Monday, March 6, 2023

I Really Insist : Göbekli Tepe was Babel, and My Re-Calibration is Reliable (Given that the Bible is)

Search for the Tower of Babel
Expedition Bible, 3 March 2023

1:53 I think that flat extent has a problem if it's about matching Genesis 11.

It's not a plain inside Mesopotamia, i e the space between the two rivers. It's a plain around Mesopotamia.

Where you are looking, Euphrates and Tigris are fairly close, and the plain extends on both sides outside them.

10:21 Where God came down would rather be in a place where a plain was more narrow than the distance between Euphrates and Tigris.

It was excavated by Klaus Schmidt.

11:47 I disagree on that "definitely."

Babylon was known as Agade, and renamed after a king of Agade (I think Sargon himelf) had conquered a distant place up in what's now Turkey which had previously been known as Babylon.

I would consider even that city a stand in for a city somewhat further West, namely Göbekli Tepe.

No Ziggurats, but possibly a rocket project.

13:42 In Göbekli Tepe, they stopped building the city totally. It's still abandoned.

The irony some have mentioned about Isaiah and Jeremiah prophecying about abandoned Babylon, it was already a fact in Göbekli Tepe, and the tense of prophecy is not future, but perfect.

I Answer Your Burning Questions About Ancient History
World of Antiquity, 2 March 2023

15:52 Carbon 12 by definition is stable.
Carbon 13 is a very recent addition to the "palette"
Carbon 14 is what is basically measured in relation to usually carbon 12.

16:11 "Libby used carbon 14 dating as a check on carbon 12 dates"

There is no such thing as "carbon 12 dates" since carbon 12 is stable.

World of Antiquity
I worded that wrong.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@World of Antiquity You certainly did.

16:52 "according to current science"

Which you are obviously not a huge expert on, given you spoke of "carbon 12 dates" ...

"the dating is useful for up to 50 000 years"

I've actually found claims the limits are up to 55 000 to 60 000 years.

Now, there is some probability, this has to do with how low amounts of carbon 14 can be detected.

I would disagree.

It is not a question for Young Earth Creationism to accept a ten times more recent limit for detectability. Rather, what's uncertain as one goes back is how much the original carbon 14 content was. Let's say the original content in a sample dated to 50 000 BP was 100pmC, well, then, it is probably 50 000 years old. On the other hand, if it's radically younger, it had a radically lower original carbon 14 content. If it's a bit further back than 5000 years ago, its original content was arguably around 0.432 pmC.

This in turn means that if something is dated 5000 years ago, it's actually younger. If you ask me, 3500 and 4000 BC would both be from Abraham's lifetime, him born in 2015 BC.

World of Antiquity
What is your evidence for there being uncertainty about the “original content” of carbon 14?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@World of Antiquity It is the certainty that needs evidence.

And my evidence for a certainly lower carbon 14 in 1935 BC, leading to a carbon date of 3500 BC is, Abraham was c. 80 in Genesis 14, which involves the chalcolithic of En-Geddi, which ends in carbon dated 3500 BC (Abraham born 2015 BC as per the Biblical chronology of the Christmas Proclamation).

World of Antiquity
@Hans-Georg Lundahl What is the material link between Chalcolithic En Gedi and Abraham? And why are you giving the Christmas Proclamation such a high authority on historical matters?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@World of Antiquity "What is the material link between Chalcolithic En Gedi and Abraham?"

I owe this to The Times of Abraham, by DR. A.J.M. OSGOOD.

In Genesis 14, we find that verse 7 says this of the Mesopotamian invaders:

And they returned, and came to the fountain of Misphat, the same is Cades: and they smote all the country of the Amalecites, and the Amorrhean that dwelt in Asasonthamar.

Now, where is Asasonthamar? II Paralipomenon, 20, 2 says:

And there came messengers, and told Josaphat, saying: There cometh a great multitude against thee from beyond the sea, and out of Syria, and behold they are in Asasonthamar, which is Engaddi.

As it happens, after the chalcolithic occupation of En Geddi, there is no occupation at all prior to the iron age, which is defintely too late.

So, the chalcolithic of En Geddi = the Amorrheans in Asasonthamar.

"And why are you giving the Christmas Proclamation such a high authority on historical matters?"

Because I think the Ussher chronology (which would be appropriate for Vulgate text) would give too short a time between the Flood and Abraham, considering the carbon 14 level at the Flood gives "39 000 BP" and that in 1935 BC only gives 1565 extra years. Hence I go with the LXX, and the Christmas Proclamation gives a handy outline of years in that one.

34 000 extra years is 1.636 pmC in the atmosphere, 1565 extra years is 82.753 pmC.
292 + 80 = 372. 942 + 80 = 1022.

I think 1022 years is more adequate time for the carbon 14 level to rise from 1.636 to 82.753 pmC than 372 years would be.

16:56 If it's dated to 20 000 BP, the arguable real date would be 2834 BC.

The original carbon 14 content would be between 14.5681 and 17.2045 pmC. Pretty close to 15.8863 pmC.

Original 15.8863 pmC will give 15 200 extra years, like sth having 15.8863 pmC now is dated to 15 200 years ago. 15 200 + 2834 = 18 034 BC = 20 034 BP.

17:35 It would seem, between 1750 and 1950, the carbon age of samples should be going from 200 years old to 0 years old, but are really going (carbon dating wise) from 0 years old (1750 has a raw carbon date like 1950) to 200 years old (1950 has a raw carbon date like 1750).

18:19 Dendrochronology, for the last 3000 years, has not given an exact match with carbon dates.

The original pmC values, and hence the carbon age to real age discrepancies, wiggle around a bit ... in such cases, dendro is considered the more certain.

Beyond c. 3200 years ago, I consider the Bible as more certain than either.

Resources I used:

No comments: