Correspondences on Carbon Dating, Often Davidic and Exodus Times

I

Me to CMI

12/23/2023 at 9:30 PM

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

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

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

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

I am very intrigued to hear this ...

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

And I'd be happy to have the details!

Hans Georg Lundahl,
wishing you about 24 hours in advance

Merry and Holy Christmas!

II

CMI to me

12/23/2023 at 9:30 PM

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

Thank you for contacting Creation Ministries International.

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

Warm regards,

Creation Ministries International (Australia)
ABN 31 010 120 304

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

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

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

--

Marivic Tang
Administration

Creation Ministries International (Australia)

P: +61 7 3340 9888

creation.com

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

III

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

Dear Hans-Georg Lundahl,

A staff member has replied to your ticket.

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

Robert Carter

Staff - 2024-01-04 2:51 PM

Hans,

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

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

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

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

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

From:

Questions & Answers

Sent:

Tuesday, January 2, 2024 12:19 PM

Subject:

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

IV

Me to CMI / Robert Carter

1/5/2024 at 8:09 PM

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

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

How long does mixing of new carbon take?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blessed Epiphany!

Hans Georg Lundahl

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

V

Me to CMI / Robert Carter

4/1/2024 at 3:58 PM

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

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

To the time when Kenyon dates Jericho?

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

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

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

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

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

Have you Really Taken ALL the Factors into Account? · New Tables · Why Should one Use my Tables? · And what are the lineups between archaeology and Bible, in my tables? · Bases of C14 · An example of using previous · Difference with Carbon 14 from Other Radioactive Methods · Tables I-II and II-III and III-IV, Towards a Revision? · The Revision of I-II, II-III, III-IV May be Unnecessary, BUT Illustrates What I Did When Doing the First Version of New Tables · Convergence of Uneven pmC? · [Calculation on paper commented on] · Other Revision of I-II ? · Where I Agree with Uniformitarian Dating Experts

Hans Georg Lundahl

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

VI a

background, I saw:

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

VI b

HGL to Biblical Archaeology Comments

4/5/2024 at 5:57 PM

Lamech 753, 707 or 777?

753 is famously how many years BC Rome was founded.

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

That was some gematria in ASCII, simple and atbash.

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

Here is my first attempt at:

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

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

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

Have you Really Taken ALL the Factors into Account? · New Tables · Why Should one Use my Tables? · And what are the lineups between archaeology and Bible, in my tables? · Bases of C14 · An example of using previous · Difference with Carbon 14 from Other Radioactive Methods · Tables I-II and II-III and III-IV, Towards a Revision? · The Revision of I-II, II-III, III-IV May be Unnecessary, BUT Illustrates What I Did When Doing the First Version of New Tables · Convergence of Uneven pmC? · [Calculation on paper commented on] · Other Revision of I-II ? · Where I Agree with Uniformitarian Dating Experts

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

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

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

Enjoy!

Hans Georg Lundahl