Babel, Again ... and some more

Issah Mohammed Challenged Me on Chronology · Location of Babel · Babel, Again ... and some more

On the university qualification

that I use for more than one below:

none/ apprx Masters = I could have been Masters with two more exams I didn't take, if we count the exams in time value for the subjects

in Latin (language) & Greek (language) = language AND letters

Lund University = Lund University

Q I

If borders are biblical, is it because of Acts 17:26?
https://www.quora.com/If-borders-are-biblical-is-it-because-of-Acts-17-26/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Answer requested by

Marc Bloemers

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters in Latin (language) & Greek (language), Lund University

Jul 27 [2022]

It is first of all because of Genesis 11.

God invented national differences, chief among them, the first directly imposed, being language, as a cure against a certain kind of bad world wide cooperation.

But obviously, St. Paul in this speech refers back to that.

Q II

Was the Tower of Babel really built?
https://www.quora.com/Was-the-Tower-of-Babel-really-built/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Answer requested by

Issah Mohammed

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters in Latin (language) & Greek (language), Lund University

Jul 28 [2022]

• As far as I can see, it does not say in the Bible. The city got started building and ended unfinished, but the tower, doesn’t say.
• If I am right about what it was, namely a rocket project, no, it didn’t, the tower of Babel was only built and launched c. 4500 years later (from Cape Canaveral and Bajkonur). God made sure it couldn’t get built and launched back then in order to make it possible to build and launch it much later, when there was a sufficient technical knowhow.

Q III

Does the Tower of Babel have anything to do with Babylon?
https://www.quora.com/Does-the-Tower-of-Babel-have-anything-to-do-with-Babylon/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Answer requested by

Donald Turner

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters in Latin (language) & Greek (language), Lund University

Jul 29 [2022]

There are more than one views on this one, and I’ll give you mine.

The city of Babel and the project to eventually make a tower “the top of which shall reach into heaven” are something which happens between 350 and 401 after the Flood in a certain LXX timeline (without the second Cainan) that I use, since it is in the Roman martyrology.

It is geographically speaking set West of something (Genesis 11:2) and if that something is the landingplace, then Classic Babylon is not the geographic location of Nimrod’s Babel. I think Göbekli Tepe is so.

And this would mean that the two years 2607 and 2556 BC carbon date as 9600 and 8600 BC. This being the charcoal dates for lowest and highest charcoal layers in Göbekli Tepe.

Babylon is associated with archaeological dates (probably indirectly carbon based) in the range of 2300 or 1800 sth BC. If carbon dates are in this range, this would mean during the Israelite stay in Egypt. It was founded by Amorrhites, which in Abraham’s time (carbon dated to 3500 BC) had been forced to leave Asason-Tamar, later known as En-Geddi, in a Mesopotamian incursion. This means, the Amorrhite invasion into Mesopotamia and then founding (or vast enlarging) of Babylon could have been a retaliation for the Genesis 14 invasion into Palestine.

Now, the name very arguably was chosen in memory of Babel, and it is noteworthy that both places are on Euphrates and that the geographic coordinates form so to speak a diagonal between the places. It is possible some source had placed Babel (correctly) so and so far NW of a certain place and instead they went SE. And thought (incorrectly) they had hit the same spot.

Q IV

Did Nebuchadnezzar rebuild the Tower of Babel?
https://www.quora.com/Did-Nebuchadnezzar-rebuild-the-Tower-of-Babel/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Answer requested by

Lewis Button

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters in Latin (language) & Greek (language), Lund University

Jul 31 [2022]

Perhaps he thought he did.

But neither the place, nor the type of artefact concerned was the right one, if I am right.

Q V

Who was the king when the Tower of Babel was being built?
https://www.quora.com/Who-was-the-king-when-the-Tower-of-Babel-was-being-built/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Answer requested by

Lewis Button

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters in Latin (language) & Greek (language), Lund University

Jul 31 [2022]

Nimrod was more like “project leader” than king when the City of Babel was being built and the tower was being projected.

The Bible never calls him “king” and he is in fact applying more like a democratic or oligarchic decision than taking one himself.

Q VI

Is it possible that the rapid burial process from Noah’s flood actually preserved the soft tissue or many species that existed before?
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-possible-that-the-rapid-burial-process-from-Noah-s-flood-actually-preserved-the-soft-tissue-or-many-species-that-existed-before/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Answer requested by

Stef Lynn

Hans-Georg Lundahl

amateur reader of it [of science]

Aug 3 [2022]

It is not totally improbable.

It has not been tested on most samples.

Q VII

Was Abraham possibly the last of the early biblical patriarchs who physically knew surviving members of Noah’s family who endured the worldwide flood?
https://www.quora.com/Was-Abraham-possibly-the-last-of-the-early-biblical-patriarchs-who-physically-knew-surviving-members-of-Noah-s-family-who-endured-the-worldwide-flood/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters in Latin (language) & Greek (language), Lund University

Aug 8 [2022]

Abraham knew his greatgrandfather Sarug physically for 50 years, and up to him the tradition had been preserved. He didn’t know Noah or Shem physically.

Q VIII

How did Abraham know Noah?
https://www.quora.com/How-did-Abraham-know-Noah/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters in Latin (language) & Greek (language), Lund University

Aug 10 [2022]

Through tradition.

Noah died 350 after the Flood and Abraham was born 942 after the Flood.

Given that his own father (Thare) and probably also grandfather (but his brother was also named Nachor) were idolaters, he received the tradition the first 50 years of his own life. While the great-grand-father Sarug was still alive.

Q IX

Is it possible to invent a new language for fun?
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-possible-to-invent-a-new-language-for-fun/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters in Latin (language) & Greek (language), Lund University

Aug 11 [2022]

No.

Mankind only has a limited number of languages over all the people alive and the languages of New Guinea are so numerous that you cannot invent a new one …

“Hello? What’s that?”

Sorry, a language just died out on New Guinea, so, I guess you can now …

Ha, my fun.

Answer is simple : of course you can.

Given that the human language capacity is capable of acquiring an infinite diversity of different languages (though one man can hardly acquire more than 50 of them in this life, perhaps 100 if he’s very good) and that the actual languages available are only a finite number (7000 or so), you can invent languages.

And you can invent languages for very different purposes:

• communication with men (like Volapük, Esperanto, Ido, a Panslavic language)
• communication with angels or more probably demons (Henochian)
• communication between different characters of an art work (Quenya / Sindarin, Klingon, Na’avi, Syldavian)
• communications between different participants in a play (which may be entirely about language - Nevbosh, what Tolkien started with before he became the great language artist behind Quenya and Sindarin).

Q X

Is it possible that the ancient civilization of Babylon would have kept the Tower of Babel up as a means of worship for sometime after God dispersed humanity all over the Earth?
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-possible-that-the-ancient-civilization-of-Babylon-would-have-kept-the-Tower-of-Babel-up-as-a-means-of-worship-for-sometime-after-God-dispersed-humanity-all-over-the-Earth/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Answer requested by

Marc Bloemers

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters in Latin (language) & Greek (language), Lund University

Aug 14 [2022]

• I don’t think the Tower of Babel was a means of worship;
• The civilisation of Babylon is very distinct from the one of Nimrod’s Babel;
• I don’t think the tower was completed until Kennedy and Chrushchev did it, when only the top of what looked very towerlike at takeoff came into “heaven” or into space above the atmosphere;
• And whatever remnants of the project different civilisations may have had in top secret, the actual site of Babel - Göbekli Tepe - was covered with sand by the last to leave.

Q XI

Do we have the means to recreate the Tower of Babel?
https://www.quora.com/Do-we-have-the-means-to-recreate-the-Tower-of-Babel/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters in Latin (language) & Greek (language), Lund University

Aug 15 [2022], Our Lady's Assumption

God interrupted the first creation before takeoff.

We already probably did recreate the Tower of Babel after World War II and sent it to the Moon in 1969 …

Check the text once again:

and a tower, the top whereof may reach to heaven:

A rocket like Apollo 11 looks like a tower at take off, but the three steps are thrown down, and only the top, the capsule, actually reaches, for instance, the Moon - or a trajectory away from the “Solar System” …

I am not saying Nimrod had the technological means to send up a rocket. Da Vinci didn’t have the technological means to send up an airplane - he just had the idea of one. In da Vinci’s case, his patron arguably stopped a test that would have killed the pilot, but as Nimrod was one world dictator, only God could do so, and he was so both popular and feared that the only way to stop him was to make his underlings incapable of understanding his orders. He changed their linguistic competence, by Omnipotence, even an angel or a demon could not have done so, permanently.

Q XII

Are the Gōbekli Tepe Enclosures giant lunisolar calendars?
https://www.quora.com/Are-the-G%C5%8Dbekli-Tepe-Enclosures-giant-lunisolar-calendars-2/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Answer requested by

Nikolaos Vafeidis

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters in Latin (language) & Greek (language), Lund University

Aug 15 [2022], Our Lady's Assumption

That is possible, but my theory is, as Graham Hancock suggested, they were meant for rocket takeoffs.

And God put the rocket project on a halt for some more than 4500 years, to Cape Canaveral and Bajkonur …

Probably, if I am not wrong, the function that looks like calendars would have been meant for correctly directing the rockets.

Q XIII

Is it possible that Noah's "ark" was a large barn constructed on the highlands of the Ararat mountains? That it was not a boat?
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-possible-that-Noahs-ark-was-a-large-barn-constructed-on-the-highlands-of-the-Ararat-mountains-That-it-was-not-a-boat/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters in Latin (language) & Greek (language), Lund University

Aug 18 [2022]

Not if the Ararat mountains rose during the Flood.

Note

Q XV and Q XVI are two other answers first one to same question, then one to related, that I have debated.

Q XIV

Where was the world's first empire established?
https://www.quora.com/Where-was-the-worlds-first-empire-established/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-2

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Studied Latin (language) at Lund University

9 months ago

In Assyria, in the area of Göbekli Tepe and Qermez Dere (Babel and Niniveh), during the Neolithic.

Marc Robidoux

Aug 3 [2022]

You seem to be answering this question as someone who actually knows what he’s talking about. I guess this is the sane alter-ego of Hans-Georg answering, as I can comment (i.e. not blocked). Way to answer succinctly and without imbibing the answer with your geo-centric-religious bullshit.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Aug 13 [2022]

And my source is Genesis 10 and Genesis 11 … no alter egos without “religious BS” here …

Marc Robidoux

Aug 13 [2022]

Very interesting, you are the only split personality I know of here on Quora. This one, where I’m not blocked, posts exclusively sane sounding content consisting of your opinions and knowledge sharing based on your obvious deep schooling in some fields. The other one, for which I am blocked from commenting, is over there spouting absolute BS about geocentric creationism or some such nuttery. It is rather a striking contrast.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Aug 14 [2022]

No contrast at all.

It is creationism to say Nimrod made the first Empire, and that’s exactly what I did.

And it is my brand of Creation Science to define Nimrod’s Babel as Göbekli Tepe.

So, Qermez Dere is the version of Nineveh that’s roughly contemporary or slightly younger than Göbekli Tepe.

Q XV

Is it possible that Noah's "ark" was a large barn constructed on the highlands of the Ararat mountains? That it was not a boat?
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-possible-that-Noahs-ark-was-a-large-barn-constructed-on-the-highlands-of-the-Ararat-mountains-That-it-was-not-a-boat/answer/M-Whelan-3

M Whelan

Studied Engineering (college major) (Graduated 1978)

Wed 17.VIII.2022

It is more possible. Any shipwright would tell you would tell you that the boat described in the bible would never be able to hold itself together under any circumstances.

But a fairy story is still a fairy story.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

18.VIII.2022

Would you mind telling me where the Bible describes a “boat”?

In Acts 27 you find a description of a boat voyage, but I don’t think there is one of the boat they used …

And what does any description of a boat have to do with Noah’s Ark, when it wasn’t one? It was a floating box!

M Whelan

18.VIII.2022

(Genesis 6:14–16): the ark is to be 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide, and 30 cubits high (approximately 134×22×13 m or 440×72×43 ft).

Now don’t know about you but it certainly is not a hanging basket they are describing it is a ship.. a boat.. a vessel and we all know the absurd story. And made of gopher wood. Or are you saying that the story is now totally false and that Christians wish to distance themselves from that story now?

It still would not survive any “voyage” Any shipwright can tell you that and so can any 2nd year engineer.

It is like the bible all made up.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

18.VIII.2022

A boat would have some mean of propulsion, none is described for the Ark.

A boat would have a keel, the Ark had a flat floor.

It’s a very giant box, but it’s meant to function like a floating box, not like a navigating boat.

That changes some points on structural buildup and on structural strains.

The shipwrights are thinking of thin elastic woods around keels that are meant to facilitate navigation - which means sooner or later the boat would go through two waves front and back and a trough in the middle, meaning a structural strain the Ark was never exposed to.

M Whelan

19.VIII.2022

Laughing very loudly here, you make my point even more thank you. everyone knows it was a ship or boat even the original Hebrew. I love now some are trying to get away from what is described. But it would not float and if the waters were so high it needed to float then it would sink, and if the waters were not so high then what is with the threat of killing every living thing. If it floats it would drift and it would be swamped by waves ( You know science y things)

The bible is a collection of bronze age stories that in today's climate and level of education are obviously of the time and know nothing of today's science. Just PURE BS.

I find it interesting you are trying to re write it, cos you know the whole story is BS. but ya cant.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

19.VIII.2022

“everyone knows it was a ship or boat even the original Hebrew.”

Sorry, but I just looked up the Hebrew English interlinear. They link to lexicon entries over each word.

Genesis 6:14 Ark = Strong 8392. tebah, here tebat, since next word starts with a vowel. Strong translates as “a box, chest”

Jonas 1:3 Ship = ’ā·nî·yāh = Strong 591. אֳנִיָּה (oniyyah).

“I love now some are trying to get away from what is described.”

Where does the passage describe any keel, rudder or means of propulsion?

“But it would not float”

It would have a waterline at 15 cubits (halfway up) high and be able to take at least 13,257.381 metric tons (beasts and men, food and tools) apart from the empty weight.

“If it floats it would drift and it would be swamped by waves”

On the high ocean (and when everything was covered with water, all earth was high ocean) waves are fairly longstretched dunes (you know science and such things). This means, the Ark could lie comfortably in a trough between two wave tops even if they were higher up above the trough than the 15 cubits the Ark had above the water line.

“The bible is a collection of bronze age stories”

Roughly speaking up to King David … when it comes to the time between Adam and Tubal-Cain and between Flood and Chalcolithic, Stone Age, and after King David, Iron Age.

The best way to know events from the Bronze Age is to get stories from precisely the Bronze Age.

But Noah’s civilisation was a pre-Flood Bronze-and-Iron age, ending 2957 BC which carbon dates to 40 000 BP. And hasn’t been found.

“that in today's climate and level of education are obviously of the time and know nothing of today's science”

If you mean they ignore stupid arguments that have been recently made, at least on the surface you are right. But there is an eery knack of taking in details that actually even now help to sort the stupid arguments out a bit.

“I find it interesting you are trying to re write it”

I find it interesting you take exact observations from the text as rewriting.

M Whelan

19.VIII.2022

Ok ok i get it, you are right and the pope, the clergy the millionaire creationist evangelists, the priests and all the academics are totally wrong.

Please forgive this lowly human atheist.. why i am even talking about a fairy story is beyond me… it is all made up no matter boat or barn It is fiction.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

19.VIII.2022

You said about me, I think the following "are totally wrong."

"the pope," - Actually, Pope Michael who died in this month, the second day, wasn’t.

"the clergy" - He has not very many clergy faithful to him, so far.

"the millionaire creationist evangelists," - Apart from leaders of fairly big projects, like the Ark encounter, why would they be millionaires? Aren’t you confusing them with Megachurch pastors? If so, this post is for you:

Just in Case ANYONE Confuses Young Earth Creationism with Megachurches

And far from disagreeing with them, they would say the Ark was a kind of box (though of course of ship like proportions), here:

The coins were all minted in the Roman city of Apameia Kibotos (or Cibotus in its Latinized spelling) in Asia Minor. It was originally a Phrygian city established by Antiochus I (280–261 BC), and is now the modern-day town of Dinar in Turkey. The original Phrygian city was named Apameia, and sometime before the turn of the 1st millennium BC appears to have had a nickname, Kibōtos, added to it.2 This word, meaning chest or box, is thought to be a reference to its coffers, as it had become a very wealthy city as it rose to prominence. The word kibōtos (κιβωτός) is also the Greek word used to describe Noah’s Ark in the New Testament and the Septuagint.3

Noah’s Ark on a Roman coin!
by Phil Robinson | This article is from
Creation 40(3):28–31, July 2018
https://creation.com/roman-coin-ark

"the priests and all the academics" - there are both priests and academics on both sides.

So, what was your point again? That I’m against everyone? No, I am not. Or have everyone against me? No, I have not.

Q XVI

In the Bible story of Noah’s flood, why did no boats, other than his Ark, float?
https://www.quora.com/In-the-Bible-story-of-Noah-s-flood-why-did-no-boats-other-than-his-Ark-float/answer/Bob-Myers-5

Bob Myers

Long-time and very devout Pastafarian

1 year ago

That’s one of those little problems with the whole story that you’re not supposed to notice. Or for that matter, given that it did take some time for the supposed “forty days and forty nights” of rain to cause flooding, why no one else got the idea at that point and put together SOME sort of floating refuge.

It’s a myth. Don’t expect to be able to look to closely at it without seeing some rather glaring problems.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Apr 11 [2022]

• 1. Boats would have tried to navigate against the waves and therefore get broken up, crushed. The Ark had neither sail nor oars and had less tensions to deal with.
• 2. A boat (being smaller, see next) would have been built for navigation on normal conditions and not have had wood half a cubit to a cubit thick (while NIV translates “gopher wood” as “wood planks” LXX has “hule koubite” which translates basically as “cubit wood”).
• 3. A boat could perhaps have floated, but hardly had provisions for a year, the people on board it would still have been dead before the Flood was over. Ergo, Noah’s family would still be the 8 sole human survivors.

Bob Myers

17.VIII.2022

So you believe that Noah and his family built a seaworthy wooden vessel sufficiently large to carry all of the animals AND provisions for a full year? if there’s one thing that Ken Ham’s absurd “Ark Encounter” in Kentucky more than adequately demonstrated, it’s that such a thing is essentially impossible.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

18.VIII.2022

I am not sure what you call a “vessel” here, it was a wooden box.

With thick walls.

I took 18 inches as the smallest form of cubit and even with such a cubit, the measures of volume and weight of of water displaced at water line halfway up allow for bringing all kinds on board - with an average of 17 modern species per kind. PLUS provision, and this one counted as “grass for sheep” ratio of provision to animal provided for.

Details? Here:
Ark : empty weight and freighted weight, number of couples on the Ark.
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2021/10/ark-empty-weight-and-freighted-weight.html

Bob Myers

18.VIII.2022

The Ark story remains pure mythology, nothing more. There are so many problems and inconsistencies within that it would be impossible to even list them all here. Just for one obvious example: how did both freshwater and saltwater aquatic species manage to survive?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

18.VIII.2022

Seas were freshwater back then, and saltwater species changed into that in the 5000 years since then (aquarium experiments have proven 7 years adequate within same individual, but not for all fish …)

Bob Myers

18/19.VIII.2022

It continues to be very entertaining: the extremes to which young-Earth creationists will go to in their attempts to shore up their absurdities. First they deny the evolutionary model in large part because they don’t think there’s been enough time for evolution to happen as described, and then to defend the whole “Noah’s Flood” myth propose that species evolve and disperse across the surface of the planet at a rate orders of magnitude beyond anything required in the standard evolutionary model. Far from the only example, of course, but certainly one of the more painfully obvious ones.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

19.VIII.2022

You know, between 17 species of hedgehog there is lots less difference than between … dogs, cats, monkeys, fish, etc.

As the only thing needed for speciation is a barrier of reproduction, and when you couple that with founder effect, the 5000 years since the Flood are adequate.

Q XVII

How could Goliath the ancient giant have been a Nephilim when they were all destroyed in Noah’s flood?
https://www.quora.com/How-could-Goliath-the-ancient-giant-have-been-a-Nephilim-when-they-were-all-destroyed-in-Noah-s-flood/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Answer requested by

Stef Lynn

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters in Latin (language) & Greek (language), Lund University

20.VIII.2022

I don’t think it says he was a Nephelim or one of these (Nephelim is plural).

His stature is mentioned, but I don’t think that word is used.

Q XVIII

Did Adam and Eve possibly begin to build Atlantis? Would it have been a more primitive society until the time of the Nephilim?
https://www.quora.com/Did-Adam-and-Eve-possibly-begin-to-build-Atlantis-Would-it-have-been-a-more-primitive-society-until-the-time-of-the-Nephilim/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Answer requested by

Marc Bloemers

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters in Latin (language) & Greek (language), Lund University

24.VIII.2022 or

Day of St. Bartholomew

I would rather consider that Atlantis simply was land between what is now Old World and what is now Americas, and after the Flood became an island through the breakup of lands in the Flood and then sank and left a very much bigger sea around the time of Babel, perhaps at Younger Dryas, just before Babel, but people and beasts had already crossed it and peopled the Americas.

Have you seen the documentary on the Clovis culture crossing the Atlantic during the ice age, from France to North America?

It has cultural kinship to cultures in France and the Atlantic is another option - as the Spanish theologicans were saying when explaining how the Indios came there after Noah had landed in the Old world with his family as the sole survivors.

Q XIX

Were the waters which came up from the deep part of the Earth during Noah’s flood water that had never previously been on the surface?
https://www.quora.com/Were-the-waters-which-came-up-from-the-deep-part-of-the-Earth-during-Noah-s-flood-water-that-had-never-previously-been-on-the-surface/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Answer requested by

Marc Bloemers

Hans-Georg Lundahl

amateur reader of it [science]

24.VIII.2022 or

Day of St. Bartholomew

I would say so, and that now it is in the Oceans (or part may have sunk back into the mantle) - so that the means for the Flood that God used were already destroyed by the Flood itself, God had so to speak already made sure He “couldn’t” break the rainbow promise - like a father who breaks a rod before promising he will never use it any more on his children.

Q XX

Did the earth stop spinning for one day like in the Bible?
https://www.quora.com/Did-the-earth-stop-spinning-for-one-day-like-in-the-Bible/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

amateur reader of it [science]

24.VIII.2022 or

Day of St. Bartholomew

If it is usually the Universe that spins around Earth, no, the Earth was not spinning in the first place.

Q XXI

Did the Anunnaki possibly possess a very long lifespan over thousands of years?
https://www.quora.com/Did-the-Anunnaki-possibly-possess-a-very-long-lifespan-over-thousands-of-years/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Answer requested by

Stef Lynn

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Catholic convert, reading many Catechisms

25.VIII.2022

Day of St. Lewis IX of France

As far as I know, longevity without immortality in kinds with reason and will is about man.

Now, man at creation either was immortal or had an option to become so. But when Adam sinned, he was going to die “the same day” (Genesis 2:17) and here we have a very appropriate use of …

But of this one thing be not ignorant, my beloved, that one day with the Lord is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
[2 Peter 3:8]

Dying at 930 and the one who lived longest at 969 is within 1000 years.

If Annunaki do not descend from Adam, longevity doesn’t apply, fable or demonic immortality does. But if they did descend from him and from Noah, while they could have longer lifespans than we have now, they could not go beyond 1000 years.

Salvation Between Noah and Abraham

Q

Would anyone besides Noah have been saved to eternal life in Heaven between the time of the flood and the time of Abraham?
https://www.quora.com/Would-anyone-besides-Noah-have-been-saved-to-eternal-life-in-Heaven-between-the-time-of-the-flood-and-the-time-of-Abraham/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Answer requested by

Marc Bloemers

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Catholic convert, reading many Catechisms

Just now

Yes, for one thing a lot of the Hebrews. For another, lots of the Gentiles not personally participating in Babel or in (later) beginning idolatry.

Idolatry began a few centuries after Babel, under Ninos, son of Belos, as the Greek version of the royal names go (in fact Nin is Sumerian for Lord/Lady, Bel is Accadic for Lord, Belit for Lady), in the time of Sarug, who himself did not fall into idolatry, but his son and grandson did, and he overlapped 50 years with the lifetime of young Abram.

You know the places like Lac de Chalain or the skeleta like Ötzi? They would have been contemporary with Sarug and out of reach for an early spread of idolatry. This means they would have had if no longer Hebrew language (that went at Babel), at least some scraps of Hebrew theology and not necessarily too much superstition to weigh it down into damning errors.

That said, when they died, they did not go to Heaven, for those escaping Hell and needing no time in Purgatory, since Heaven was closed to c. 33 AD (exact year of the Crucifixion is somewhat debated, Belloc thought it was 29 AD). They went to the uppermost section of Sheol and waited with Adam and Eve, with Noah and later on Abraham and David and lots more for Christ to come down to them. And that’s also where the Good Thief went. Where Lazarus had gone during the 4 days he was dead, and where he had had his conversation with a Rich Man (whose brothers indeed were not converted by his raising from the dead!). Only when Christ Resurrected, He opened the Pearly Gates and up they went, above Moon, Sun, and even Fix Stars, above every part of the universe that moves each day around Earth.

Ice Age after Flood, Carbon 14 and U-Pb

I kind of fail proving my point on the latter, but here is the debate:

Q

Did Noah’s flood provide the perfect temperature for the ice age to occur? Is that because the temperatures on the planet were immediately cooled all over the world as compared to the warmer conditions before the flood?
https://www.quora.com/Did-Noah-s-flood-provide-the-perfect-temperature-for-the-ice-age-to-occur-Is-that-because-the-temperatures-on-the-planet-were-immediately-cooled-all-over-the-world-as-compared-to-the-warmer-conditions-before-the/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Answer requested by

Marc Bloemers

Hans-Georg Lundahl

amateur reader of it

Answered Apr 20

Two parts to my answer:

• 1. On CMI, it is more like the immediate result of the Flood would have been a lots warmer climate, leading to more precipitation, leading to the Ice Age. Ask Oard about this.
• 2. I have an added mechanism, namely the same higher radioactivity from space which shortened lifespans and lifted the Carbon 14 ratio by a faster production than now or than after the Ice Age (in and after Babel) led to ionising particles which are known to cool down the weather too.

I

Nick James

Apr 21

Amateur reader or amateur fantacist? Your science is entirely made up.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Apr 21

For the CMI theory on it, you tell that to Michael Oard:

Ice Age Mystery Solved!

“Michael has a B.S. and M.S. degree in atmospheric science from the University of Washington. He was a research meteorologist for 6 years at the University of Washington.”

Michael Oard - creation.com

For my own contribution to the mix, here is ionising particles:

… seems my source has, for the moment, at least, been mislaid … sorry.

Nick James

Apr 21

Oard is not that impressively credentialled, only having an MSc. Even more, I can not give any credit to a ‘scientist’ that posts on creation.com. The motivations of that site are entirely to promote a particularly unbelievable version of religion. Everything is twisted around proving the Earth is 6006 years old, despite there being zero support for that in real science. Real science, the one that uses ‘evidence’ and ‘testing’.

There are other, entirely satisfactory, explanations for the various ice ages and the ends of them.

Your point 2 is very dubious. There is no evidence to support that, no matter how well you write it. There is zero chance that Noah was 900 years old - the human body has evolved to only support about 120 years, max. As you know, evolution takes millions of years and there are no hints this has happened. Further, there is zero geological, biological, hydrological or meteorological evidence supporting a global flood. There are also several record-keeping civilisations that did not notice a global flood. Ever.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Apr 21

“Even more, I can not give any credit to a ‘scientist’ that posts on Creation | Creation Ministries International.”

Oh dear, that shows some bias on your part.

“The motivations of that site”

Do not change the quality of the papers given. Something which you seem to be unaware of.

“are entirely to promote”

To promote with good science, actually.

“a particularly unbelievable version of religion”

I don’t find it “particularly unbelievable.” I also don’t find evolutionary theism another version of religion, I find it another religion.

“ Everything is twisted around proving the Earth is 6006 years old, despite there being zero support for that in real science. Real science, the one that uses ‘evidence’ and ‘testing’.”

In history, real evidence is texts from the past.

And when you say “everything is twisted” you imply that the kind of theories you are better familiar with are a given, a basic, like water being wet, that 6006 years (though I haven’t seen that figure) is somehow counterintuitive like the sea being yellow. That is not a fact, just because there is some evidence and some testing that can seem to support the other view.

“There are other, entirely satisfactory, explanations for the various ice ages and the ends of them.”

If there were more and if they had the kind of explanations you imply they would be insatisfactory, due to the conflict with the 4000 - c. 5500 years of maximum time span before Christ.

“ There is zero chance that Noah was 900 years old - the human body has evolved to only support about 120 years, max.”

By now, yes. If you read through what I have to say, that is due, mainly, to the higher radioactivity right after the Flood up to Babel, and even afterwards, leading on the one hand to an ice age, and then to rapid rise of carbon 14 levels, but intended to precisely shorten the life spans. A human body now is at 120 or even 90 about as worn down as it was at 950 for Noah. Our genes are worse due to this.

“As you know, evolution takes millions of years”

• No, I don’t know it, I know it is a claim on your part and you have not substantiated it to my satisfaction;
• The thing supposed to take millions of years involves added functionalities;
• The thing needed here would be a degradation of some (mainly repair) functionalities. It takes one mutation to degrade a function, like all men are born with a usually intact gene for lactase production, but with exactly one mutation, the other gene or part of this gene which says to cut that production is non-functional, and those with the mutation continue (thanks to the intact, non-mutated part) to produce lactase up to old age.

“and there are no hints this has happened.”

None that you bothered to look up.

“Further, there is zero geological, biological, hydrological or meteorological evidence supporting a global flood.”

Tons of sediment is geological evidence supporting the flood. Survival of part only of the Neanderthal and Denisovan genomes and apparently none of Homo erectus is biological evidence for the kind of bottleneck the Ark would constitute. For the other two, elaborate.

“There are also several record-keeping civilisations that did not notice a global flood. Ever.”

How good records do you suppose you have from non-Hebrew civilisations that on the usual chronology are supposed to collide with the Flood?

Nick James

Apr 21

Do you actually know any science or have you simply swallowed creationism hook, line and sinker?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Apr 21

I have been reading science on an amateur level on and off since even before I was a Christian.

There was actually a time when I took Big Bang, multicentrism (i e Heliocentrism for our solar system), development of Sun and planets from a disc of rotating gas, abiogenesis, microbes to macrofauna, ape to man, for “science”. And I know about as much as was available to a young boy in books sometimes intended for older persons than himself.

If you mean by swallowing creationism hook line and sinker accepting it without reserves, yes, I do, and so do you for the opposite paradigm. You very much do not want scientific considerations, unless they favour your paradigm. You read my link so sloppily that you thought it led to only one other page, when it led to two. And still does.

Arno Kleber*

Apr 25

Yeah, the amateur level really shows🤣🤣😉

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Apr 26

Thank you!
I’d not like anyone to think I was bored!

*Arno Kleber =

University Professor, Physical Geography 1999–present
Habilitation Doctorate in Paleoclimatology & Soil Science (pedology), University of Bayreuth Graduated 1993

In the international Quora, I mainly deal with the geoscientific (e.g. geologic column, fossil record) and physical (radiometric numerical dating) aspects of creationism mainly seen from my posts in the space evolution and creationism. My personal background in evolutionism (ie evolutionary biology) does not go very deep: I once gave a lecture in Geography of Vegetation because the original teacher unexpectedly left the university and I found no substitute in time, though this recruiting was my task as vice dean. Though, after reading much literature, learning from other Quorans, and based on my general expertise from 40 years of addictive research and teaching, I think I'm able to make some educated notions on the fact and the theory of evolution.

In the German Quora, my main topic is climate change, and I have also written a popular book on this with Springer (due in April 2022). In addition, the administration of spaces on Geology and paleoclimate is another task.

Remember this, he'll be back.

II

Nick James

Apr 21

Thanks for that. The critical line in that paper is ‘However, it turns out that none of these hypotheticals are occurring in reality…’

It is true there is a slight effect on cloud formation by cosmic rays, but their levels are not high enough to make much difference. They may vary somewhat by solar or Earth magnetic field fluctuations, but these are not large.

There is the slight problem that if the water had, as claimed, arrived from ‘the heavens’, it would have heated the surface of the planet past boiling point. Not good.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Apr 21

“in that paper”

In fact, the two quotes are from two papers. Tell me from which paper? When I found a reference gone, I had to find one again quickly, found two and didn’t read all through.

“There is the slight problem that if the water had, as claimed, arrived from ‘the heavens’, it would have heated the surface of the planet past boiling point. Not good.”

First, there is no indication how much came from start from the heavens compared to what came from the fountains of the deep.

Second, the boiling point is a temperature. If you get heat to a kettle of water to its boiling point, you raise the temperature to the boiling point. But if you add more heat, there will not be an even hotter water, there will only be more that boils off, while the remainder is still stuck at 100° C. There have recently been a video by a Dutch engineer and by some others answering the “heat problem”.

Nick James

Apr 21

The single link you provided led to a page full of text. The item I quoted came from that page of text.

I believe the reference is to the amount of energy this water would deliver to the surface of the Earth. If you continue heating water, what happens? Steam. If you add more energy, what happens? Any other water is turned to steam. If you add more energy, it gets hotter and hotter. The boiling point is simply the maximum temperature for liquid water at normal pressure. Steam, you can heat it to about 3,000K and it will start to split up to hydrogen and oxygen. At 3,500K most of it has split,

I have no idea what your “Dutch engineer” is talking about or what “heat problem” they are addressing..

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Apr 21

“The single link you provided led to a page full of text.”

No, it led to TWO of them, and I am asking WHICH ONE. There were two links on it, with two quotes.

The Dutch engineer and others have been answering precisely that kind of points. Heat can move by:

• radiation
• convection
• conduction

And this means that it can not just move into the water, but also out of the water.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Apr 25

My bad, by the way.

I had had a knock on the head the week before answering. Here is the full sentence which was in my second quote:

However, it turns out that none of these hypotheticals are occurring in reality, and if cosmic rays were able to influence global temperatures, they would be having a cooling effect.

In other words, it’s not the cooling effect that’s denied, but the warming one (“none of these” referring to causality scenario within “warming” effect).

III

Nick James

Apr 21

Amateur reader or amateur fantacist? Your science is entirely made up.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Apr 21

As said, I was missing the reference, I now made a new post linking to two references for radioactivity -> more clouds and colder weather:

Radioactivity and cloud cover - two quotes

Arno Kleber

Apr 23

The size of the effect of cosmic rays on temperature has been withdrawn by the original author of this idea and explicitly quantified as “tiny”: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-02082-2

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Apr 23

Ah, thank you … but what if the cosmic rays were more numerous, like giving 10 times as fast a production of C14 as now?

Arno Kleber

Apr 23

This hasn't happened during the last 40,000 years. I would not trust remarkably older ages if they were derived from radiocarbon or at least radiocarbon alone.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Apr 25

That presupposes that the carbon age “40,000 years” corresponds to a real date 40,000 years ago.

I would say 40,000 carbon years are in fact 5000 years ago, in 2957 BC, that being the year of the Flood, and the atmospheric level being 1.4 pmC.

Up to Babel, starting 350 years later after Noah died, carbon 14 rose c. 10 times as fast as now, and this is the ice age with the younger dryas. By 2607 BC, carbon 14 had reached c. 43 pmC, and the carbon date for then is 9600 BC / “12 000 years ago”.

Arno Kleber

Apr 25

I am talking about calibrated ages, of course, according to the standard calibration curve:

Source: INTCAL13

There are so many more dating methods beyond radiocarbon which support, allow calibrating, or supplement the established datings. Btw, the ice age consisted of 51 glacials with the waxing and waning of huge glacier bodies - no chance to fit them into your time frame.

Where have you got your adventurous dates from? Are you dating yourself and with which lab (I am in the dating business, so it’s interesting for me which lab fabricates such data).

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Apr 26

I use dates published and confer them with Biblical event related objects so dated. I am not running a lab, I am reinterpreting what labs present. Or whatever is available of that on the web, for instance an internet article stating La Ferassie 1 or 2 or El Sidrón being 40 000 years old, since that would be when the Flood was, unless you find Neanderthal body parts (not Neanderthal style tools) from more recent times.

The standard calibration curve is based mostly on what methods prior to written history?

Because tree rings like the other (usually) lignine based (written) calibration facility tend to get scarcer and more fragmentary, the further back you go. Unlike very old manuscripts, they are also not copied before getting lost by deliberate literal reproduction of what they say. And for other radioactive methods - how much Pb was there in that sample? How do you confirm with written history that the halflife is right? With C14 there is a non-trivial discrepancy between what Libby found by lab experiments and the Cambridge halflife. The latter is there because one could confer - significant fractions of 5730 years are within written memory.

Arno Kleber

Apr 27

I start at the end. Libby’s (1949) half-life was 5720 ±47 years, which is very close to the current 5,730 ±40. His original data were revised after measurements by Engelkemeir et al. (1949) to 5568 ±30 years. Since the early 1960s we know that Libby’s value was much closer to reality. However, for uncalibrated age designations, we still use that wrong value to keep the dates comparable to the old ones. Since we quite exactly know the error, we could correct this easily, but since everyone publishes the calibrated dates alongside, not only this error but that coming from the twiggling production rates can be eliminated.

This leads me to your question regarding dendrochronology and how the calibration is derived beyond this. The former now reaches back 13,900 cal BP (BP means before 1950). The dendro data I am aware of are the German one (uninterrupted 12 411 yr.) and the one that was used for the first calibration attempts, the Bristlecone Pine (Pinus longaeva) chronology, which reaches back for more than 9000 yr, with several living trees from different areas having ages of around 5000 yr.
For the older part of the timescale, the current calibration attempt IntCal20 comprises statistically integrated evidence from floating tree-ring chronologies, lacustrine (mainly annually layered varves) sediments, speleothems, and corals, the latter two dated by U-Th disequilibrium dating, a very trustworthy method for these types of material, and electron-spin resonance dating. Another tool based on fully different physics are stable cosmogenic nuclides.
Further reading: The IntCal20 Northern Hemisphere Radiocarbon Age Calibration Curve (0–55 cal kBP)
Marine20—The Marine Radiocarbon Age Calibration Curve (0–55,000 cal BP).

Regarding your question “how much Pb was there in that sample?” The presence of any primordial or later contamination can be measured in the case of U-Pb dating, because in a non-discriminating environment (such as the crystallization of a zircon mineral from a melt), lead is always accompanied by non-radiogenic ²⁰⁴Pb.
Later loss of lead is easily detected as it always induces discordance between the two independent clocks used for U-Pb dating. If it is about Pb-Pb dating, as it is used for not discriminating material such as meteorites, the content of ²⁰⁴Pb remains constant over time, whereas the radiogenic isotopes accumulate; therefore, the ages get more and more trustworthy, the older a specimen is.

“How do you confirm with written history that the halflife is right?” Since the bible clearly states the half-lifes of uranium, us Christians know for sure…
No, kidding aside. I have something better than man-written history: the four forces known in Physics (yE creationism clashes with Physics) and the fact that nuclear power plants and bombs, which heavily rely on ²³⁵U half-life, do work.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Apr 27

“This leads me to your question regarding dendrochronology and how the calibration is derived beyond this.”

I wasn’t asking about dendro. I was asking if you were referring to dendro.

Cambridge, Minze Stuiver and the colleague gave a C14 calibration reaching back 6000 years based on dendro. I count more recent half believeable, but even so there may be circularity between C14 and dendro before 2000 years back. However, Rome in 753 dated as 550 BC confirms their calibration, since all dates from 760 to 450 do date around 550 BC. This breaks the circle. No such luck for “13 000 BP”.

“because in a non-discriminating environment (such as the crystallization of a zircon mineral from a melt), lead is always accompanied by non-radiogenic ²⁰⁴Pb.”

Assumption … however, I am not at all positive that the proportions are always the same in lead apart from this, and I am not at all positive either that all the situations you base it on are non-discriminating. That is a question I largely leave to the RATE project.

“Since the bible clearly states the half-lifes of uranium, us Christians know for sure…”

No, but the US history clearly states the date of the ink on the US constitution. Or the leather (with a few years back in time for the beast to live first) of a boot on a soldier skeleton of Ghettysburg. Medieval history says when the coffin of St. Louis IX should be from, or when his bones should be from, should they carbon date that, and that’s also a confirmation.

There you have written history confirming the age of carbon dated things. And this good documentation basically goes back to the days of Christ and a bit more. That’s exactly why I do believe the Cambridge calibration by Stuiver : since 750 ought to date as 550, and oldest layer of Rome as a city has that precise date.

“I have something better than man-written history: the four forces known in Physics”

Idiocy. Unless you can very clearly document that Libby’s original result was what you said and 5568 was a revision. But even if you can, it’s still hazardous, for the reason stated. You can’t check it against history, with halflives into billions of years, you can’t check anything by dating from Ghettysburg.

Back to carbon, I am as said trusting Minze Stuiver at al about three thousand years back and ancient historical sources (Greek for Troy and Biblical) beyond that.

Arno Kleber

Apr 27

No assumption at all, just Physics and Mineralogy - all well lab-tested. What you are positive to or not is not really relevant as soon as you cannot provide evidence. Fun fact: the oldest zircon yet dated is absolutely free of ²⁰⁴Pb, excluding any contamination.

You may read about the original Libby constant even in Wikipedia, but it is irrelevant as we have calibration, as a side eliminating errors from different half-life estimates. And if I read your eloquent passages about history and dating correctly, you do not challenge dendro. So I don’t get your point, giving back the nice idiocy word.

Which reason have you stated that which of my statements is hazardous? What do you mean with hazardous?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Thu 28.IV.2022

“What you are positive to or not is not really relevant as soon as you cannot provide evidence.”

What you pretend is hardly relevant as long as you don’t present evidence. That the isotope 204 is not a product of decay may be physics, but that all other isotopes always are products of decay is not physics, it’s an assumption.

“but it is irrelevant as we have calibration”

My precise point is that calibration from known history is possible for C14 and impossible for U-Pb. And, up to your claim, that calibration was necessary to get the correct halflife. If you say the info on Libby’s first calculation being close to now accepted halflife is now on the wikipedia, that would then have been added after I consulted it. I will pay heed to the reference given.

After checking:

The half-life of carbon-14 is 5,730±40 years.[27] Libby realized that when plants and animals die they cease to ingest fresh carbon-14, thereby giving any organic compound a built-in nuclear clock.[26] He published his theory in 1946,[28][29] and expanded on it in his monograph Radiocarbon Dating in 1955. He also developed sensitive radiation detectors that could use the technique. Tests against sequoia with known dates from their tree rings showed radiocarbon dating to be reliable and accurate. The technique revolutionised archaeology, palaeontology and other disciplines that dealt with ancient artefacts.[4] In 1960, he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry "for his method to use carbon-14 for age determination in archaeology, geology, geophysics, and other branches of science".[30] He also discovered that tritium similarly could be used for dating water, and therefore wine.[26]

Willard Libby - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willard_Libby#Radiocarbon_dating

Simply right now no reference at all to “his” (according to you) “original value,” any more than to his pre-Cambridge (possibly really original) value of 5568.

Arno Kleber

Thu 28.IV.2022

Yeah, this seems difficult to understand: If there is no ²⁰⁴Pb present, there is no primordial or later contamination with lead, then all lead is radiogenic. If there is noteworthy ²⁰⁴Pb, then the dating gets more accurate the older a specimen is, because the contamination remains constant whereas the radiogenic isotopes enrich with time.

Who came up with the crazy idea to calibrate U-Pb, the method used, e.g., to determine the age of the oldest minerals on Earth, with historical data, given that uranium half lives are orders larger than humans even exist?
Half-lives are measured in laboratories, they do not need calibration with less accurate historical data. (The calibration of radiocarbon dates is needed because of the varying cosmogenic production rate, not because of not knowing the ¹⁴C half-life.)

Thanks for the (almost) confirmation of Libby’s original value published in 1949: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.110.2869.678
He or his group didn’t measure themselves, but referred to measurements in The Half-Life of Radiocarbon (C¹⁴).

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Fri 29.IV.2022

If there is no ²⁰⁴Pb present, there is no primordial or later contamination with lead, then all lead is radiogenic.

Sounds like an assumption.

“Who came up with the crazy idea to calibrate U-Pb, the method used, e.g., to determine the age of the oldest minerals on Earth, with historical data, given that uranium half lives are orders larger than humans even exist?”

Myself. Given the change from 5568 to 5730 from calibration.

Your first link says “check with samples of known age,” exactly my principle. Using in my case Bible for known age of certain older carbon dates, and in your case nothing for known age of long half life samples.

Your second link says “Some of the problems of absolute O2C14 has been found to be 5720±47 years by means of the use of mass spectrometrically analyzed” - oh, there were problems?

If it changed from 5720 to 5730, it’s less of a change than 5568 to 5730, but still a change. And between them a previous change down to 5568, using an application of my principle of checking with samples of known age.

Arno Kleber

Fri 29.IV.2022

“Sounds like an assumption” no it's an observed fact.

“checking with samples of known age” is exactly what calibration does.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Sat 30.IV.2022

• 1. It depends on how you classify observations. “All swans are white” can stand, if all black swans observed are pretended to be not swans. And if all isotopes of lead except 204 are supposed to be radiogenic, and no non-radiogenic lead lacking 204 to exist.
• 2. Yes, that’s the exact reason you and I have different calibrations on carbon 14, since we disagree on what constitutes “known age” and why neither of us has a calibration in U-Pb and why I think this has a need to be pointed out.

Arno Kleber

Sat 30.IV.2022

Its that simple: Yet, no magma has ever been measured to be free of ²⁰⁴Pb. Even if one exists, this would 1) corrupt a single rock unit, but all other U/Pb ages would remain rock solid, and 2) a significant contamination would shift the two ages away from one another (aka discordance), so it would easily be detected that there is disequilibrium. We daters usually do not base important conclusions on discordant ages.

U-Pb does not need calibration, whereas radiocarbon does, because the daughter products are stable and because, therefore, the primary relationship of the uranium isotopes does not play a role for the age determination, which (beyond about a billion years) relies on the relationship of the two pertinent lead isotopes alone.
So, for instance Ar/Ar (which also needs calibration) could be calibrated using U/Pb.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Sat 30.IV.2022

“Yet, no magma has ever been measured to be free of ²⁰⁴Pb.”

Since a vulcanology that’s fairly recent, right?

“would shift the two ages away from one another (aka discordance),”

This is above my head, I’ll admit it, I have some confidence in Tas Walker not simply rambling:

Do creationists cherry-pick discordant dates?

Like U/Pb, Ar/Ar is no doubt not calibrated by historically known dates (like dates known from written or oral traditions with a bearing on chronology and a probable reliability).

Arno Kleber

Sat 30.IV.2022

The Herculaneum & Pompeii eruption for instance has been Ar/Ar dated, just one example.

We have solidified magma that is more than 3 billion years old, if this is recent for you, then ok.

I have often debunked the argument in your link. I will seek one of my posts as I'm back at my computer.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Sun 1.V.2022

And a few other volcanos have Argon dates that are way off.

I highly doubt that the margin error on Pompeii eruption was so close that one can consider this a valid calibration.

“We have solidified magma that is more than 3 billion years old, if this is recent for you, then ok.”

You have solidified magma that you suppose 3 billion years old.

Suppose a supply of that precise isotope (204) started to dominate lead supply by volcanism back in the flood, but not all of the lead from then were from that supply, to mention one scenario off the cuff?

Looking forward to your link.

Arno Kleber

Sun 1.V.2022

The 2σ of the Pompeii datings were 80±66 AD determined in 2004, and ±7 determined in 2011.

Yes, “a few other volcanos have Argon dates that are way off”, is true. I had to cope with such material in the Jemez Mtns., New Mexico. However, they found the failure of the mica minerals used for dating, found a workaround, and their current dates are in full agreement to our U-Pb dates (with the expected difference due to the different mineral-closure times): Capability of U-Pb dating of zircons from Quaternary tephra: Jemez Mountains, NM, and La Sal Mountains, UT, USA. However, the main part of your phrase is a few. This does not compromise all other dates.

We “have solidified magma that” we do not “suppose 3 billion years old”, but we know they are more than 3 gyr old, among them the oldest one I have dated myself, which did not contain non-radiogenic lead and the two decay clocks yielded concordant ages.

Your phrase “Suppose a supply …” does not appear to make any sense. Can you explain?

It will take some time until I get to my computer. So I respond off the cuff to Do creationists cherry-pick discordant dates?
“No, it is not cherry picking. Those sorts of results [discordant ones] are normal, but you would not know that by the way the results are presented in the literature” may be true for some old literature (“a real-life example that played out in the scientific literature over half a decade or more”). Since quite some time we are urged to always present the entire set of analyses, or we cannot publish such results, we would get rejected in the review process. Typically people are not aware of these data because they are in so-called “supplementary material”, just because the length of the tables would exceed the permissible extent of a paper given by most journals.
“The point is that you need to know the initial conditions of the parameters you are measuring, and what happened to them all along the way” is wrong regarding U-Pb dating, because there are two independent clocks and, therefore, the measurement of lead isotopes alone (we also measure uranium as a routine, of course, though not needed) is absolutely sufficient to arrive at an age. We have nothing to assume, only three lead isotopes need to be measured.
“creationists examine the raw dates and show that they conflict with what they should be” is asinine, because discordant dates (disagreement of the two independent U-Pb clocks) are obviously compromised.
I do not comment much on the personal experience report of the author, who either had a incompetent advisor at university, who was not able to advice the MO how age data need to be interpreted, or he lied about or forgot what his teacher really told him.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Mon 2.V.2022

With your fairly low opinion about him, you have given me a better clue about your bias than with the actual arguments.

As said, when we get outside carbon dating, and into this, the matter is somewhat above my head.

Arno Kleber

Mon 2.V.2022

Who do you mean with “him”?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Mon 2.V.2022

This Do creationists cherry-pick discordant dates? has for author : Dr Tas Walker - creation.com.

Arno Kleber

Mon 2.V.2022

How high do you rate the opinion of a layman pretending expertise?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Tue 3.V.2022

Inventio Crucis

I don’t know if you are a layman, I think you said you weren’t, I know for one thing, there is such a thing as amateur expertise, I consider that as my case, and for another, Tas Walker is in fact B.Sc. (Earth Science with first class honours) and therefore he’s not even a layman - other than the original sense : he’s not a Catholic (or Orthodox) priest.

I'll now supplement my relative failure by contacting (or trying to contact) Tas Walker.

While he has so far not answered, here is an update from the thread:

Arno Kleber

Tue 3.V.2022

Inventio Crucis

Sorry, but with a mere Bachelor degree - a degree almost everybody has - a person still is a layperson. One starts becoming an expert either when half the way through to a PhD in a (usually limited) field of science, or during professional work in a relevant position. So, let’s look whether Walker’s professional work could have substituted a pertinent PhD and make him an expert in numerical dating: “He has been involved in the planning, design and operation of power stations for over 20 years with the electricity industry in Queensland, Australia. He has conducted geological assessments of new fuel supplies for power stations across Queensland and has been involved with new mining proposals, including the effects of geological factors on the cost, reliability and quality of the coal produced.
Tas has also been involved in the planning of a large hydro-electric development which required evaluation of geological conditions and their effect on dams, water reservoirs and underground power station structures.” Not a single hint to dating experience - he’s a layperson in this field. This is evident from the text which you cited as well - It teems with faults.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Wed 4.V.2022

For now, he’s the best I have.

Once Kent Hovind was the best I had for carbon dating.

I was challenged on a problem of radioactivity in connexion with the needed much higher production of C14 to account for 2957 BC dated as 20 000 - 50 000 BP (now narrowed down to 40 000 BP, dinos dating 20 000 are either from post-Flood land slides or in Morrisson, the C12 - > C14 process was triggered by Uranium).

I spent about a month until I had a decent solution, which I have improved since.

First try : Datation de Carbone 14, comment ça carre avec la Chronologie Biblique - Decent solution : Avec un peu d'aide de Fibonacci ... j'ai une table, presque correcte - Present stage of improvement : New Tables

…

As for your distinction between layman and expert - knowledge is not a sacrament, there is no ordination needed to obtain it.

In relation to what I already have in C14, any problem on the part of U-Pb or Pb-Pb you can bring up is to me simply an anomaly. Sth which will be solved sooner or later.

And obviously, even more so in relation to the Christian truth - but it would have shocked you so much, German as you are, if I had brought that up first …

Arno Kleber

Wed 4.V.2022

You might have a look at RATE project.

It is maybe up to you to be shocked: I am Christian. My Pope explains: if science and our interpretation of the bible contradict, our interpretation of the bible may be faulty.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Wed 4.V.2022

It costs money, and I have no appartment to send it to.

Interesting attitude from Antipope Bergoglio, with a reference, this might be another proof he never was validly elected.

As it stands, it can obviously be supplemented in a way that makes sense to a real Catholic : if the Bible and our understanding of science conflict, the understanding of science may be faulty.

Arno Kleber

Wed 4.V.2022

That’s why science always makes progress. Science as well as modern Christianity know or should know that they may err in their interpretation of observed, measured, or written facts. Science has rigorous methods to identify errors and cope with them (eg Popper’s falsification). However, exegesis must do so, too. Regarding the age of Earth or evolution, the latter obviously was necessary rather than the former. There is absolutely no serious doubt possible that Earth is old and that evolution is a fact (and the Theory of Evolution the best existing explanation for the facts). And almost all religions worldwide acknowledge this.

Regarding ¹⁴C vs. U/Pb you may note that the former covers mere 75,000 yr at best, whereas ²³⁸U has a half live quite close to the age of Earth, ie, even if you could discriminate against the former, U/Pb stands strong, and it does not matter if you could make 30,000 out of 32,000 or whatever, if the whole system is >4.4 billion years old. ¹⁴C covers just a fly speck of Earth history and it need some assumptions, as we talked about in this thread, which do not apply to U/Pb, respectively the validity of which can be easily controlled (by measuring ²⁰⁴Pb and calculating concordance).

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Wed 4.V.2022

“There is absolutely no serious doubt possible that Earth is old”

Like 7500 years as opposed to just a day, you are right … Biblical history gives this.

Now, I said “history” and you said “manmade” … some things are both manmade and godgiven. Like a valid Mass involves the baking process to make a host, the vinification process to make wine, both performed by men (and highlighted by the Novus Ordo offertory), and you have certain words and gestures also performed by a man, namely a priest.

Do the manmade elements make a mass invalid (apart from the question whether a man can make a whole new liturgy, as Fr. Cekada argued one can’t)? No.

The fact that historic transmission is in the hands of men does not make it not in the hands of God.

What did Fr. George Leo Haydock add about this in his commentary on Genesis 3?

Concerning the transactions of these early times, parents would no doubt be careful to instruct their children, by word of mouth, before any of the Scriptures were written; and Moses might derive much information from the same source, as a very few persons formed the chain of tradition, when they lived so many hundred years. Adam would converse with Mathusalem, who knew Sem, as the latter lived in the days of Abram. Isaac, Joseph, and Amram, the father of Moses, were contemporaries: so that seven persons might keep up the memory of things which had happened 2500 years before. But to entitle these accounts to absolute authority, the inspiration of God intervenes; and thus we are convinced, that no word of sacred writers can be questioned. H.

Ergo, God’s gift of inerrancy to final redactor-author Moses is making use of human acts. Man’s memory as well as other mental faculties is not “totally corrupt” as the Calvinists of the Dordrecht synod would have had it. Ergo, we can trust Biblical history (by the way, I am not using Vulgate chronology which can be approximated by Ussher, but the chronology of the Roman martyrology for Christmas Day, obviously the old rite).

“Regarding ¹⁴C vs. U/Pb you may note that the former covers mere 75,000 yr at best”

The precise reason why I accord the method an at least relative correct directionality of the chronology. It’s so short, it can be checked with actual history.

Twelve Questions on Genesis I to XI

John Hunt Thinks Nimrod is a Myth, dito for Babel · Three QQ from Issah Mohammed, on Babel · Twelve Questions on Genesis I to XI

Q I

What is the first thing a Catholic should do before talking with a fundamentalist?
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-first-thing-a-Catholic-should-do-before-talking-with-a-fundamentalist/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Catholic convert, reading many Catechisms

Answered 6h ago

Be wary if some people around might mind him talking to himself.

I’m a Catholic and I’m a fundamentalist.

Q II

Is it acceptable to interpret Adam as an allegory, not a historical person?
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-acceptable-to-interpret-Adam-as-an-allegory-not-a-historical-person-1/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Catholic convert, reading many Catechisms

Answered 13h ago

No, it is not, the Session V of the Council of Trent clearly links Original Sin to Adam as one individual and first man.

If he hadn’t been an actual individual, he could not have committed one actual sin on which a loss of grace and perfection immediately followed, and if he hadn’t been the first man, head of mankind, it is not understandable why his sin should affect all men after him.

Q III

Did Adam and Eve have children between Abel and Seth?
https://www.quora.com/Did-Adam-and-Eve-have-children-between-Abel-and-Seth/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters Latin & Greek, Lund University

Answered 8h ago

Arguably yes, the words “And the days of Adam, after he begot Seth, were eight hundred years: and he begot sons and daughters,” certainly mean Seth was not last, but do not necessarily indicate he was only the third child of Adam and Eve.

Q IV

What's up with the ridiculously high ages in the Bible?
https://www.quora.com/Whats-up-with-the-ridiculously-high-ages-in-the-Bible/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters Latin & Greek, Lund University

Answered Apr 5

That we have ridiculously low ages now, compared to our ancestors, first ten generations (all from Adam to Noah being ancestral to all after the Flood, except Noah’s wife and daughters in law, and that’s ten generations).

Imagine mankind were reduced to a subset with diabetes type 1 and we lived in a world with no artificial insuline. Yes, men would live much shorter than now.

This is basically what happened the first thousand years after the Flood.

Carl Wieland on CMI also came up with “genes over pre-Flood environment” before I did, and obviously, when I made my tables on rising C14 levels, the common causality of more radiation from the cosmos than before and than now would have achieved three things:

• human genes and in general genes deteriorate = lower life spans
• carbon 14 is produced quicker than now, explaining why it rose quickly (1.4 pmC at Flood in 2957 BC to 100 pmC achieved at Fall of Troy in 1180 BC, with first half having the quicker rise)
• ionising particles would also have helped to cool the weather for the post-Flood ice age.

Q V

Would Noah’s ark have been as sea worthy as the steel ships of today because of the SAP turned into tar that covered from inside to outside?
https://www.quora.com/Would-Noah-s-ark-have-been-as-sea-worthy-as-the-steel-ships-of-today-because-of-the-SAP-turned-into-tar-that-covered-from-inside-to-outside/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Answer requested by

Marc Bloemers

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Catholic convert, reading many Catechisms

Answered 29m ago

Yes and no.

In proportion to circumstances yes - and by that I mean, the Ark was not navigating anywhere. Hence the only one of the movements imposed by the waters on the ship would be “the rolling,” as the Ark would have its length parallel to the wave troughs.

The steel ships can certainly navigate, but on the other hand would not be able to survive the kind of waves you get in a world wide Flood.

Q VI

Is it possible that there were not nearly as many species on the Earth before Noah’s flood than after because of the increased size?
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-possible-that-there-were-not-nearly-as-many-species-on-the-Earth-before-Noah-s-flood-than-after-because-of-the-increased-size/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Answer requested by

Stef Lynn

Hans-Georg Lundahl

amateur reader of it

Answered Fri

There were not as many species before than after because the species diversified after the Flood.

There was one hedgehog couple on the Ark, there are 17 hedgehog species today.

Q VII

Do Young Earth Creationists really believe that God created the world 6,000 to 10,000 years ago, and how did they arrive at that number?
https://www.quora.com/Do-Young-Earth-Creationists-really-believe-that-God-created-the-world-6-000-to-10-000-years-ago-and-how-did-they-arrive-at-that-number/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters Latin & Greek, Lund University

Answered 7h ago

"Do Young Earth Creationists really believe that God created the world 6,000 to 10,000 years ago,"

Yes, we do.

"and how did they arrive at that number?"

Adam was the first man, created within 168 hours from the creation of the universe (Genesis 1). Counting together the ages of fathers at birth of sons, in Genesis 5 and 11, from Adam to Abraham via Noah, noting Abraham was 75 when he had a promise about Exodus happening 430 years after the promise (see Galatians 3:17), and the Exodus happening "480 years" before the Temple of Solomon, which was around 1000 BC. There are text variants for 480 and there are explanations according to which it would cover only part of the actual years (like not counting bad years).

c. 1000 + 480 + 430 + 75 + A + B = C
A is Abraham born 292 or 942 or 1070 after the Flood, depending on text version.
B is Flood coming 2242 or 1658 after Creation, also depending on text version.
C is the BC date of Creation.

Let's put in 1070 for A and 2242 for B
c. 1000 + 480 + 430 + 75 + 1070 + 2242 = c. 5297 BC

Let's put in 292 for A and 1658 for B
c. 1000 + 480 + 430 + 75 + 292 + 1658 = c. 3935 BC

Add 2022 after Christ:
2022 + 5297 = 7319
2022 + 3935 = 5957

So, about 6000 to 7500 years ago.

Michael Somerset

8.XI.2022

Can you provide any testable and verifiable evidence that is beyond reasonable doubt to support the claims made by creationism?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

8.XI.2022

History is not court justice.

But yes, I consider historic evidence of genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11, along with evidence for Flood mentioned after Genesis 5 and for Babel mentioned in first part of Genesis 11 as fairly good historic evidence, and all doubts I have so far seen on it as unreasonable doubts. Care to take up one of yours, and see what I make of it and if I already dealt with it?

So, beyond any reasonable doubt I would have come across, to say the least.

Michael Somerset

8.XI.2022

Care to take up one of yours, and see what I make of it and if I already dealt with it?

You are the one who has made public claims. It is up to you to provide the evidence to support those claims.

You noted some Bible passages as well as the genealogies. Can you show how they all are testable and verifiable.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

9.XI.2022

The test for a text from older times being historic rather than fictional is, the earliest known audience takes it as historic rather than fictional.

1st C. AD and late BC commentators on Genesis obviously took it as historic, do you have any earlier commentators who can be nailed down as taking it as fictional?

The verifications involve seeing if other historic accounts about same or potentially same events are more or less credible, more or less scrupulous in recording, for instance and if there are any obvious points at which frauds or misunderstandings would have been very likely to induce the tradition even if it was not their true historic memory from before.

Do you have alternative accounts that involve the same events and that you find more credible? Why so?

Do you see an obvious point at which a story told for fun could have been misunderstood as history or at which someone had the opportunity to fake knowledge of earlier events? When and who?

That is precisely the kinds of tests and verifications that history gets.

Michael Somerset

9.XI.2022

So, in other words, these Bible passages do not have any testable and verifiable evidence to back them up. I thought that would be the case.

Just because something is written in an ancient text it does not mean that it has to be taken as literal truth. The arguments you have provided can also apply to other ancient religious texts such as the Sumerian tablets or the Egyptian texts or the Indian Rigveda. That is why testable and verifiable evidence is needed to support your claims that the Biblical texts are true. Credibility is based on this evidence, not on your say so.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

10.XI.2022

"in other words, these Bible passages do not have any testable and verifiable evidence to back them up."

In other words, you don't know what testable and verifiable evidence means in connection with history.

"Just because something is written in an ancient text it does not mean that it has to be taken as literal truth"

History is not always literal truth. It is sometimes literal fraud.

"The arguments you have provided can also apply to other ancient religious texts such as the Sumerian tablets or the Egyptian texts or the Indian Rigveda."

For Sumerian texts, you have a point. Hence I mentioned that the relative value of two different sources should be compared. Sumerian Ark is not seaworthy for a world wide ocean, the Biblical is.

Religious texts of a certain other type, like Book of the Dead or Rigveda do not even claim to be historic, that is about past events witnessed by men. That is off topic.

For India, you would have done better to cite Mahabharata and Ramayana, and yes, I believe them to be mainly historic, with certain reversals of chronology and distortions of theology to the minus.

"That is why testable and verifiable evidence is needed to support your claims that the Biblical texts are true."

It is true that in my main answer I mentioned believing the Bible is not just historic (for this book), but even true (for this and all books).

But after you commented, I actually was providing what you are asking for.

"Credibility is based on this evidence, not on your say so."

Historic credibility is based on some old and dead guys say so.

Michael Somerset

10.XI.2022

History relies on multiple primary and secondary sources including some old and dead guys. Note I said multiple sources, not just one.

You are relying on just one source, the Bible. And no one has yet provided any testable and verifiable evidence that is beyond reasonable doubt that support the supernatural claims made in the Bible.

So, I still don’t see any testable and verifiable evidence that is beyond reasonable doubt from you.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

11.XI.2022

St. Martin of Tours

"Note I said multiple sources, not just one."

For there being a Flood, there actually are multiple sources. By the way, the main thing is primary sources, and that means contemporary ones, while secondary sources are a standin.

That said, it doesn't make sense to pretend "one source has zero credibility, ten sources have total credibility" since 10/10 doesn't equal 0.

For most of what we know of ancient history, we do not have multiple and especially not multiple independent contemporary sources.

"And no one has yet provided any testable and verifiable evidence that is beyond reasonable doubt that support the supernatural claims made in the Bible."

Leaving aside the prophetic and doctrinal claims, since Apocalypse and Ephesians, Ezechiel and Wisdom aren't exactly historic books, by "supernatural claims" I suppose you mean miraculous events. If you didn't, if you confused the two questions of historic reliability with theological reliability, too bad, and I'll ignore that for the following, since we are here talking of history.

Testable and verifiable evidence is texts. "No one has yet provided" is your prejudice. Reasonable doubt is what I challenged you to provide. And you haven't.

There are two kinds of doubts that are not reasonable against Biblical history:

• miracles don't happen
• past events are proven by multiple independent contemporary text sources plus archaeology.

The latter is a near good position for events 1800 AD, but atrocious for events 1800 BC. Not all events leave physical traces, not all physical traces are preserved. A leper healed by Christ will not have traces of having had leprosy, otherwise the priest could not have pronounced him clean, and his flesh will be rotted in the grave a long time ago, by now.

The former is putting the cart before the horse. It's the miracle that is to prove the theology not the theology that is to prove the miracle. And pretending a historic text containing miracles is as moot as a doctrinal text containing doctrine is missing the point. Most false doctrines didn't come about through miracles.

What would constitute a reasonable doubt? Two options: prove the dating methods used by evolutionists allow no reasonable doubt or that their reasonable doubt doesn't extend to the position of Biblical chronology, or prove some other text tradition involves better genealogies and more credible descriptions of the Flood. So far you haven't even tried either.

So, I haven't seen any reasonable doubt, I have provided my evidence, you have not provided reasonable doubt. Just saying “it isn’t beyond reasonable doubt” doesn’t make that so.

Q VIII

How many years are there between Noah and Moses?
https://www.quora.com/How-many-years-are-there-between-Noah-and-Moses/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters Latin & Greek, Lund University

Answered 6h ago

From Flood to birth of Abraham, 292, 942 or 1070 years.

From birth to vocation of Abraham, 75 years.

From vocation of Abraham to Exodus 430 years. 75 + 430 = 505.

292 + 505 = 797
942 + 505 = 1447
1070 + 505 = 1575

If you meant from birth to birth instead of from Flood to Exodus, add 600 and subtract 80 = add 520.

797 + 520 = 1317
1447 + 520 = 1967
1575 + 520 = 2095

Q IX

Was it a Mesopotamian disaster or a world catastrophe? The flood continues to fuel speculation worldwide.
https://www.quora.com/Was-it-a-Mesopotamian-disaster-or-a-world-catastrophe-The-flood-continues-to-fuel-speculation-worldwide/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters Latin & Greek, Lund University

Answered 6h ago

If it was a Mesopotamian disaster:

• how come it is recalled (with some variation) in the Andes?
• how come a vessel taking off at 28 m above sea level landed 800 m above sea level?
• how come the Mesopotamian vessel would not have been able to float even through a “Mesopotamian” flood on previously mentioned condition?

In other words, as the Bible says, it was a world wide catastrophe.

Q X

If the ice age occurred as a result of Noah’s flood, could that possibly be how fantastic formations like the Grand Canyon occurred?
https://www.quora.com/If-the-ice-age-occurred-as-a-result-of-Noah-s-flood-could-that-possibly-be-how-fantastic-formations-like-the-Grand-Canyon-occurred/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Answer requested by

Stef Lynn

Hans-Georg Lundahl

amateur reader of it

Answered Mar 31

When the creation science groups like CMI or AiG have an answer on a thing, I usually don’t put that into question, unless I already arrived at a different one (Neanderthals as a human race were - me : pre-Flood, they : post-Flood).

Now, I’d consider the Ice age began after Noah’s Flood, I’d add that higher levels of cosmic radiation speeded up the process.

But as to Grand Canyon, I simply leave the answer to those guys, and theirs is, the excavation of that canyon was during the Flood, after the Flood had already piled lots of sediments on top of each other. A stream of water came to carve out a canyon in the sediments that were still soft.

Here is one article on CMI:

A receding Flood scenario for the origin of the Grand Canyon
by Peter Scheele | This article is from
Journal of Creation 24(3):106–116, December 2010
https://creation.com/grand-canyon-origin-flood

Q XI

Where and how did Noah build the Ark?
https://www.quora.com/Where-and-how-did-Noah-build-the-Ark/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters Latin & Greek, Lund University

Answered Dec 10, 2019

Where?

Where he was getting into it and that would have been on top of the highest mountain known to the pre-Flood world, since 14 and a half to 15 cubits could then have been his waterline, and he could have known it covered it and all equally high mountain tops by 15 cubits when the Ark started floating. I presume he knew all of the pre-Flood geography very well, and therefore that he was chosing the highest mountain.

How?

• 1. According to God’s instructions;
• 2. Using the best technology the pre-Flood world had to offer him (not Neanderthal hunting spears from same time, like Versailles wasn’t built by the tomahawks of Chingachgook);
• 3. Certainly with the help of his three sons, possibly with help of other hired labour or volunteers who were stopped from coming along, probably also involving a hand or two from Methusalem, unless he was too old to do much - not sure how the age just before death affected pre-Flood labour capacity.

Q XII

Is the Tower of Babel the originator of languages?
https://www.quora.com/Is-the-Tower-of-Babel-the-originator-of-languages/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

amateur linguist

Answered 17h ago

First, the tower itself is not originator of languages, the language differences came when God wanted to prevent the tower from being built then and there.

Second, human language existed well before, but very important language barriers didn’t, so, God working at Babel is the originator of language differences.