Correspondence de / of / van Hans Georg Lundahl: Damien Mackey

Showing posts with label Damien Mackey. Show all posts

Tuesday, 13 February 2024

Damien Mackey Seems to Run Out of Arguments

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

I
Me to Damien Mackey: 2/2/2024 at 2:04 PM
Who's the astute commentator?: "rightly described Creationism as a form of modernism, attempting to reduce Genesis to science."

Is "rightly" your own assessment?

Either way, I disagree.

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

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

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

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

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

Hans Georg Lundahl
II
Damien Mackey to me: 2/3/2024 at 9:02 PM
Re: Who's the astute commentator?: I hope your leaders can understand that H-G, because I had difficulty.

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

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

From the blood of Abel to Zechariah, a sweep of history from the Beginning to the time of Jesus.
Where is the connection, where the continuity, if the Garden of Eden wasn't the same site as Jerusalem?
III
Me to Damien Mackey: 2/4/2024 at 2:19 PM
Re: Who's the astute commentator?: "Creationists I know believe that the Flood had a tabula rasa effect - nothing whatsoever left of the old world."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Abel was probably also killed West of Eden.

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

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

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

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

Hans Georg Lundahl
IV
Damien Mackey to me: 2/5/2024 at 7:39 PM
Re: Who's the astute commentator?: Aren't you hedging your bets, H-G, with a global Flood that would have dumped miles of sediment upon the world - but a world that is still accessible to archaeology?

And I would rather take Our Lord's authoritative geographical connection between Jerusalem and Abel than your "probably" west of Eden.
V
Me to Damien Mackey: 2/6/2024 at 10:26 AM
Re: Who's the astute commentator?: 1) Our Lord never said Abel was killed inside Eden. Genesis 3 actually implies the opposite.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hans Georg Lundahl
VI
Damien Mackey to me: 2/7/2024 at 4:17 AM
Re: Who's the astute commentator?: Henoch in Nod East of Eden is probably buried under the Himalayas.

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

If it was not a joke, then I think that you might be better occupied doing something you are good at.
VII
Me to Damien Mackey: 2/7/2024 at 10:19 AM
Re: Who's the astute commentator?: I am good at spotting people who prefer snobbery over actual argument.

You just made it to that list.

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

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

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

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

Hans Georg Lundahl
VIII
Damien Mackey to me: 2/7/2024 at 8:34 PM
Re: Who's the astute commentator?: It's not a case of snobbery or not believing in the Bible, H-G.

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

Wishing you all the best for the future,
Damien.
IX
Me to Damien Mackey: 2/7/2024 at 9:20 PM
Re: Who's the astute commentator?: The etymology of "silly" is "sælig" ... I am obviously not intending to put all my carreere or success on hold until I happen to please you.

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

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

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

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

Care for a look?

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

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

Width of the Atlantic

Hans Georg Lundahl
X
Damien Mackey to me: 2/8/2024 at 3:29 AM
Re: Who's the astute commentator?: All the best with your writing endeavors.

Friday, 1 March 2019

With Mackey on Haman and on Babel

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Does my Interpretation of Mahabharata and Ramayana Offend Hindoos? · If Tower of Babel was a Rocket Project, Why was it Called a Tower? · If Tower of Babel was a Rocket Project - What Else Can We Expect? · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Sin of Babel - Two Views · Φιλολoγικά/Philologica again: In case anyone missed this · Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : With Mackey on Haman and on Babel · Creation vs. Evolution : Bricks at Göbekli Tepe or Close? · How My View of Babel Ties in with "Defending Biblical Inerrancy" · Ten Keys to my Idea of Göbekli Tepe as Babel and its Tower as a Rocket · Geographic Spread Before Babel?

A

I

Me to Damien Mackey

2/13/2019 at 10:49 AM

Hello, Aman a bad king of Juda, you said?

Et ut manifestius quod dicimus, intelligatis, Aman filius Amadathi, et animo et gente Macedo, alienusque a Persarum sanguine, et pietatem nostram sua crudelitate commaculans, peregrinus a nobis susceptus est :

Now that you may more plainly understand what we say, I Aman the son of Amadathi, a Macedonian both in mind and country, and having nothing of the Persian blood, but with his cruelty staining our goodness, was received being a stranger by us:

("I Aman the son of Amadathi," is bad translation for "Aman the son of Amadathus," the site has probably been tampered with).

Esther 16:10

II

Damien Mackey to me

2/13/2019 at 11:06 PM

Re: Hello, Aman a bad king of Juda, you said?

Elsewhere he is called a "Bougaean". What the hell is that?

III

Me to Damien Mackey

2/14/2019 at 11:58 AM

Re: Hello, Aman a bad king of Juda, you said?

A google gave this:

https://www.biblicaltraining.org/library/bougaean

And obviously other possibilities exist too.

Haydock for Esther 12:6 is here:

Ver. 6. Bugite, may refer to some town of Macedon. C. iii. 1. --- Honour. Yet he might be still more exalted, after the conspiracy was detected; (Houbig.) as the king little suspected that he was concerned in it. H. --- Death. It is thought that they wished to place Aman, or some Macedonian, on the throne. C. xvi. 12. 14. C. --- This reason for the malevolence of Aman, might be unknown to Mardochai. C. xiii. 12. Houbigant. --- The former was either a favourer of traitors, or perhaps of the same conspiracy. W.

C = Challoner, an 18th C bishop for English Catholics.

https://www.ecatholic2000.com/haydock/untitled-524.shtml#navPoint_525

IV

Damien Mackey to me

2/14/2019 at 11:34 PM

Re: Hello, Aman a bad king of Juda, you said?

Haman (Aman) is king Amon of Judah.

Your Haman is probably a Boogeyman, sorry Bougaean.

V

Me to Damien Mackey

2/15/2019 at 10:20 AM

Re: Hello, Aman a bad king of Juda, you said?

"Josephus thinks that Esther was the queen of Artaxerxes Longimanus, who was a great friend of the Jews. D."

https://www.ecatholic2000.com/haydock/untitled-512.shtml#navPoint_513

Which Artaxerxes was that?

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

Reign 465–424 BC

Amon of Judah

"Amon is most remembered for his idolatrous practices while king, which led to a revolt against him and eventually his assassination in c. 641 BC."

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

Type of end - assassination vs execution - doesn't match.

And 641 BC was not in the reign of Artaxerxes Longimanus or Artaxerxes I.

Offense also doesn't match, idolatry being a different one from trying to annihilate Jews for not bowing down to men.

IV Kings 22 / II Paralipomenon 33 vs Book of Esther, which account is on your view garbled?

Either way, you are withdrawing "qui loquutus est per prophetas" from historical books.

VI

Damien Mackey to me

2/16/2019 at 2:32 AM

Re: Hello, Aman a bad king of Juda, you said?

If you'd read my Esther articles over the years you would know that it is Darius the Mede/Cyrus.

He was a friend of the Jews.

Don't confuse your Boogeyman with Longimanus or Longshanks.

VII

Me to Damien Mackey

2/16/2019 at 10:23 AM

Re: Hello, Aman a bad king of Juda, you said?

Saying Haman and Ahasuerus need to be contemporaries is not confusing them.

Darius the Mede is mentioned in the Book of Daniel as king of Babylon between Belshazzar and Cyrus the Great, but he is not known to history, and no additional king can be placed between the known figures of Belshazzar and Cyrus.[1] Most scholars view him as a literary fiction, but some have tried to harmonise the Book of Daniel with history by identifying him with various known figures, notably Cyrus or Ugbaru, the general who was first to enter Babylon when it fell to the Persians in 539 BCE.

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

One century too much difference.

VIII

Me to Damien Mackey

2/16/2019 at 10:24 AM

Re: Hello, etc? Clarification on previous

I cited the wiki for the years, not for " Most scholars view him as a literary fiction, " which I obviously don't attribute to Daniel.

IX

Damien Mackey to me

2/17/2019 at 1:58 AM

Re: Hello, Aman a bad king of Juda, you said?

Josephus got one right.

He said that Artaxerxes Longpants (Longimanus) was also called Cyrus.

I add that he was also Darius the Mede.

X

Me to Damien Mackey

2/17/2019 at 6:18 PM

Re: Hello, Aman a bad king of Juda, you said?

Possible, but even so, he is too late to have ordered killing Amon of Judah.

XI

Damien Mackey to me

2/17/2019 at 11:08 PM

Re: Hello, Aman a bad king of Juda, you said?

Whatever you say, H-G.

B

I

Me to Damien Mackey

2/21/2019 at 6:37 PM

palaeolithics 1 - 3

https://www.academia.edu/38355575/So-called_Paleolithic_man_was_not_dumb._Part_One_Long_cultural_tradition_of_sky_watching

"French paleo-astronomer Chantal Jegues-Wolkiewiez insists there was a long cultural tradition of skywatching among the people of the Cro-Magnon Age of Europe (30,000-10,000 BCE)."

I would say, carbon dated (this is usually the case with this kind of dates) 30 - 10 000 BC = post-Flood to about death of Noah.

Meaning the 8 on the ark were teaching some astronomy before there was any occasion to teach metallurgy in practise.

"She proposes that the famous cave paintings of Lascaux in France record the constellations of a prehistoric version of the zodiac which included solstice points and major stars. Her theory is based on the discovery of numerous dots and tracings superimposed on the paintings of bulls, aurochs and horses on the walls of Lascaux. She claims these correspond to the patterns of constellations – most notably the constellations ofTaurusand Pleiades and the stars Aldeberan and Antares. She proposes most of the constellations are represented by paintings of animals, accurately depicting their coloring and coats during the corresponding seasons of the year."

Very probable.

That was the good part.

Now for two bad parts:

https://creation.com/a-better-model-for-the-stone-age

Osgood thought Acheulian and Mousterian Canaanean. I think them pre-Flood. I obviously also think Aurignacian is from before Noah died, as per previous remark. And post-Flood.

More directly you, since you might not share this error by Osgood : comparison to "palaeolithic" populations today.

I think some of the remaining palaeolithics were shirking the building of Babel (however, aboriginal Australians share a symbol found on Göbekli Tepe, the horizontal oval with an inner field divided in three, if I recall details correctly, and Polynesians share the birdman motive with GT).

But once they were away from Nimrod, they could have started developing agriculture, they didn't. Bad move. Cultural heresy, if you want.

The one good thing, if ever the Church is saved in what is even now a wilderness, if people like they are around, they may greatly help survival chances. Anyway, either way, identity of material tools (on a very rough approximation at least) does not mean identity of overall culture. Therefore, however stupid a modern palaeolithic were in some respect, it wouldn't stop the early palaeolithics from being much smarter than we and simply separated from a pre-Flood culture buried under mud, probably as high as Mount Everest.

However, I am not into stamping modern palaeolithics as dumb, and I appreciate your Ehrenrettung!

https://www.academia.edu/38355624/So-called_Paleolithic_man_was_not_dumb._Part_Two_Australian_Aboriginal_Astronomy

https://www.academia.edu/38373387/So-called_Paleolithic_man_was_not_dumb._Part_Three_Skilled_Aboriginal_encoding_of_knowledge

The last piece, btw, is a great clue how history from Genesis 2-11 was preserved, before Abraham got a beduin tribe which could start stocking written records./HGL

II

Damien Mackey to me

2/21/2019 at 11:12 PM

Re: palaeolithics 1 - 3

"... aboriginal Australians share a symbol found on Göbekli Tepe, the horizontal oval with an inner field divided in three, if I recall details correctly, and Polynesians share the birdman motive with GT".

Now that I find interesting.

III

Me to Damien Mackey

2/22/2019 at 6:13 PM

Re: palaeolithics 1 - 3

http://ancientnews.net/2017/10/13/a-global-aboriginal-australian-culture-the-proof-at-gobekli-tepe/

For birdman, the funny thing is, it's more visible on pinterest than on the article it links to.

http://beforeitsnews.com/v3/blogging-citizen-journalism/2013/2448608.html

https://www.pinterest.fr/pin/392728029989417289/

IV

Me to Damien Mackey

2/22/2019 at 7:10 PM

palaeolitics 4

I saw you found it already ....

https://www.academia.edu/38411076/So-called_Paleolithic_man_was_not_dumb._Part_Four_Australian_Aboriginal_link_to_G%C3%B6bekli_Tepe

How do you feel about Göbekli Tepe = Babel?

V

Damien Mackey to me

2/23/2019 at 1:00 AM

Re: palaeolitics 4

I feel nothing about it.

Isaiah (Septuagint) clearly locates the Tower in the vicinity of Calneh and Carchemish. The true land of Shinar (as opposed to Sumer), as I believe.

G.T. in Turkey is none of these.

VI

Me to Damien Mackey

2/23/2019 at 10:10 AM

Re: palaeolitics 4

Vicinity?

Not quite.

And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar

But if land of Shinar is all of Mesopotamia, which is very arguable, then easternmost parts of Turkey (where GT is) belong to it.

If "vicinity" is based on another verse, tell me which one.

[I had missed he mentioned Isaiah, and he did not respond about which other verse by citing Isaiah in LXX, however, his main point is geography of Carchemish.]

VII

Me to Damien Mackey

2/23/2019 at 10:15

Sumer / Shinar the connection

I'd consider Sumer is a Sumerian form of Shinar and means Sumerians were originally claiming some kind of superiority over northern neighbours, all over Shinar.

A bit like USA being called "America" has stuck despite Argentina or Chile or Newfoundland clearly being in Americas* but outside US.

Or like a very big island and a somewhat smaller one called Tasmania or van Diemen's land have taken the name "Australia" formerly equivalent to Oceania and meaning lands (that is islands) all over South (hence Australia) Pacific Ocean (hence Oceania).

It is extremely possible that Sumerian was originally one of the 72 languages originating way further NW in Shinar, that is in Göbekli Tepe./HGL

* One could arguably only defend the plural after Panama canal.

VIII

Me to Damien Mackey

2/23/2019 at 10:50 AM

vicinity, bis

36°49′47″N 38°00′54″E Carchemish (funny Greeks and Latins call the site Europus)
37°13′23″N 38°55′21″E Göbekli Tepe
1°36'24" N/S 0°54'27" E/W

48°51'24"N (Paris N/S)
-1°36'24"
47°15'N

Nantes 47°13′05″N 1°33′10″W
Montsoreau 47°13′02″N 0°03′28″E
Bourges 47°05′04″N 2°23′47″E

48°51'24"N (Paris for comparison, again)
+1°36'24"
49°87'48"
50°27'48"N

Lille 50°37′40″N 3°03′30″E
Charleroi 50°24′N 04°26′E

2°21'03"E (Paris E/W)
0°54'27"
2°75'30"
3°15'30"E

Montescourt-Lizerolles 49°44′21″N 3°15′30″

2°21'03"E (Paris E/W)
1°80'63"E
0°54'27"
1°26'36"E

Saumur 47° 15′ 36″ nord, 0° 04′ 37″ ouest
Villebernier 47° 15′ 14″ nord, 0° 01′ 46″ ouest
Besançon 47° 14′ 35″ nord, 6° 01′ 19″ est
Auxerre 47° 47′ 55″ nord, 3° 34′ 02″ est

I think Auxerre is about as far from Paris as Carchemish from GÖbekli Tepe.

169.3 km, with me walking 15 km per day, that would be 11 full days march and arriving on day 12.

In order NOT to have Carchemish close to Göbekli Tepe, you would need to think in terms of very small "empires."

IX

Me to Damien Mackey

2/23/2019 at 12:55 PM

identity of Sennaar

"I turned next back to Göbekli Tepe and Harran. The sites are apparently intervisible, just over 40 km apart. The difference in latitude from Harran to Göbekli Tepe equals precisely 1/1,000 of earth's circumference. This is where we enter a twilight zone in ancient astronomy. Of course, the opposite metaphor—"the dawn" of ancient astronomy, is the proper one regarding the implication. Göbekli Tepe features the oldest known room aligned north-south, evidence of astronomy in practice."

http://jqjacobs.net/blog/gobekli_tepe.html

Note, Harran is exactly border of Turkey-Syria, and GT is NW corner, Harran middle of a great plain, which is however limited by surrounding hill country to mountain country, and which, as between Euphrates and Tigris, is in Shinar=Mesopotamia.

"And the beginning of his kingdom was Babylon, and Arach, and Achad, and Chalanne in the land of Sennaar."
[Genesis 10:10] LXX has 10 And the beginning of his kingdom was Babylon, and Orech, and Archad, and Chalanne, in the land of Senaar.

"And when they removed from the east, they found a plain in the land of Sennaar, and dwelt in it."
[Genesis 11:2] LXX has 2 And it came to pass as they moved from the east, they found a plain in the land of Senaar, and they dwelt there.

"And it came to pass at that time, that Amraphel king of Sennaar, and Arioch king of Pontus, and Chodorlahomor king of the Elamites, and Thadal king of nations,"
[Genesis 14:1] LXX has 14:1 And it came to pass in the reign of Amarphal king of Sennaar, and Arioch king of Ellasar, that Chodollogomor king of Elam, and Thargal king of nations,

"To wit, against Chodorlahomor king of the Elamites, and Thadal king of nations, and Amraphel king of Sennaar, and Arioch king of Pontus: four kings against five."
[Genesis 14:9] LXX has 9 against Chodollogomor king of Elam, and Thargal king of nations, and Amarphal king of Sennaar, and Arioch king of Ellasar, the four kings against the five.

"And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall set his hand the second time to possess the remnant of his people, which shall be left from the Assyrians, and from Egypt, and from Phetros, and from Ethiopia, and from Elam, and from Sennaar, and from Emath, and from the islands of the sea."
[Isaias (Isaiah) 11:11] LXX has 11 And it shall be in that day, [that] the Lord shall again shew his hand, to be zealous for the remnant that is left of the people, which shall be left by the Assyrians, and [that] from Egypt, and from the country of Babylon, and from Ethiopia, and from the Elamites, and from the rising of the sun, and out of Arabia.

"And the Lord delivered into his hands Joakim the king of Juda, and part of the vessels of the house of God: and he carried them away into the land of Sennaar, to the house of his god, and the vessels he brought into the treasure house of his god."
[Daniel 1:2] LXX has 2 And the Lord gave into his hand Joakim king of Juda, and part of the vessels of the house of God: and he brought them into the land of Sennaar to the house of his god; and he brought the vessels into the treasure-house of his god.

"And he said to me: That a house may be built for it in the land of Sennaar, and that it may be established, and set there upon its own basis."
[Zacharias (Zechariah) 5:11] LXX has 11 And he said to me, To build it a house in the land of Babylon, and to prepare [a place for it]; and they shall set it there on its own base.

So, is Sennaar Sinjar, in Syria? Or is it Babylon, as per two translations in LXX and one context equation either text? Or is it both, as per both are between Euphrates and Tigris?

In this latter case, Göbekli Tepe is in Sennaar. Not outside.

And unlike the plain around the historic city Babylon, the plain near GT can be found, since it is delimited within a hill country.

The plain around historic Babylon cannot be found in the land, it is the land of Sennaar which can be found in that plain. Ergo, the plain around Harran with GT in a corner is a better match.

It is also a fact that you find the plain first, as you pass from the East from Mount Judi (in the mountainS of Ararat) to Göbekli Tepe. Mount Judi is in Cizre, Göbekli Tepe is near Şanlıurfa, a map between the two shows:

And both are within Shinar.

X

Damien Mackey to me

2/24/2019 at 3:04 AM

Re: vicinity, bis

You might find that Babel is actually in Paris.

Dan Brown would be interested to know that.

XI

Me to Damien Mackey

2/25/2019 at 11:32 AM

Re: vicinity, bis

You might find out that maths have applications .... I was comparing distance from Göbekli Tepe to Carchemish to distance from Paris to Auxerre.

Now, Paris and Auxerre are in same post-Babel (not immediately post-Babel, though) nation, France.

Therefore Carchemish and GT can have been so too.

XII

Damien Mackey to me

2/25/2019 at 11:20 PM

Re: vicinity, bis

Why do you want Gobbling Turkey (GT) to be Babel?

Where are the remnants of the Tower? - that would be a good start.

XIII

Me to Damien Mackey

2/26/2019 at 1:05 PM

Re: vicinity, bis

"Why do you want Gobbling Turkey (GT) to be Babel?"

1) Fits geographically, as in Mesopotamia
2) Fits geographically, as that part of Mesopotamia allows you to actively FIND a plain (the one stretching SE of GT)
3) Fits geographically, supposing Ark landed on Mount Judi, since that would imply removing precisely from the East
4) Fits geographically, since close to Carchemish (which you consider as Calneh).
5) Fits linguistically, since showing no written remains of a non-Hebrew language.
6) Fits temporally and linguistically, as all written records of non-Hebrew languages are posterior to it.
7) Fits temporally in carbon dating, since between démise of Neanderthals (my carbon date for Flood, 2957 BC) and the Chalcolithic (my carbon date for Genesis 14, 1935 BC).
8) Fits culturally, as cultural influences could have spread from there to anywhere (see Australian symbol, see bird man).
9) Fits culturally with Nimrod, as skulls perforated in vortex and persumably tied around a rope vertically have been found, which would be Nimrod's threat on how to deal with shirkers.

"Where are the remnants of the Tower? - that would be a good start."

1) Weaker alternative would be : Harran. However, it seems the carbon dates don't fit.
2) Stronger alternative : it left no remains, since it was no building.

Or better : it left no material remains. It left cultural ones, climaxing at Cape Canaveral and Bajkonur. Nimrod wanted a rocket. He didn't get one in his lifetime, but he got quite a few with some millennia of delay.

Do you want to start pointing out problems, or shall I deal with the already known ones?

1) Culture wasn't sufficiently advanced? With no written remains, which means one cannot pronounce negatively against pieces of culture not being shown in remains. Later culture didn't show such an advance? Technology loss. Both actively mastered and only projected technologies can be lost.
2) If a rocket, why did Moses say "Tower" and not "Rocket"? Any invention is called after sth already existing, and "rocket" is called after firework rockets, usually, and these are called for different things, in English, German and Scandinavian languages an Italian word for bobbin is used, in French a word for sword hilt, in Greek fire-flute, in Chinese fire-arrow. What would you chose if you were dealing with a space rocket first? Tower would be on the list. Plus Moses would have not tried to enhance knowledge about lost technology.
3) If a rocket, what for? To make a name for oneself (see Bible) and to get into Heaven (see Bible) on the top floor of the tower (a k a last step of the rocket).

Perks with the idea?

1) A very pertinent answer to "if God took offense at a skyscraper, why did He allow rockets?" It was a rocket He stopped and later eventually also allowed. Difference is, now rocket engineers are not a drafted humanity, but a minority.
2) Ziggurats from Mesopotamia are all of them too recent, after there was a Sumerian language, therefore post-Babel.
3) If Nimrod, knowing the pre-Flood lore later formalised as Mahabharata (and it seems to have originally included warlike use of Uranium) was trying to use Uranium for rocket fuel, his rocket would have been a major safety hazard if he had gone through with project, meaning the theory if true means Nimrod was a bungler and God was stopping a major disaster from happening. Also, the safe rocket fuel now used is H2 + O2, the reaction gives water, and this contains an allegory on us needing "water" (baptism) to get to Heaven.
4) The remains are cultural ones : China men inventing firework rockets, Greeks and Amerindians dreaming of heros and diverse others thrown up into the stars. And, closer at hand, stone circles and ziggurats to get a better grasp on astronomy, if Nimrod too the defeat as a sign from God he was a bit off in astronomy (which he was if he hoped getting past planets and stars to God's abode before rocket became unbreathable and unable to sustain human life as to water and nutrition).

I actually forgot one of the "fits" (just waiting for your pun) : the post-Flood recovery of agriculture is starting "about a millennium" before GT (carbon date wise), and the area is North Syria with East Turkey. This fit is both temporal and geographic and cultural. Before you can start either an empire or a rocket project (however failed it might be) you need a basis in food supply.

https://filolohika.blogspot.com/2016/02/letter-of-ex-oriente-i-preliminary-to.html

http://filolohika.blogspot.com/2016/02/letter-of-ex-oriente-ii-continuing.html

http://filolohika.blogspot.com/2016/02/letter-of-ex-oriente-iii-explanation.html

http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2016/11/advantages-of-shorter-carbon-14.html

Akarçay noted in agricultural part is in the province of Şanlıurfa which is also where GT is, and 'Ain Jammam is at the other end of Syria or Iraq, since close to Saudi Arabia:

‘Ain al-Jammam is situated high on a ridge overlooking the Hisma plateau that extends into Saudi Arabia. The site consists of two distinct sites: a Byzantine farmstead and a Neolithic village.

http://moses.creighton.edu/vr/Jammam/site.html

That's how vast Nimrod's empire was.

Friday, 13 July 2018

Continuing Previous : XXI to XXXIII - getting to Troy (as we Tend to Do) (Update to XXXIX)

Creation vs. Evolution : How Much was Shinar Devastated by the Flood? · You Find a Fossil Whale Here, a Fossil Pterosaur There ... · Answering Carter and Cosner on Eden · Trying to Break Down "Reverse Danube" or "Reverse Euphrates" Concept · Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : With Damien Mackey on Four Rivers and Related, I to X · Continuing Previous, XI to XX - are Nile Rivers Excluded? · Continuing Previous : XXI to XXXIII - getting to Troy (as we Tend to Do)

You know that law which says, as arguments go longer, the probability of a reductio ad Hitlerum approaches 1? Well, as my arguments with Mackey grow longer, the probability of a conflict over Trojan War approaches 1 ...

Back to

main line of exchange:

XXI

Damien Mackey to me

7/9/2018 at 5:56 AM

Re: Gehon - Haydock comment

Then find me a proper archaeology for the Solonian era at Athens.

That is one thing German with which I agree, gruendlich, from the ground upwards.

At your rate you will never "get there", get there to a history that has a stratigraphical foundation to it.

I'd rather build upon solid foundations, gruendlich (rausch, achtung).

In the following

I give two exchanges in parallel, in order of sending of mails:

XXII

Me to Damien Mackey

7/9/2018 at 2:13 PM

Re: Gehon - Haydock comment

There is proper archaeology for Troy.

I thought you did not believe the Trojan War.

My principle is, I believe archaeology (what actually is there to see), and I believe history even more.

Your principle seems to be, you believe history less than archaeology, and history only when supported by archaeology - and yet you don't believe all there is in archaeology either.

Sounds like sth very close to radical scepsis and absolutely incompatible with Christianity, if carried out.

Archaeology is not the foundation of history, they are two different disciplines.

History is on the one hand more easy to fake in a sense, but on the other hand clearer.

Also, the sense in which history is easier to fake is marginal, and does not totally concern narrative history as a whole, more like special pleading types of history.

If you are content with "there must have been Protestants in 597 AD, even if I can't find any" or with "there must have been a secret tradition before 1717, going all the way back to Nimrod and to Adam, since Adam was a Freemason" - well, then history is easy to fake TO YOU.

But the documentation I would like PM to give for Protestants in 597 AD is not an archaeological, but a narrative one. One is NOT the foundation of the other, they go hand in hand, and history being more complete is also less supported by the other, without therefore being historically illsupported.

Solon has left writings to Athenians, therefore he existed. Homer has left songs (later written down) to Ionians and later Athenians. Therefore, he too existed.

Your criterium is the equivalent of requiring Moses' autograph for each book of the Torah, duly carbon dated to whenever he would have existed before believing Mosaic authorship.

You may be fine with making dogma an exception to your general theory of knowledge, I am very much not.

I like to say to Atheists "Moses wrote the Pentateuch, since he is credited with so having written it" - and universally credited by Hebrews, like Solon was universally credited by Athenians. Perhaps your professor taught you another approach, but in Medieval Paris professors taught it was a fault to "iurare in verba magistri".

XXIII

Me to Damien Mackey

7/9/2018 at 2:28 PM

"What exactly is Creation Science?"

[Refers to a paper of Damien's]

Six km of sedimentary mud under Eden ...

Your problem with "local Flood" and a few more problems of Creation Science is twofold:

you are prepared to take an opinion (even a popular one) among Creation Science adherents as if it were an absolute corrollary of Creation Science as such.

Canopy theory is ... scientifically perhaps a bit shady.

Four Rivers "generic names" ... is un-Biblical.

But, neither is as such a consequence of Creation Science.
while you exact a certain "gruendlichkeit" from narrative history, you do not exact it for your own archaeology - it is the groundwork by definition (ain't it in the ground after all?) and so anything stated by it is by definition gruendlich.

Not.

I have my gruendlichkeit in narrative history too - like wondering how many camp survivors of certain camps have seen a certain type of execution, which to doubt in France might put me in conflict with "loi Gayssot". I like my blogs to remain legal, and I intend to republish this on blogs, so ...

In archaeology, the counterpart would be : would the six km of mud actually be under Eden, and not over it or over where it was?

Are there problems in dating?

Ah, yes, this is a topic where some Gruendlichkeit would do you good, but carbon dating bores you .... well, if relevant subjects bore you, why make a general pronouncement at all on the matter? Why not stick to topics where you are not too bored to take in the viewpoints of both sides?

XXIV

Damien Mackey to me

7/10/2018 at 1:46 AM

Re: Gehon - Haydock comment

Moses is never credited with having written the Book of Genesis. Show me where.

Nor did he write the account of his own death in Deuteronomy 34 (from memory).

He was the primary, but not the only, EDITOR, of Genesis.

And some of the rest of the Pentateuch belongs to the Temple era, way later than Moses.

The Church says only that he was the "substantial", not sole, author.

You'll get there - I'll be long dead, though.

XXV

Damien Mackey to me

7/10/2018 at 1:55 AM

Re: "What exactly is Creation Science?"

You can be like the pharaoh who wanted a wise sage to build him a castle in the air.

AND when the king of Egypt had made sure that Haiqâr was slain, he arose straightway and wrote a letter to king Sennacherib, reminding him in it 'of the peace and the health and the might and the honour which we wish specially for thee, my beloved brother, king Sennacherib.

2 I have been desiring to build a castle between the heaven and the earth, and I want thee to send me a wise, clever man from thyself to build it for me, and to answer me all my questions, and that I may have the taxes and the custom duties of Assyria for three years.'

This "Haiqar" (Ahikar) is quite fictitious and not at all gruendlich.

But my Ahikar, biblical nephew of Tobit (and cousin of his son, Job), has a whole neo-Assyrian archaeology under his feet.

Any "castle" that he might have built would have been on solid historico-archaeological ground, and not, as in your system, suspended precariously between heaven and earth.

XXVI

Me to Damien Mackey

7/10/2018 at 9:42 AM

Re: Gehon - Haydock comment

I am not saying he got the story of Adam's fall by a vision, he got it from Hebrew TRADITION.

Final chapter of Deuteronomy, on his order, was written by Joshua, like final chapter of Joshua, on his order, was written by someone else.

Moses was the FINAL editor of Genesis, and made it his own book by adding the chapter one account of the six days, which he had from God on Sinai.

Also, arguably, where Genesis has Adonai, it is possible that Moses replaced Elohim with Adonai in those places, also a work by a final editor making Genesis his own work. Why? From memory, in some places Genesis has Adonai, but Exodus says God had not revealed that name to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Putting anything of the Pentateuch into the Temple era, as to first authorship, is simply heresy.

One can imagine updates in spelling and even onomastic updates were continuously being made. Obviously vocalisation started out as by memory and neither the dots nor the matres lectionis consonants were original parts of the text. One could extend this to names, to comments on Joshua's stones, to points of grammar.

In Sweden we do that quite a lot to our Classics (except the inserting comments or onomastic changes part, there we have footnotes).

Take a look at this stanza:

Den ena som en ek sköt fram,
och som en lans är hennes stam;
men kronan, som i vinden skälfver,
liksom en hjelm sin rundel hvälfver.

You probably get zilch. But the point is, while "open E" sound as short tonic vowel could be ä if the word had a in other forms, it was normally e (especially after j).

Fast forward to 1870's (after it was written). Now you could get a reedition in which you instead had ä for nearly all "open E", the short as well as the long, it would if so have looked like this:

Den ena som en ek sköt fram,
och som en lans är hennes stam;
men kronan, som i vinden skälfver,
liksom en hjälm sin rundel hvälfver.

Comes the dire year of 1906. The Academy gives the Nobel Prize of Literature to Inno a Satana (it means what you think it means) by Carducci. More to the point (just giving the spiritual background to it), certain consonants which had alternative spellings now get only one (but sh/wh - it's a sound between the two, except in Finland where it is sh) and yod which had more spellings than any other retain them.

The result now looks like this, and this is how I read it in an abridged edition:

Den ena som en ek sköt fram,
och som en lans är hennes stam;
men kronan, som i vinden skälver,
liksom en hjälm sin rundel välver.

And if it had been prose, perhaps the archaic word "rundel" would have been replaced by some more easily comprehensible word, like "klot" or "cirkel" (globe or circle, I think "rundel" is a very exact rendering of khug in that famous Isaiah 40:22).

THIS is the limit of the reediting which can have happened during either first or second Temple.

If you argue "such and such a form in Pentateuch is younger than a form in the Psalms of David, therefore cannot be by Moses, and so the text is not" you are basically arguing that - had we only had the redacted copy with "välver" today - the text cannot be by Tegnér, because "välver" doesn't exist before 1906 (or only very sporadically, not sure which), and Tegnér died 1848 and is credited by tradition with having written the poem in 1825. By the way, my memory failed slightly, he died in 1846.

Other example of the poem, first original, then introducing changes which would have been there in a prose rendering:

Hur gladtigt sam han i sin slup
med henne öfver mörkblå djup!
Hur hjertligt, när han seglen vänder,
hon klappar i små hvita händer!

Hur glatt simmade han i sin slup
med henne öfver* mörkblå djup!
Hur hjärtligt, när han seglen vänder,
hon klappar i små vita händer!

This too, changing the rhythm, but immaterial outside poetry is a kind of change which could easily have happened during the temple era.

In English, replacing "swam" with "swimmed" would be incorrect, but in Swedish, not replacing "sam" with "simmade" would be and was already in Tegnér"s time, archaic.

A comment about "Kiryat-Arba" as "Kiryat-Arba which is Hebron" is really the utmost limit of what the temple era could have changed.

The law was made for oral reading (to be read in public once every seven years) and a footnote in the margin of the text, not pronounced, would not have been any use to the audience.

You asked where I find this?

In Tradition. Church Fathers and Scholastics say nothing about this or that or sundry being added during the temple era. They credit Moses as virtually sole author.

I also credit him with having been the substantial author - since changing "swam" to "swimmed" (should that happen to English) or "Kiryat Arba" to "Kiryat Arba which is Hebron" (change probably under Joshua or at least before King David) is not a substantial change. Adding narrative which was not there is.

How about Moses having inherited most of Genesis from earlier? Since he a u t h o r i s e d the story, he is literally a u t h o r of it. If Pacelli penned and Pope Pius XI signed an encyclical, its author in the literal Latin sense of this term is Pius XI.

Is there ANY kind of argument for your little heresy about "some of the rest of the Pentateuch belongs to the Temple era, way later than Moses" which I have not dealt with in this response?

Oh, by the way, if you have it from your bishop, do feel free, even urged to pass on to him that I consider his position as very gravely heretical in a man of his position, since as a bishop he is required to know all of the faith and has no excuse for being a badly instructed Catholic, like you may have.

Hans Georg Lundahl

Note

*öfver - actually it should have been changed to över, 1906 again, but I missed this item from fatigue.

XXVII

Me to Damien Mackey

7/10/2018 at 9:50 AM

Re: "What exactly is Creation Science?"

Taking narrative even without archaeology as a reliable source is not something suspended between heaven and earth, but - outside certain Academic and also heretical cliques - normal procedure.

Note, I said "a reliable" not an "always infallible or inerrant" source.

When Ulysses came back to Ithaca, it caused an upheaval on Ithaca. His archery may have been boosted by magic or may have been boosted by hidden archers who did not get the credit, but the suitors of his presumed widow did find the news of his démise highly exaggerated.

When Ulysses tells Nausicaa of how he dealt with Polypheme ... well, since Ulysses was alone, Nausicaa only had his word for it. Homer wisely left it inside Ulysses' narrative to Nausicaa - not in his own words.

So, I'll not be dogmatic on whether Polypheme existed or not, but I am about his return.

Troy being sacked by the Greeks was good enough for St. Augustine on the basis of the narrative of Virgil, based on earlier ones.

You might say we have imporved* methods now?

My point is, I don't think they are at all an improvement. They are a deterioration for reasons stated in the earlier mails./HGL

Note

* imporved should be improved, of course, fatigue.

From here

only the latter titale is continued:

XXVIII

Damien Mackey to me

7/11/2018 at 2:28 AM

Re: "What exactly is Creation Science?"

You believe in Troy?

How come it has never been found? You have as much chance of finding a so-called Troy as finding a Cyclops.

XXIX

Me to Damien Mackey

7/11/2018 at 9:10 AM

Re: "What exactly is Creation Science?"

Archaeological Site of Troy
https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/849

XXX

Damien Mackey to me

7/12/2018 at 1:28 AM

Re: "What exactly is Creation Science?"

Oh, Hissarlik. I've long heard of it.

And one day, perhaps long after I'm gone, they might even find an ancient stele there on the site of Hissarlik telling: "This is the site of Homer's Troy". "And here you can see a piece of Achilles' heel".

Keep living between earth and sky, H-G L.

XXXI

Me to Damien Mackey

7/12/2018 at 2:09 PM

Re: "What exactly is Creation Science?"

Schliemann and the local priest put up a sign saying "this is where Christ appeared to King Priam".

Eagles tend to live between earth and sky, beasts from the earth tend not to ...

Seriously, if you have SO much trouble with trusting simple tradition on simple fact (here was a war, the people involved were named so and so ...) even when parts of it have been confirmed (Paris was also known as Alexander, and this name for Tarwusha / Wilusha region has been confirmed by ancient diplomacy, he could have been the diplomat of his father ... or to extreme sceptics, the real ruler of Troy, but that I won't buy ...). If you have SO much trouble with that, why do you trust archaeology on anything either?

After all, you were not there at most digs!

There is a dig outside ancient hills of Hissarlik, where archaeologists and military have found traces of a military encampment ... but since the tradition of this dig comes via youtube and me, trusting it would obviously be too much of a life of the eagles' young for your taste!

XXXII

Damien Mackey to me

7/13/2018 at 2:02 AM

Re: "What exactly is Creation Science?"

Schliemann was nuts as well.

Archaeology : Behind the Mask of Agamemnon
Volume 52 Number 4, July/August 1999
https://archive.archaeology.org/9907/etc/calder.html

"For 25 years I have researched the life of Heinrich Schliemann. I have learned to be skeptical, particularly of the more dramatic events in Schliemann's life: a White House reception; his heroic acts during the burning of San Francisco; his gaining American citizenship on July 4, 1850, in California; his portrayal of his wife, Sophia, as an enthusiastic archaeologist; the discovery of ancient Greek inscriptions in his backyard; the discovery of the bust of Cleopatra in a trench in Alexandria; his unearthing of an enormous cache of gold and silver objects at Troy, known as Priam's Treasure. Thanks to the research of archaeologist George Korres of the University of Athens, the German art historian Wolfgang Schindler, and historians of scholarship David A. Traill and myself, we know that Schliemann made up these stories, once universally accepted by uncritical biographers. These fictions cause me to wonder whether the Mask of Agamemnon might be a further hoax. Here are nine reasons to believe it may be ...".

"Paris" would have been another biblical appropriation, likely Perez (of Judah).

Unless you think that Paris is in France, and somewhere between earth and sky.

XXXIII

Me to Damien Mackey

7/13/2018 at 10:30 AM

Re: "What exactly is Creation Science?"

Let's distinguish "Paris" as in Paris, Paridos, Paridi, Parida, Paris (son of Priam) from Lutetia Parisiorum, also known as Parisius in scholastic Latin, shall we?

"a White House reception; his heroic acts during the burning of San Francisco; his gaining American citizenship on July 4, 1850, in California"

Never heard of those parts.

"his portrayal of his wife, Sophia, as an enthusiastic archaeologist"

Let's put it like this, he "married" her because she was Greek, because she knew Homer. She would have been somewhat ... incongenial in her role ... if she had not at least humoured her husband's main interest.

In her case especially as it was an adultery, Schliemann was a divorcee when marrying her.

As to Priam's treasure and death mask, it is now fairly agreed among archaeologists, they are the wrong level of Troy for being close to Trojan War. They are "Troy II" while Trojan War would be one of the levels like "Troy VI" or "Troy VII".

As to Schliemann being fraudulent on many items, that doesn't detract from his discovery.

Indeed, just as he agreed a fake with the local priest about "this is the place where Christ appeared to King Priam", exactly so, he may have made up lots of other stuff in order to have enough prestige in what was then (and still is) Turkey to be allowed to dig.

As I supposed, you were not enough involved in correct keeping of VIII commandment to believe tradition by me that later archaeologists have found a war camp outside the Hissarlik ancient city, confirming Trojan War, so, here is a BBC story:

The Truth of Troy - transcript
First broadcast: BBC Two, Thursday 25 March 2004
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2004/troytrans.shtml

Or do you think Eric Cline and Manfred Korfmann are dishonest people just because Schliemann more or less had to be, when doing things among Turks who see so much on personal prestige?

Update:

XXXIV

Damien Mackey to me

7/14/2018 at 2:02 AM

Re: "What exactly is Creation Science?"

Yeah they're on the wrong level, on the wrong page, in the wrong place, probably on the wrong planet.

XXXV

Me to Damien Mackey

7/16/2018 at 9:49 AM

Re: "What exactly is Creation Science?"

You want that as your final word on this series of posts?

Creation vs. Evolution : How Much was Shinar Devastated by the Flood? · You Find a Fossil Whale Here, a Fossil Pterosaur There ... · Answering Carter and Cosner on Eden · Trying to Break Down "Reverse Danube" or "Reverse Euphrates" Concept · Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : With Damien Mackey on Four Rivers and Related, I to X · Continuing Previous, XI to XX - are Nile Rivers Excluded? · Continuing Previous : XXI to XXXIII - getting to Troy (as we Tend to Do)

XXXVI

Damien Mackey to me

7/17/2018 at 1:36 AM

Re: "What exactly is Creation Science?"

You have a nice rest, H-G.

XXXVII

Me to Damien Mackey

7/17/2018 at 4:19 PM

Re: "What exactly is Creation Science?"

If you thought debating you was stressful, you are wrong.

XXXVIII

Damien Mackey to me

7/18/2018 at 2:09 AM

Re: "What exactly is Creation Science?"

Like I said before, you have more points than a porcupine.

Arch. Fulton Sheen had the right idea, KISS - Keep It Short, Stoopid.
No offence intended.

XXXIX

Me to Damien Mackey

7/18/2018 at 2:08 PM

Re: "What exactly is Creation Science?"

Oh - you need a rest? Fine.

Continuing Previous, XI to XX - are Nile Rivers Excluded?

XI
Damien Mackey to me: 7/5/2018 at 1:30 AM
Re: Gehon: In Sirach 24, the Nile is mentioned separately from the four rivers of Genesis 2, those of Adam's and Noah's time.

So you can't identify them.

It overflows, like the Pishon, with wisdom,
and like the Tigris at the time of the first fruits.
26 It runs over, like the Euphrates, with understanding,
and like the Jordan at harvest time.
27 It pours forth instruction like the Nile,[a]
like the Gihon at the time of vintage.
XII
Me to Damien Mackey: 7/5/2018 at 1:48 PM
Re: Gehon: Vintage?

That would perhaps indicate another river than the Nile ...

Well, this was one ex temporary model.

Thing is, Church Fathers have assigned diverse rivers, but are consistent on mentioning Euphrates as Frat and Tigris as Hiddekel.

Most I looked at also mentioned Nile as either Pishon or Gihon.

Ganges and Danube are mentioned as Pishon and Gihon - hence my earlier model taking that more literally.

The pure fact that Nile and Gihon are named in parallel is in itself not impossible to square with identity.

However, Gihon in time of vintage seems to go better with Blue Nile than with White Nile (supposing Ethiopians made wine before they went to farm coffee - Ethiopians in our sense, that is).

That would perhaps make some kind of hay out of my attempt to reassign Pishon and Gihon as both Niles and Danube and Ganges as prolongations of pre-Flood counterparts of Euphrates and Tigris.

If so, Gihon could instead actually be "Ister" i e Danube - at least they do have vintages there.

What Bible or article quoting Bible is the text from and what does footnote a say?
XIII
Me to Damien Mackey: 7/5/2018 at 2:30 PM
Re: Gehon - Haydock comment: Ver. 35. Phison. Or Phase of Colchis, which rises in Armenia, like the Tigris and Euphrates, all which overflow their banks at the beginning of summer, on account of the snow melting.

(37...) Gehon. Or Araxes, which descends from Armenia into the Caspian sea, though some erroneously take it to be the Nile, (C.) which overflows at the same time as the Euphrates. Pliny xviii. 18. Solon xlvi.
XIV
Damien Mackey to me: 7/6/2018 at 1:37 AM
Re: Gehon - Haydock comment: Solon was not an historical character, but a Greek appropriation of Solomon.

See my "Solomon and Sheba" at Academia.
XV
Me to Damien Mackey: 7/6/2018 at 7:08 AM
Re: Gehon - Haydock comment: Ouch, since he is a writer your reconstruction supports ideas like Matthew, Mark, Luke and John not being real Gospellers.

Obviously, for 2000 years, the Church has not agreed with this idea - either of Gospels or even of Solon.

Also, I am not sure the politics of Solomon and Solon are identical, old Israel was less democratic and more age based aristocratic than Athens.

If you say some Athenian adapted sentiments of Solomon (or of any Egyptian for that matter), well, could his name possibly have been ... Solon?

If you deny one did, how do you explain books rewriting themselves in thin air?
XVI
Damien Mackey to me: 7/7/2018 at 1:35 AM
Re: Gehon - Haydock comment: Good point about Solon.

Though he is substantially a Greek appropriation of Solon, he is - like all of his appropriated ilk - a composite character.

His laws are reminiscent of Nehemiah's, as scholars have shown, e.g.:

Yamauchi's “Two reformers compared: Solon of Athens and Nehemiah of Jerusalem” (Bible world. New York: KTAV, 1980).

Don't worry, you'll get there.
XVII
Me to Damien Mackey: 7/7/2018 at 11:15 AM
Re: Gehon - Haydock comment: My dear, the problem is not whether Solon reused Solomon or Nehemiah, that is entirely possible - though a priori a bit improbable, and due to the existence of natural law not necessary.

The problem is your insistence on making historical characters fictional. No, I'll not get there.
Going back: a bit for a parallel line of mails:
XVIII
Me to Damien Mackey: 7/6/2018 at 3:19 PM
saw two papers: I agree Teilhard was .... I think "silly" is too good a word for it.

C S Lewis once seems to have said on Teilhard's "before life, there was pre-life" that before you light a lamp there is of course "pre-light" but sensible people call that darkness.

Have you included that reference yet?

It seems one commentator you referenced considered Gihon as "Nubian Nile" - would that be Blue Nile?
XIX
Damien Mackey to me: 7/7/2018 at 2:51 AM
Re: saw two papers: Yes, Blue Nile is the Ethiopian (Nubian) one.

Very good quote re 'Try hard' de Chardin - had not previously known of it.

Now included at: The Sheer Silliness of Teilhard de Chardin
Part Six (b): Reader’s comment on Teilhard’s ‘silliness’
Damien Mackey
https://www.academia.edu/36996226/The_Sheer_Silliness_of_Teilhard_de_Chardin._Part_Six_b_Reader_s_comment_on_Teilhard_s_silliness_
XX
Me to Damien Mackey: 7/7/2018 at 11:21 AM
Re: saw two papers: Well, if so, the Sirach problem is solved.

Nile meaning Nile between (probably) Khartoum and Delta, Gihon meaning Blue Nile - that is entirely possible and accounts for a lot of Church Fathers counting Nile as either Gihon or Phison.

Perhaps most common set of "four rivers" being Euphrates, Tigris, Nile and Ganges, another one (seen in a sermon not held but approved by St John Chrysostom, if I recall correctly) being Euphrates, Tigris, Nile and Danube.

I think this would also involve Nile switching roles between Gihon and Phison and if one of them is Blue and other White Nile, it comes clear.

In that case pre-Flood version of Blue Nile flowing South would have turned east and also flowed out by Ganges, pre-Flood version of White Nile West and flowed on by ... I'd take Niger Congo over Danube if so.

And Danube, Araxes and Phasis and the Daria rivers would be continuing either Euphrates or Tigris to North West or North East.

With Damien Mackey on Four Rivers and Related, I to X

Four Rivers: Maps shown here, together, instead of lower, in each email.
Frat
Hiddekel
Phison
Gehon
Correspondence: starts here:
I
Me to Damien Mackey: 7/1/2018 at 6:04 PM
remember "reverse Danube"?: Here is a comment:

Creation vs. Evolution : Trying to Break Down "Reverse Danube" or "Reverse Euphrates" Concept
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2018/07/trying-to-break-down-reverse-danube-or.html
II
Damien Mackey to me: 7/2/2018 at 1:31 AM
Re: remember "reverse Danube"?: H-GL
I'd love to see a simple map of your proposal. That would make it very easy for all of us to digest.

Best wishes,
Damien.
III
Me to Damien Mackey: 7/2/2018 at 9:35 AM
Re: remember "reverse Danube"?: Hmmmm ... I'll see what I can do ...

Here is my proposal for Frat:

[Frat, see above]
IV
Me to Damien Mackey: 7/2/2018 at 9:39 AM
Here is Hiddekel: [Hiddekel, see above]
V
Me to Damien Mackey: 7/2/2018 at 9:45 AM
Phison: [Phison, see above]
VI
Me to Damien Mackey: 7/2/2018 at 9:50 AM
Gehon: Note that I deleted part of Atlantic in Google map screen shot, to approach Amazonas river to Niger Congo and White Nile:

[Gehon, see above]
VII
Damien Mackey to me: 7/3/2018 at 1:46 AM
Re: Gehon: You did a very good job. And so quickly.

Looks a bit too vast for the antediluvian world for my liking, but well done nonetheless.
VIII
Me to Damien Mackey: 7/3/2018 at 11:15 AM
Re: Gehon: Why would the antediluvian world have been smaller?

There is nothing in either Bible or rational conclusions from it saying that the globe was extended during the Flood.
IX
Damien Mackey to me: 7/4/2018 at 2:37 AM
Re: Gehon: You have only to read the size of the "world" (earth) when the people from all under heaven heard the Apostles.

Even that late in time, the world ranged from, say, Persia to Ethiopia only.

My Tasmania does not get a look in. And I am sure than Noah never went anywhere near Hobart.

The Queen of Sheba came from the ends of the world (earth), not from Tasmania, or South America, or New Zealand, but just down the road from Israel.

You do not need to impose modern concepts upon ancient texts. That's Fundamentalism - which ain't all that fundamental.
X
Me to Damien Mackey: 7/4/2018 at 12:25 PM
Re: Gehon: The world was split up in the days of Peleg.

This "small world" you talk of is a result of this split. China, though heard of, is really an other world, India also.

This break up happened at carbon date 8600 BC and real date 2562 BC, six years before birth of Peleg in 2556 BC.

Also, when you say "Ethiopia" I suspect you mean the country of the Blue Nile, the country of Axoum, Addis Abbeba, something which is already ended where Somalia or Horn of African begins.

To a Greek or Roman "Ethiopia" means "aithi-op-eia" land of burnt faces, that is, all of Black Africa.

That is why Moses, who was inerrantly inspired, said that Gehon - not using the name Nile! - encompassed all of Kush (ancestor of men with black faces), which LXX translates as Aithiopeia.

Of the Nile only, it would have been inadequate, but Nile with Niger and Kongo rivers taken together, that is another matter.

So, my hypothesis is, the words of Moses about Gehon apply equally to the riverbeds of Nile, Niger and Kongo rivers taken together.

Even you must be aware American Clovis points show suspicious similarities to Solutrean points ... not explicable if there was no contact.

And yes, in my recalibration of carbon dates to Biblical chronology, Solutrean and Clovis styles are post-Flood but pre-Babel.

Friday, 23 March 2018

Jericho and Carbon Dates

I
Me to Damien Mackey: 7 February 2018 at 03:37; (Oz time, not Paris time like the rest)
Jericho: I am hesitant on whether fall of Jericho is the 2200 BC carbon date or the 1550 (1650) BC carbon date.

Obviously, Jericho fell, according to St Jerome's chronology in 1470 BC, so, which you chose gives different amounts of extra years, which means different amounts of lower carbon 14 level in comparsion with carbon 12.

You are favouring the 2200 date?
II
Damien Mackey to me: 2/6/2018 at 11:25 PM
Re: Jericho: What do you mean am I favouring 2200 BC for the Fall of Jericho?
I always re-date downwards those silly, inflated conventional dates.

Jericho fell to Joshua c. 1450 BC (very approx. date).
Archaeologically, the Middle Bronze I (MBI) Israelites destroyed Early Bronze III (EBIII) Jericho and other sites.

That ought to be clear from many of my articles.
III
Me to Damien Mackey: 2/7/2018 at 12:41 PM
Re: Jericho: If you had read a few lines earlier, you would have noticed I was talking about two different CARBON dates.

Apparently my leaving out the word carbon at the second mention of the 2200 carbon date made you think I accused you of considering it as a real date.

No, thing is, there are TWO destructions of Jericho on top of each other, both of which have been cast as Joshua's Jericho. They obviously have different carbon dates, as well as different real ones.

The carbon dates are, as I recall, 2200 BC and 1550 BC. The qustion I asked you is which of them YOU favour as corresponding to the real date 1470 BC (40 years after Exodus, which was in 1510 BC).

The difference is this : with the 2200 BC carbon date, you get 730 extra years in the carbon dating of Jericho's fall, with the 1550 BC carbon date you get only 80 extra years.

2200 1550
1470 1470
0730 0080

Now, the extra years correspond to how much lower the carbon 14 content was. With 730 extra years, the carbon 14 was 91.548 % of modern carbon, with 80 extra years it was 99.037 % of modern carbon.

The former leaves a less steep carbon rise for between Joseph = Imhotep and Jericho's fall, but a steeper one after Jericho's fall.

The latter leaves nearly no steepness after Jericho's fall, but a fairly steep rise in carbon 14 between Joseph in Egypt and Jericho's fall.

Hence my question. The question about 2200 is because of a recent article in which you considered EBIII Jericho carbon dated or conventionally dated to 2200 BC as the relevant layer of Jericho./HGL
IV
Damien Mackey to me: 2/7/2018 at 11:29 PM
Re: Jericho: I don't deal in carbon dates which tend to be highly erratic.
I deal in archaeology, and, for the Joshua incident, that is Early Bronze III. That is dated by conventionalists to the 2000's, but re-dated by revisionists such as I to the time of Joshua.
V
Me to Damien Mackey: 2/8/2018 at 9:30 AM
Re: Jericho: OK, I do deal with carbon dates, which I believe capable of giving a relative chronology, if not an absolute one.

I just read some pages of a paper in Egyptology et al. (Palestine, Mesopotamia and Nubia were taken into account too) where a certain carbon date 4027 BP un-calibrated, was considered as giving more than one "calendar date" due to wiggles in the calibration.

I found myself asking, what if these are not wiggles, if the chronology is straight, and if the reason the non-carbon chronology gave a wiggly calibration is, there are dynasties supposedly after each other which were not really so, as you tend to say.

There is an alternative for Jericho, that is the Middle Bronze Age or City IV - which by Kenyon was dated to 1550 BC.

I was asking if you oreferred the 2200-dated destruction over the City IV one./HGL
VI
Damien Mackey to me: 2/9/2018 at 12:18 AM
Re: Jericho: 1 Carbon-14 dating.

Carbon-14 (or radiocarbon) dating in particular assumes that the influx and outflow of carbon-14 atoms into and out of the biosphere is in equilibrium. This simply is not so, and that alone invalidates the method. Massive variations have been found. Furthermore, all the assumptions that are made for the other radiometric methods essentially apply here, and these make all radiometric dating methods doubtful as scientific tests.

It follows naturally that if the scientific method cannot work in the past and conclusions about the past must rest on assumptions, then there is not today a dating method that can be scientifically substantiated as being correct, for every method will have built into it an assumption. Now when we come to the practical application of this theory we discover in fact that this holds true.

Dr. John Osgood
His reference: A Better Model for the Stone Age
DR A.J.M. OSGOOD
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j02_1/j02_1_88-102.pdf
VII
Me to Damien Mackey: 2/9/2018 at 12:42 PM
Re: Jericho: " Carbon-14 (or radiocarbon) dating in particular assumes that the influx and outflow of carbon-14 atoms into and out of the biosphere is in equilibrium. This simply is not so "

For the past 2000 years it has been so. (Give or take some)

Osgood is wrong on that one.

There is a time before the past 2000 or 2500 years in which carbon 14 was rising.

That is the time in which I am doing tables, how much was the carbon 14 ratio in relation to the present one at such and such a time?

THAT in turn is why I am very interested in whether it is the carbon date 2200 BC or the carbon date 1550 BC which should match the real date of 1470 BC.

Because it would give different carbon 14 levels for 1470 BC and also different rates of carbon 14 rise both between Joseph / Imhotep as per 1700 BC carbon dated in the case of Djoser's coffin to 2600 BC and fall of Jericho on the one hand, and on the other hand between fall of Jericho and 500 BC.
VIII
Me to Damien Mackey: 2/9/2018 at 12:44 PM
appendix on carbon dating: Three articles from my blog:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Tony Reed on Dating Assumptions, Answered
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.fr/2018/02/tony-reed-on-dating-assumptions-answered.html

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Carbon 14 Dating, Quora
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.fr/2018/02/on-carbon-14-dating-quora.html

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Carbon 14 Halflife, quora
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.fr/2018/02/on-carbon-14-halflife-quora.html
IX
Damien Mackey to me: 2/10/2018 at 2:01 AM
Re: Jericho: It's totally confusing, isn't it?
X
Me to Damien Mackey: 2/10/2018 at 10:38 AM
Re: Jericho: No, I have two options.

Depending on which carbon date you or others favour for the real date.

For Göbekli Tepe which I consider the "Babel" of Genesis 11 (but politically same as the Babilu further SE, 5° and some either cardinal direction) the carbon dates are given as 9600 BC at beginning and 8600 BC at the end.

This needs to be checked to 2551 and 2511 BC, if Babel started getting built 5 years after birth of Peleg and if it lasted 40 years and if St Jerome's chronology is for post-Flood patriarchs up to Abraham LXX without the "second Cainan" which sets Peleg's birth in 401 after Flood rather than 529 after Flood.

You can of course do other timeslines than St Jerome's, but beginning and end of GT is set as to carbon dates.

With fall of Jericho, there are two levels that have been identified with the advent of Joshua, and which carbon date you pick depends on which of them is the right one.

So, I'll have to used both options in parallel ... I guess.

But "two options" and "totally confusing" are two very different things./HGL
XI
Damien Mackey to me: 2/11/2018 at 2:08 AM
Re: Jericho: Let me make it very simple for you, monsieur, while you go and dust off all of that messy carbon.

The nomadic Middle Bronze I people of archaeology are the Israelites led by Moses and Joshua.
They walk like them, carry Egyptian artefacts like them, occupy the same places like them, find their way eventually from Transjordan into the Promised Land and conquer the cities there - the Early Bronze III cities (Early Bronze IV in Transjordan).

Just as the Pentateuch tells.

There is only ONE appropriate Jericho scenario for this.

[This may be the mail I should have read better.]
XII
Me to Damien Mackey: 2/11/2018 at 2:46 PM
Re: Jericho: "Just as the Pentateuch tells."

I totally believe the Penteteuch. However, it does not mention the term "Middle Bronze I".

"There is only ONE appropriate Jericho scenario for this."

I had heard of two ... here is the other one:

"During the Middle Bronze Age, Jericho was a small prominent city of the Canaan region, reaching its greatest Bronze Age extent in the period from 1700 to 1550 BC. It seems to have reflected the greater urbanization in the area at that time, and has been linked to the rise of the Maryannu, a class of chariot-using aristocrats linked to the rise of the Mitannite state to the north. Kathleen Kenyon reported "the Middle Bronze Age is perhaps the most prosperous in the whole history of Kna'an. ... The defenses ... belong to a fairly advanced date in that period" and there was "a massive stone revetment ... part of a complex system" of defenses (pp. 213–218).[35] Bronze Age Jericho fell in the 16th century at the end of the Middle Bronze Age, the calibrated carbon remains from its City-IV destruction layer dating to 1617–1530 BC. Notably this carbon dating c. 1573 BC confirmed the accuracy of the stratigraphical dating c. 1550 by Kenyon."

Wickipeejuh : Jericho # Bronze Age
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jericho#Bronze_Age

Total destruction + inoccupation for some centuries after that = seems to fit the Biblical bill.

That is why I wondered if - and why - you prefer the layer conventionally dated to 2200 BC./HGL
XIII
Damien Mackey to me: 2/11/2018 at 11:11 PM
Re: Jericho: Where are your incoming Israelites in that scenario?

Middle Bronze Jericho was the Judges era. Eglon of Moab.
For a total picture, see my:

Really Digging Jericho
https://www.academia.edu/32898565/Really_Digging_Jericho
XIV
Me to Damien Mackey: 2/12/2018 at 10:00 AM
Re: Jericho: "Osgood’s next level at Jericho he thinks could have been Hittite (rock-cut tombs). Wikipedia: "In Genesis 23:2, towards the end of Abraham's life, he was staying in Hebron, on lands belonging to the "children of Heth", and from them he obtained a plot of land with a cave to bury his wife Sarah. One of them (Ephron) is labeled "the Hittite", several times. This deal is mentioned three more times (with almost the same words), upon the deaths of Abraham, Jacob, and Joseph".

Then we get to the Neolithic phase that Osgood has connected with Ghassul, which is Abram’s era. Abram as a contemporary of Late Chalcolithic En-geddi and Ghassul IV is one of those clear signposts (refer back to Part One) now, thanks to Dr. Osgood."

I agree Abraham is contemporary with late Chalcolithic En-geddi. As per Genesis 14.

I agree he was contemporary, either with Narmer, or with a son of Narmer, or with the pharao in Buto previous to Narmer. As per Genesis 13.

Ghassul IV - ends in carbon dates 3 C. before Narmer at least, still possible for earlier life of Abraham.

If carbon 14 level is rising, beneath 100 % modern carbon, earlier samples will be more misdated than later ones. For instance, Göbekli Tepe being Babel would have been, if I interpret St Jerome's chronology well (Christmas martyrology doesn't per se mention Babel) 2551 to 2511 BC. If in this time carbon 14 ratio to carbon 12 rose from ... I'll cite my own article here:

Creation vs. Evolution : How Fast was Carbon 14 Forming During Babel Event?
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.fr/2017/07/how-fast-was-carbon-14-forming-during.html

"Then 2551 BC dates as 9600 BC, 7049 extra years = 42.626 pmc being original level of carbon in the objects at start of GT. And 2511 BC dates as 8600 BC, 6089 extra years = 47.875 pmc being original level of carbon at end of GT. In the atmosphere and in the objects, of course."

Here I do not agree:

"A further suggested identification is here made, that is, to equate the most dominant archaeological culture in Palestine of this era, namely, Natufian - PPNA-PPNB (suggestion of continuity after Moore5:16-23), with the Bible's most widespread southern groups - the Hivites (see Genesis 36:2,20; 14:6 Horites = Hivites; also later in Palestine, Genesis 34:2)."

I look up Natufian.

"The Epipaleolithic Natufian culture (/nəˈtuːfiən/[1]) existed from around 12,500 to 9,500 BC in the Levant, a region in the Eastern Mediterranean."

The Wickipeejuh : Natufian Culture
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natufian_culture

To 9,500 BC? But that is beginning of Babel! Centuries before Abraham!

Carbon date 9,500 BC = 2551 BC (in my now take of St Jerome's chronology). Genesis 14 is in sth like 1935 BC. This corresponds to carbon dates like 3000 - 3500 BC, not to such of 9,500 BC!

Now, your article on Jericho mentioned a destruction in 1470 BC which you identify with a layer carbon dated (by others than you, perhaps indirectly even) to 2200 BC.

It also mentions a rebuilding of Jericho in the time of Achab, real times on diverse daters:

"William F. Albright dated his reign to 869–850 BC, while E. R. Thiele offered the dates 874–853 BC.[3] Most recently, Michael D. Coogan has dated Ahab's reign to 871–852 BC."

The Wickipeejuh : Ahab
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahab

I'll add Syncellus: 930 / 926 BC Achab of Israel (start of reign, thus up to 908 or 904 BC).

Creation vs. Evolution : About 5300 Years Ago There was a World Wide Flood? Iffy ...
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.fr/2017/03/about-5300-years-ago-there-was-world.html

Now, this rebuilding, if it is in the 800's period would be close to carbon dated in the 800's period.

Was there an intermediate rebuilding by Eglon and destruction after that? Or was Eglon simply camping in a waste where Jericho had been? You see the problem?

In terms of carbon dates, we are dealing with more carbon years than real years (as I suppose you already figured out), and this means we have options on what carbon year to identify a real year with.

For the real year 1470 BC, death of Moses, taking of Jericho, we have an option of carbon years c. 2200 BC or carbon years 1630-1570 BC.

What I am asking you for is motivating the option of 1470 BC = "2200 BC" rather than "1570 BC". Or, in other words, why you take it as "Early Bronze Age III" level rather than as City IV.

By the way, if you DO give a good motivation against City IV (say, city IV could refer to a destruction after Eglon? I am rusty on history of Judges), and for 2200 BC, it would not be unwelcome. It would simplify the task I have been setting myself for quite some time now:

Creation vs. Evolution : Comparing Three Roads from Seven Cows to Seven Trumpets
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.fr/2017/06/comparing-three-roads-from-seven-cows.html

Oh, by the way, when looking up the link I gave, it seems Jericho was reoccupied, which would mean the 1570 carbon date could be 1185 BC ... the hitch is, there was some gap between invasion by Joshua and the rebuilding by Eglon, but this seems not reflected in any gap in the material.

That could of course be explained by carbon 14 temporarily going down instead of up. If carbon going up can exaggerate a time span, a wiggle with carbon going down can of course obfuscate its existence./HGL

Pages

Tuesday, 13 February 2024

Damien Mackey Seems to Run Out of Arguments

Friday, 1 March 2019

With Mackey on Haman and on Babel

Friday, 13 July 2018

Continuing Previous : XXI to XXXIII - getting to Troy (as we Tend to Do) (Update to XXXIX)

Continuing Previous, XI to XX - are Nile Rivers Excluded?

With Damien Mackey on Four Rivers and Related, I to X

Friday, 23 March 2018

Jericho and Carbon Dates