline that goes back to Creation about 7500 years ago maximum (the Septuagint gives this date). This puts the Flood about 3300 years ago, maximum. Then there is the evolutionary timeline that goes back to the Big Bang 13.8 billion years ago. They don't have a date for the Flood because their ice ages start about 4600 million years ago. (The Flood was before the Ice Age that creationists recognize.) This means that 55,000 years ago is a secular timeline date, and lies within the Ice Age.

I believe that all fossils believed to be Flood fossils are post-Flood, and date in the Ice Age. Re Neanderthals: all Neanderthal fossils that we have all have to be post Flood.

2. As you know from my paper, I believe that Jack Cuozzo has scientifically proven that the Neanderthals were the long-lived ancient people of the Bible. All the earliest post-Flood people were Neanderthals. They died out because people no longer lived long enough to develop Neanderthal characteristics. The more recent sequencing of the genome actually supports Cuozzo on this. I also am skeptical that DNA has survived the years well enough to be sure of the sequencing results because DNA deteriorates rapidly in a fairly small number of years.. Their tests give them answers, sure -- but we have no control sample for comparison, and we have no idea how close modern geneticists are to the real Neanderthal DNA. I consider it possible that their DNA results are largely an illusion.

3. Homo Erectus have to be superior early extinct apes. They show monkey characteristics. Cuozzo shows this.

Shinar/Tower of Babel:

On the biblical timeline, the Tower of Babel had to have been built long, long before the end of the Ice Age, which is when Gobekli Tepe was built. Besides, there is no resemblance to a tower at GT.

LXX: Yes, I am very friendly to the LXX! Jesus and the early church used it. I believe that history shows that the MT was produced shortly after the time of Christ by Jews who hated the Christians and hated their scripture, the LXX.

Have you read my papers on the Neanderthals, Tower of Babel and Ice Age? They are on my web site: www.creationsixdays.net. Or google up my name and those words. The papers are online.

Best wishes! Thanks for writing!

Anne Habermehl

III

Me to Habermehl

1/27/2017 at 11:19 AM

Re: Neanderthals and Tower of Babel

Neanderthals:

"1. My first point is that there are two timelines."

Correct. Or rather, three. Biblical, carbon dated and evolutionist.

A certain dinosaur would be Flood or perhaps post-Flood (in the case I think of post-Flood) for Biblical.

It would be 22,000 before present carbon dated.

It would be at least 65 million years before present per evolutionist time line, the one based on biostratigraphy, since dinosaurs are in this model dated as "triassic, jurassic or cretaceous", which three divisions of evolutionary time are currently dated to 252 to 65 million years ago.

"There is the biblical timeline that goes back to Creation about 7500 years ago maximum (the Septuagint gives this date). This puts the Flood about 3300 years ago, maximum."

Two liturgically used timelines agree in setting Flood at anno mundi 2242, the Roman and the Byzantine martyrologies. They disagree on Creation BC and Flood BC.

Roman : Christ was born 5199 after the Beginning in which God created Heaven and Earth, 2957 BC. That is, btw, about 5000 years ago.
Byzantine : Creation given as 5508 BC, which puts Flood in 3266 BC (same LXX timeline between Creation and Flood as Roman).

"Then there is the evolutionary timeline that goes back to the Big Bang 13.8 billion years ago."

More than one of them, which the evolutionists try to harmonise (inter alia by suppressing genuine carbon dates and crying "fraud" when Creationists submit dinosaurs to carbon dating and get results).

The one I think merits a little more consideration than the rest is the carbon one.

Biostratigraphy is based on the diverse faunas being results of diverse stages of evolution, I think they were rather diverse immediately pre-Flood (usually) biotopes.

The 13.8 billion years are based on distant starlight problem where some stars are supposed to be "proven" 13.8 billion LIGHT years from us, which by a constant speed of light gives 13.8 billion YEARS since these emitted the light we see now.

I think the distances are spurious and all "stars" (they used to be called "fix stars") in a shell one light day above us.

That way there is no distant starlight problem. And this I base on the first and closest distances "known" to stars being based on the spurious parallax measures, which I consider spurious not just because "it's a very skinny triangle" (as Kent Hovind said) but also because I am a geocentric and believe the "parallactic" and "aberrational" movements of stars are really proper movements, made by dancing angels.

"They don't have a date for the Flood because their ice ages start about 4600 million years ago. (The Flood was before the Ice Age that creationists recognize.) This means that 55,000 years ago is a secular timeline date, and lies within the Ice Age."

Wait a minute. You are treating secular datings as one unit. They are not. 4600 million years is not carbon dated. 55,000 years usually is carbon dated.

If they identified an organic trace of "first ice age" 4600 million years ago, it could probably be carbon dated to very much less than that, either to Flood or to post-Flood ice age.

"I believe that all fossils believed to be Flood fossils are post-Flood, and date in the Ice Age."

If so, what exact traces did the Flood leave?

If so, why is there an Ice Age and post-Flood sea shore in what is now the Alps? It makes much more sense to say the seashore is a pre-Flood one.

Why does there have to be a seashore at all in the Alps? Because a fossil whale was found in Linz, the city where Hitler spent his youth, and a fossil seal was found in Nussdorf, a vineyard area outside Vienna.

These seals and whales are obviously, as being mammals and as not found together with any dinos, dated as Tertiary. I believe they are immediately pre-Flood, and if a splinter of bone were carbon dated, it would show the typical dates for Flood fossils. Which contradict the evolutionary timeline much more than the Biblical "common" one.

"Re Neanderthals: all Neanderthal fossils that we have all have to be post Flood."

I respectfully disagree. Between Mousterian and Aurignacian or Aurignacian and Gravettian there is a shift in the population of Europe. Before, Neanderthals dominate, if not to exclusion to Cro-Magnon. After, the genetics basically match those of the Europeans up to now.

With a Flood between the population types, there is no problem with the population shift.

Carbon dates seem to set the carbon dated timeline for the shift around 37,000 BP.

This matches the carbon dates for most fossils believed to be from Flood, though not the one I just talked about as dated 22,000 BP.

"2. As you know from my paper, I believe that Jack Cuozzo has scientifically proven that the Neanderthals were the long-lived ancient people of the Bible."

One little disagreement. The word "the". I think his proof they were long lived is probably right, and that skeleta now considered as belonging to people who died in their thirties or forties may belong to people who either lived up to 950 or 1000 (as the Sethite line) or to 500 (as many early post-Flood) or to above hundred.

This does not mean all pre-Flood long livers had the genetics of Neanderthals or even the general shape of Neanderthals. Cuozzo has proven that Neanderthals were some post- or pre-Flood men, living long, not that they were all of them.

"All the earliest post-Flood people were Neanderthals. They died out because people no longer lived long enough to develop Neanderthal characteristics. The more recent sequencing of the genome actually supports Cuozzo on this."

The recent sequencing indeed confirms they were human, and that some people today (notably Europeans) have more Neanderthal genes than others, but as per last time I checked, also mitochondrial DNA not found in our post-Flood population, which however does seem to have mitochondrial DNA from three daughters in law of Noah, whereas they also lack certain characteristics of our Y-chromosomes.

Hence my idea that the Neanderthal DNA we do have in Europe came via either a man marrying a Sethite woman and his daughter marrying Japheth, or else the connection would be a Neanderthal woman married a Sethite man, her son had a daughter who married Japheth.

"I also am skeptical that DNA has survived the years well enough to be sure of the sequencing results because DNA deteriorates rapidly in a fairly small number of years.."

Svante Pääbo has thought of that. Even though the fool has said in his heart what SP says openly, that there is no God, doesn't mean he must be a fool in his own job.

I think deterioration of a certain mitochondrial or Y-chromosome genome is random, and that the mitochondrial and Y-Chromosome differences he did publish are the systematic ones, when random deterioration has been discounted from the material.

[In general terms of base pairs : deterioration of a base will not yield a different base so gene is read like a different gene.]

"Their tests give them answers, sure -- but we have no control sample for comparison, and we have no idea how close modern geneticists are to the real Neanderthal DNA."

Overall, no. As far as I can see, there is a Neanderthal genome accessible in fragments, but not a complete map.

However, this could be just suspicion, and they could have a fairly complete map. But identifying mitochondrial and Y-chromosomewise differences does not take a complete map.

"I consider it possible that their DNA results are largely an illusion."

Not sufficiently to make me say all post-Flood men were Neanderthals, as if the characteristics were just a matter of gene expression and not of genes.

"3. Homo Erectus have to be superior early extinct apes. They show monkey characteristics. Cuozzo shows this."

Which ones of them?

Certainly not the Homo Heidelbergensis or Homo Antecessor ones. As to Peking man or Java man, they could have been diseased.

Shinar/Tower of Babel:

"On the biblical timeline, the Tower of Babel had to have been built long, long before the end of the Ice Age, which is when Gobekli Tepe was built."

Why exactly? Because ice age men have a geographical spread which you identify with post-Babel scattering?

Just pre-Babel men were wandering, when they came to Shinar, they had arguably just been over to India.

This means the ice age geographical spread can be a pre-Babel trace of wandering and of expeditions (and in Biblical Hebrew, an expedition would probably have been described as "wandering", especially if engaged in geographic exploration, looking for copper and tin mines, perhaps also for Uranium : see my next).

"Besides, there is no resemblance to a tower at GT."

I wonder if the tower would have looked very much as a tower previous to a few days before take off.

In our days, at Cape Canaveral, take-offs imply that what looks like a tower is placed on the launching ramp. Now, of this tower, lowest first and second steps are dropped and only third step goes into space.

Re-read the verse. It does not say "a tower so high that its top reaches heaven", it says "a tower, whereof the top may reach heaven".

GT has been compared to a launching ramp, perhaps it was in a video by Trey Smith that I heard the comparison.

I think Nimrod planned to make a rocket, fuelled by Uranium and of making it in baked bricks. Let's be happy he failed before even trying a take off, if so!

LXX: "Yes, I am very friendly to the LXX! Jesus and the early church used it. I believe that history shows that the MT was produced shortly after the time of Christ by Jews who hated the Christians and hated their scripture, the LXX."

I agree. I think the timeline of Masoretic and even pre-Vulgate Hebrew texts was taken over from erroneous Samaritan version, in part. Which version had been produced in hatred of Judah, by Samarians.

"Have you read my papers on the Neanderthals, Tower of Babel and Ice Age?"

I think I read all three, if not, it is Ice Age which is missing. But I read them on Answers in Genesis.

"They are on my web site: www.creationsixdays.net. Or google up my name and those words. The papers are online."

Thank you, I'll check if I missed your work on the Ice Age.

Hans Georg Lundahl

III bis

Me to Habermehl again

1/27/2017 at 12:20 PM

Papers + Ancient Instruments

The pdfs on Answers in Genesis do not open in this University library.

They have been blocked "par une stratégie de groupe". Not sure if blocked key word is pdf or answersingenesis, but either is possible.

The one essay which is in a html page on your own site can be viewed, however.

I think it was a mistake to keep both timelines chronological.

The evolutionary timeline involving Huronian and things certainly needs to be reconsidered as geographical spread rather than chronological timeline./HGL

IV

Skipping forward to later

with another title, I am reading some on Göbekli Tepe, by me first of them at XIV.

V

Me to Habermehl

1/27/2017 at 5:49 PM

dating music

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Where my dating of music differs from Habermehl's
http://filolohika.blogspot.com/2017/01/where-my-dating-of-music-differs-from.html

VI

Habermehl to me

1/27/2017 at 9:26 PM

Re: Neanderthals and Tower of Babel

You right -- three. The in-house fight between the secular scholars and carbon-date enthusiasts goes on! I point out that the carbon dating timeline is not absolute, because it is based on the number of carbon 14 molecules counted. This still has to be correlated to a carbon date.

Carbon dating is not reasonably useful for more than about 5,000 years back. After that, the percentage of inaccuracy gets very large. Sure, you can get carbon date numbers for just about anything back to about 50,000 years, but those numbers don't mean much. The dates back further than that are basically figures made up by evolutionists to make their timeline work.

So what traces did the Flood actually leave? Essentially none on the surface of the earth. Just about everything claimed to be from the Flood is from post-Flood events. It is not understood just how major the Ice Age was, and what happened when the ice melted. All shorelines on earth today have to be post Flood. One in Iraq has to be post Flood, but it is pre Ice Age. This I show in my Tower of Babel paper, with calculations. If all the ice on earth today melted, it would put the seashore at the level of that ancient shoreline.

Yes, I most certainly do equate human scattering around the earth with the Babel dispersion. That's because I believe what the Bible says about it. I take Genesis 6 literally. It clearly says that all the men stayed together (and the Tower was intended to keep them together) until God came down and scattered them. There is some discussion as to whether the Ice Age had started to come on gradually before the Babel scattering or not. However, that does not affect the argument. Where exactly the descendants of Noah went between leaving the Ark and setting up in Shinar I cannot say. That is pure speculation. But I consider it strange to say that they went as far as India. In any case, by the time the Ice Age really developed, clearly the Babel dispersion had taken place.

Mind you, wherever men went, they built ziggurats. I've written an unpublished paper on this. I would actually look for a ziggurat somewhere in the area of Gobekli Tepe, but probably not right at the GT site. Anyway, they have done remote sensing, and although there are more rings of stones under the ground, they haven't found any kind of construction like a ziggurat so far. I have been to GT, and I assure you that the notion of its being a launching ramp is ludicrous. (And I know Trey Smith, who is a friend of mine, and who calls me to consult on his videos. Too bad that he did that one before we met! I would have set him straight.)

Anne

VII bis

Habermehl to me

1/27/2017 at 9:31 PM

Re: Papers + Ancient Instruments

Hi!

I got permission from the society to put my ICC papers online (it is not an Answers in Genesis paper). The one on the Ice Age is here: 2013 ICC, Habermehl, Ancient Egypt
http://www.creationsixdays.net/2013_ICC_Habermehl_AncientEgypt.pdf

I don't understand what you mean about the secular ice ages not being chronological.Those scholars most certainly think that they are. And it's their timeline. They get to say this!
Anne

VIII

Me to Habermehl

1/28/2017 at 3:24 PM

Re: Papers + Ancient Instruments

It is their timeline in their fantasy, but a succession of ice ages is not really born out by the evidence, as far as Creationists are concerned.

This means that we must ask what the timelines are built on. Human population arriving after Ice Age and carbon datable, fine. We just have to adjust the carbon table. Correlation with a certain period dated only by speculation on when the fauna developed or so - which is the case with Huronian - we are free to consider their "chronology" as synchronic rather than diachronic, as geographic rather than chronological.

The latter is the case with Huronian glaciation. It is identified as "after atmosphere was mostly methane" (sth which was not the case any period) or as having only bacterial fauna. So, some methane was around during Flood and some places were only inhabited by bacteria.

Hans Georg Lundahl

PS, nearly forgot to thank for the look at your paper. Wonderful. If I don't reply at once to the other letter, I am studying that one./HGL

VIII bis

Me to Habermehl

1/28/2017 at 5:27 PM

Re: Neanderthals and Tower of Babel

" It clearly says that all the men stayed together "

Does it?

[1] And the earth was of one tongue, and of the same speech. [2] And when they removed from the east, they found a plain in the land of Sennaar, and dwelt in it. [3] And each one said to his neighbour: Come, let us make brick, and bake them with fire. And they had brick instead of stones, and slime instead of mortar. [4] And they said: Come, let us make a city and a tower, the top whereof may reach to heaven: and let us make our name famous before we be scattered abroad into all lands. [5] And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of Adam were building.

Could not a few expeditions of Solutrean culture and Gomeric descent in France have been part of the agreement while not actually staying close to the building of Edessa?

Could not a few expeditions to Jericho and other places (somewhat later) have been providing wheat for the builders at Babel?

Even so, the men (except the just patriarchs in the line from Noah to Abraham) would have been part of the same people (all obeying the same laws, those of Nimrod), and of the same tongue (Hebrew like the patriarchs, until when the patriarchs were the only ones left with it, as reward for refusing to build), and parts of very same agreement?

If GT was ToB, it took 45 years of continuous effort - on my view directed at preparing a launching ramp, as revealed also in Isaiah, where Satan as "King of Babylon" is not just the one inspiring the then present king but also the former king of Sinear, Nimrod, and inspiring his ambition of space voyage to Empyrean Heaven (which he probably considered closer than beyond one light day away).

A man may walk GT to some place in France more than once back and forth in 45 years. Let's check the km.

The distance between Sanliurfa and Les Eyzies de Tayac-Sireuil is given as 4,125.2 km. Add 18 between Sanliurfa and GT.

4143 km.

Let's say one can easily walk 15 km a day, that is 276 and a third days marches. Less than a year.

In absence of borders and of linguistic barriers, that would not daunt the Babel builders, if expeditions were thought of as useful.

Remember too, I consider the Neanderthal spread as a pre-Flood one.

Remember furthermore that the expeditions would be a smaller part of the population, most of which kept together and walked together.

And that corresponds for finds from latter half of Upper Palaeolithic.

When the Gomerites AT Babel (close to GT, there are still some, since Kappadocians are Gomerites too) were unable to understand the rest there, they went out to join their few relatives already in France, and to start agriculture there, and as they had counted on understanding each other, but not the rest, they had come to the same new language (or in their erroneous view perhaps retained the same old one) as the Gomerites already in France.

So, shift of population "37,000 BC" = Flood. Spread of agriculture to diverse areas of Europe (Gomerites for France) = post-Babel actual scattering.

[8] And so the Lord scattered them from that place into all lands, and they ceased to build the city. [9] And therefore the name thereof was called Babel, because there the language of the whole earth was confounded: and from thence the Lord scattered them abroad upon the face of all countries.

Of course, the stone age populations in France are more scattered than those after neolithic. But on my view, that earlier scattering would have been exceptional.

And in some cases, the post-Flood Palaeolithic finds would not be about scattering, but about people left behind when they all walked together.

Les Eyzies de Tayac is large enough to have accomodated a population of perhaps 80 years after the Flood.

This means, the men found there need not have been part of the scattering, they can have been part of the roaming.

Hans Georg Lundahl

IX

Habermehl to me

1/28/2017 at 8:08 PM

Re: Neanderthals and Tower of Babel

I do not speculate in order to support pet theories. According to the Bible, there was no dispersion of any kind before the Babel dispersion. And the Tower of Babel was built in Northern Mesopotamia, because the south was under water at that time.

Because the Flood destroyed everything, the Neanderthal fossils that we have are all post Flood.

We do not agree on these things.

Anne

X

Me to Habermehl

1/29/2017 at 11:22 PM

Re: Neanderthals and Tower of Babel

" According to the Bible, there was no dispersion of any kind before the Babel dispersion."

Proof text?

Plus prove Upper Palaeolithic was a dispersion rather than a walking together?

" And the Tower of Babel was built in Northern Mesopotamia, because the south was under water at that time. "

Edessa and Göbekli Tepe are as far North as you can get in Mesopotamia without getting up into the mountains. Since it is East of Euphrates, it is Mesopotamia.

" Because the Flood destroyed everything, the Neanderthal fossils that we have are all post Flood."

Exact verse?/HGL

XI

Habermehl to me

1/30/2017 at 12:00 AM

Re: Neanderthals and Tower of Babel

The Bible clearly says that all the people were together at Shinar.

Yes, of course! I have difficulty remembering that you think that GT is the Tower of Babel because it is such a really weird idea.

The Bible says that the Flood destroyed everything. Everything.

Anne

XII

Me to Habermehl

1/30/2017 at 9:43 AM

Re: Neanderthals and Tower of Babel

1) I don't think per se GT was or is the Tower of Babel.

I think it was meant for the LAUNCHING ramp of the Tower of Babel. GT is like Cape Canaveral. ToB like Apollo 11.

Difference one :

at Cape Canaveral, the fuel was not an atomic bomb.

God could let it happen without having all or most of mankind destroyed by another atomic explosion (I think the Mahabharata records such in pre-Flood Nodian wars).

Difference two :

at Cape Canaveral, it could be brought about without involving a totalitarian all man kind solidarity of collaboration.

God could let it happen without immediately letting Nimrod come off as a huge success.

" The Bible clearly says that all the people were together at Shinar."

Not all the time from Flood to project.

But what about the time itself:

[1] And the earth was of one tongue, and of the same speech. [2] And when they removed from the east, they found a plain in the land of Sennaar, and dwelt in it. [3] And each one said to his neighbour: Come, let us make brick, and bake them with fire. And they had brick instead of stones, and slime instead of mortar. [4] And they said: Come, let us make a city and a tower, the top whereof may reach to heaven: and let us make our name famous before we be scattered abroad into all lands. [5] And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of Adam were building. [6] And he said: Behold, it is one people, and all have one tongue: and they have begun to do this, neither will they leave off from their designs, till they accomplish them in deed.

They were one people (except the Hebrews who opted out).

They moved from the East. Is there any late Upper Palaeolithic finds in Persia or India or Afghanistan which could be where they were before they came to Shinar?

They - it would seem - all dwelt in the plain. Does not mean there were no other sites than the great city they were building and does not mean there were no expeditions elsewhere.

They clearly thought they were going to or risked being scattered in all lands. Were they thinking of older relatives during upper palaeolithic? Perhaps they thought they were all dead, but were wrong.

It could be that the oikoumene was in Shinar while various barbarians were in fact scattered - more or less, on and off.

The result of the confusion of tongues was a scattering of the oikoumene itself, into civilisation which had not heard of each other, and permanently. We are still scattered in this sense.

I admit that the text as such seems to suggest a skyscraper or a skyline more than a rocket for the tower. But if so, why would God say "now nothing will be impossible for them", since we know that building a skyscraper "into heaven" is impossible. Sending up rockets, of which step one and two do not get into space, but step three does, that is possible.

After Babel there was a technology loss, which you will admit yourself, if you think agriculture was temporarily lost after Babel rather than recovered after temporary disruption before it, and so the Bible expresses the thing in ways which would not trigger the curiosity of rocketry.
2) The Bible really does not say that nothing even left traces, like bones. LXX kataphtheiro is used of destroying armies, among other things. A destroyed army is sth other than a vanished army. A vanished army can be vanished without trace, and then reappear. A destroyed army stays visibly destroyed, at least for a time.

You may be thinking of II Peter 3 ...

[3] Knowing this first, that in the last days there shall come deceitful scoffers, walking after their own lusts, [4] Saying: Where is his promise or his coming? for since the time that the fathers slept, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

They have a Jewish sense of humour, they don't believe either return of Christ nor even advent of another Messiah, they continue the Sabbath as if Calvary and Resurrection of Our Lord had not changed the world even more drastically than the Flood.

[5] For this they are wilfully ignorant of, that the heavens were before, and the earth out of water, and through water, consisting by the word of God.

The sky must have been different.

[6] Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished.

The world perished. It does not say that every single thing in it did. Unless you say the Ark was a TARDIS or a wardrobe, and the pre-Flood world was a universe destroyed like the world of Charn (which by the way has some similarity to pre-Flood Nod).

But that would hardly fit the fact that four rivers from before the Flood were partially preserved after it.

I do not take Frat and Hiddekel as identical from source to Persian Gulf with Euphrates and Tigris. These two don't come from a same other single river.

But they are preserved in Euphrates and Tigris, and that means at least part of the riverbeds must be the same.

Hans Georg

Pages

Monday, 19 November 2018

With Habermehl 2017, II

Sunday, 18 November 2018

With Habermehl 2017, I