Carbon-14 dating applied to some ancient Biblical Chronology

On Aug 07, 2008...Bryant G. Wood PhD reported the following data on Jericho's Carbon 14 dating that supports my thesis in dating Jericho's destruction to 1511 B.C. to being more within the margin of error than those who date to the 1400s B.C. and later:
http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2008/08/Carbon-14-Dating-at-Jericho.aspx

Initially, a C14 date of 1410 +/- 40 B.C. (done by the British Museum) was published for charcoal from the destruction level of Jericho (Jericho V [1983], p. 763).

This was later found to be in error and corrected from 3080 +/- 40 BP to 3300 +/- 110 BP (Radiocarbon 32 [1990]: 74; BP = before present), which calibrates to 1590 or 1527 +/- 110 B.C., depending on how one reads the calibration curve (Radiocarbon 35 [1993]: 30).

Additional tests were done on six grain samples from the destruction level resulting in dates between 1640 and 1520 B.C. and 12 charcoal samples from the destruction level resulting in dates between 1690 and 1610 B.C. (Radiocarbon 37 [1995]: 217).

This Carbon-14 dating reported in 1995 is thought to be more reliable than the previous data.

One of the things that is seemingly left out in the Carbon-14 debates is contamination, and cross-sourcing.

For example, there is data that shows that when a modern animal is fed old and rotten vegetation, the animal can soon carbon-14 date to whatever you would misdate the rotten food to, because the rate of decay throws off the effectiveness of Carbon-14's accuracy. So in that respect, decomposition (its rate and state of) needs to be factored in in carbon-14 dating.

In contrast, the Jericho data suggests a suspension of decomp in the grain and charcoal samples. The difference in the charcoal dates to the 1600s B.C., may relate to the age of the wood or tree when it was cut (some may argue). Even if this were true, we again are looking closer to a 1511 B.C. destruction than any other proposed date for the fall of Jericho under Israel's entry into the Land.

SCIENCE, back in 1983 with Keith and Anderson's 'Radiocarbon dating: Fictitious results with Mollusk Shells' (August 16, vol. 141, No. 3581, pp. 634-636) showed that Mollusks could generate fictitious results of Carbon-14 dating by up to 3000 years, depending on what muddy river bottom they were feeding off of. And if river mud can alter mollusk Carbon-14 dating...in what other living creatures or once living organisms could they affect? Could deer or other animal antler growth, for example, reflect this in C-14 data? Strangely enough, this very example done in 1957 is often used in debates between young and old earth advocates, even though 3 stages of the same antler growth reflects a difference of some 5,000 years in C-14.

Hence, 5,000 years and more can be fictitiously attributed to C-14 dating. Thus, we can virtually bring the Holocene era into the Bronze Ages in one stroke via one example of a past Yale University testing on the subject. And even though advances have been made in Carbon-14 analysis; if the data going into the program is flawed...the resulting data that comes out will simply reflect that same flaw. Unfortunately, most and nearly all "scientists" simply take the C-14 results of others at face value and hypothesize by faith rather than "science", never testing and analyzing the sample and data themselves to see if the same result will happen again and again (which is what a scientist is "supposed" to do).

In regard to site dating found in material, using Carbon 14, we should always ask...Where would the best organic matter for use in dating that is the oldest but the freshest cut and least contaminated be found, and did we find it?

Even so, for me, it is yet a happy event for the above Jericho dating to be along the lines of placing 1511 B.C. within the oft cited C-14 150 year margin of error. Some of the sceptics may yet be finally be coming around.


Fixing our C-14 and ceramic Chronology
As I have pointed out, C-14 chronology is seriously flawed. What is equally flawed, is the new notion that we can now create data into existence by cross-quotations, so as to date ceramic development some 4,000 years ago into 25 year increments. This is utterly preposterous and ridiculous.

Unless a specific artist is identified and isolated, as some ante-Nicene fathers do of the much later Greek deity statues (and on occasion included the rich men who posed and paid for such likenesses), the notion we can consistently date ceramics to 25 year increments of development is as the ash heap at the end of a lit cigarette in reliability.

If the old Chronology of more than 10 years ago can be altered, so can the new chronology of the last 10 years. The new proposal is that all archaeology dated as 2350 B.C. be redated as 1980 B.C., and the insanely accepted notion of several hundred years of nomadism and city abandonment be discarded for a zero year, and perhaps for as many as 3 - 6 months.

What would cause an abandonment? How about geological and geo-climatic changes? That is, great natural disasters of violence.

One such disaster is that which cause the cessation of the Akkadians, and destroyed the forests of the like time period that ascended up from the Persian Gulf throughout southern Iraq, etc.

DOI: 10.1130/0091-7613(2000)28<379:CCATCO>2.0.CO;2 © 2000 GeGeology; April 2000; v. 28; no. 4; p. 379-382;ological Society of America
H. M. Cullen1, P. B. deMenocal1, S. Hemming1, G. Hemming1, F. H. Brown2, T. Guilderson3 and F. Sirocko4
1 Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University, Palisades, New York 10964, USA
2 University of Utah, Park City, Utah 84112, USA
3 Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California 94551, USA
4 Institut für Geowissenschaften, Johannes Gutenberg Universität, 55099 Mainz, Germany

Abstract:
The Akkadian empire ruled Mesopotamia from the headwaters of the Tigris-Euphrates Rivers to the Persian Gulf during the late third millennium B.C. Archeological evidence has shown that this highly developed civilization collapsed abruptly near 4170 ± 150 calendar yr B.P., perhaps related to a shift to more arid conditions. Detailed paleoclimate records to test this assertion from Mesopotamia are rare, but changes in regional aridity are preserved in adjacent ocean basins. We document Holocene changes in regional aridity using mineralogic and geochemical analyses of a marine sediment core from the Gulf of Oman, which is directly downwind of Mesopotamian dust source areas and archeological sites. Our results document a very abrupt increase in eolian dust and Mesopotamian aridity, accelerator mass spectrometer radiocarbon dated to 4025 ± 125 calendar yr B.P., which persisted for 300 yr. Radiogenic (Nd and Sr) isotope analyses confirm that the observed increase in mineral dust was derived from Mesopotamian source areas. Geochemical correlation of volcanic ash shards between the archeological site and marine sediment record establishes a direct temporal link between Mesopotamian aridification and social collapse, implicating a sudden shift to more arid conditions as a key factor contributing to the collapse of the Akkadian empire.

If the demise of the Akkadians with "volcanic ash shards" occur simultaneously with the destruction of Sodom, what then?

At about the same dating, we find the geo-climatic changes were not just region wide, but world wide.

The Holocene, Vol. 15, No. 3, 321-328 (2005)

DOI: 10.1191/0959683605hl825ft © 2005 SAGE Publications
A severe centennial-scale drought in midcontinental North America 4200 years ago and apparent global linkages
Robert K. Booth
Center for Climatic Research, University of Wisconsin, Madison WI 53706, USA; rkbooth@wisc.edu
Stephen T. Jackson
Department of Botany, University of Wyoming, Laramie WY 82071, USA
Steven L. Forman
Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago IL 60607, USA
John E. Kutzbach
Center for Climatic Research, University of Wisconsin, Madison WI 53706, USA
E. A. Bettis, III
Department of Geoscience, University of Iowa, Iowa City IA 52242, USA
Joseph Kreigs
Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Upper Iowa University, Fayette IA, USA
David K. Wright
Department of Anthropology, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago IL 60607-7059, USA

Abstract:
We present evidence from a variety of physical and biological proxies for a severe drought that affected the mid-continent of North America between 4.1 and 4.3 ka. Rapid climate changes associated with the event had large and widespread ecological effects, including dune reactivation, forest fires and long-term changes in forest composition, highlighting a clear ecological vulnerability to similar future changes. Drought is also documented in the Middle East and portions of Africa and Asia, where it was similar in timing, duration and magnitude to that recorded in the central North American records. Some regions at high latitudes, including northern Europe and Siberia, experienced cooler and/or wetter conditions. Widespread mid-latitude and subtropical drought, associated with increased moisture at some high latitudes, has been linked in the instrumental record to an unusually steep sea surface temperature (SST) gradient between the tropical eastern and western Pacific Ocean (La Ninia) and increased warmth in other equatorial oceans. Similar SST patterns may have occurred at 4.2 ka, possibly associated with external forcing or amplification of these spatial modes by variations in solar irradiance or volcanism. However, changes in SST distribution bracketing the 4.2 ka event are poorly known in most regions and data are insufficient to estimate magnitude of changes in solar and volcanic forcing at this time. Further research is needed to delineate geographical patterns of moisture changes, ecological responses, possible forcing mechanisms and climatology of this severe climatic event.

And since glacial core sample dating uses Carbon 14 well outside the range of its full-life, and there is a history that supports an "artic" Britain and central and western Europe until the 500s B.C. -- then we may have to also redate the Holocene events that include land separation and spreading, and lifting (as was done with Scotland) to be theoretically redatable to a 500 year age from Abraham to Joshua, instead of 13,000 to 5,000 years ago.

The Holocene, Vol. 10, No. 4, 489-501 (2000)
DOI: 10.1191/095968300676735907
© 2000 SAGE Publications
"Patterns of isostatic land uplift during the Holocene: evidence from mainland Scotland"
David E. Smith
Centre for Quaternary Science, School of Natural and Environmental Sciences, Coventry University, Priory Street, Coventry CV1 5FB, UK
Robin A. Cullingford
Department of Geography, Exeter University, Amory Building, Rennes Drive, Exeter EX4 4RJ, UK
Callum R. Firth
Department of Geography and Earth Sciences, Brunel University, Uxbridge, Middlesex UB8 3PH, UK)

Abstract:
Preliminary results of a lengthy and detailed investigation into middle- and late-Holocene raised shorelines in mainland Scotland indicate that three shorelines are sufficiently widely distributed to permit an examination of their extent and of the patterns of uplift which they indicate. The shorelines are the Storegga Tsunami Shoreline, reached at c. 7100 14C years BP, at the culmination of the Main Postglacial Transgression; and the Blairdrummond Shoreline, reached after the Main Postglacial Shoreline, at c. 2000–4200 14C years BP, at the time of a tsunami believed to have been caused by the Second Storegga submarine slide; the Main Postglacial Shoreline, reached at c. 5800–6850 14C years BP. The Main Postglacial Shoreline, previously believed to be the highest Holocene raised shoreline in Scotland, is now believed to be overlapped around the periphery of the uplifted area by the later Blairdrummond Shoreline. Isobase models, based upon quadratic trend surface analysis of available comparable height data consisting of altitudes on former estuarine surfaces and related to the local High Water Mark of Ordinary Spring Tides, depict the pattern of uplift for each shoreline. These models are probably more accurate than previous models of land uplift for the period studied, and indicate a consistent and unchanging uplift pattern during the middle and late Holocene.


In other words, a crustal shift of the Earth pushing west, consistent with the Dead Sea Rift in or about 1980 B.C., the approximate time of Sodom's destruction -- to about 1551 B.C., the time in which the Exodus of Israel occurred.

If we remove these Holocene Geo-realities into a new time-frame, based on a 6,000 year earth, as zircon analysis of Helium according to natural (not unnatural) science shows the Earth to approximately be...as I have posted the link to previously...then, the demise of the Akkadians and of Sodom, and miraculous events such as the sun standing in the sky for Joshua without setting...enters into the realm of geologic theory and scientific sensibility, instead of being simply a literary fantasy - myth of the ancients, or even modern proponents of such a possibile scenario.

In some areas crustal shift of the Holocene in the new time-frame, could reasonably be seen to have quickly created valleys, like the Dead Sea rift, or created mountains or hills, or formed islands from masses separated from their prior mainland states in days, and months, and years..rather than epochs, contrary to what we know Creation / Nature to be in its own violence.

The word has been at NASA through satellite surveillance technology data of the last 30 years, that volcanism will indeed shape both surface plains and valleys on other planets; and the electro-magnetic forces are also a factor in these events, as I have previously touched upon with -- currently or allegedly dated to -- Holocene Levant, Scottish, and North American examples.



The G-D Factor: Miracles manifest in Creation must always be considered Possible

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1990ApJ...354L..37M&data_type=PDF_HIGH&whole_paper=YES&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf

The above pdf. tells us about the 1990 Cosmic Background Explorer Satelitte, C.O.B.E., and the background radiation of the entire sphere of the northern heavens -- as seen from the North Galactic Pole -- which showed an average temperature of 2.735 degrees centigrade above Absolute Zero.

The spectrum curve was less that 1% across the entire range of observed frequencies. That is, the universe was like some giant Cosmic radiator. There was no pond rippling big bang. The echoes of history tell us that the Universe was created in a "poof" / "everywhere all at once" and in an even distribution fashion... exactly like the ancient Bible Scriptures which tell us that G-D stretched the Heavens like a curtain, and it was there.

The COBE used the milky way galaxy as a mean center for its Daily Microwave Radiometer (DMR) readings. DMRs are those wavelengths which are able to be filtered out from our own galaxy's emissions. There are 3 known DMRs, and the COBE used all 3.

In 1993, the Jet Propulsion Labaratory (courtesy of NASA) revealed a 365 day condensed DMR picture of the North Galactic Pole Sphere, and this is where the "radiator" picture comes in. It was at this meeting that the American Astronomical Society officially said the fluctuation was not as high as 1%, but only .03% or three-one hundredths of one percent. They also settled on a final number of 2.726 Centigrade above Absolute Zero (over its previous 2.735).

So if the Universe scientifically testifies that it was simultaneously created everywhere at once by G-D in a macro-cosmic action; we cannot discount the rapid shifts of islands breaking off from continents, the creating or traveling of mountains many miles as if on rollers virtually overnight, or of G-D the Father sending us His Son to preach to us the message of eternal spiritual redemption. These things we simply cannot honestly discount either scientifically or logically.

Thoughts on Carbon-14 and Climate Carbon Science in general

Immanuel Velikovsky, though controversial, explored the dating methods using Carbon-14 in relation to Egypt. In his analysis, such as wood samples from Tutankhamen artifacts, Egyptian chronology is generally 300 to 800 years confused.
http://www.varchive.org/ce/c14.htm
http://www.varchive.org/ce/tc14.htm

There are several themes that run through an ancient redating process, and theoretical science, sad to say, is one of them. Theoretical science is often hindered by ignorance which rules out visible acts seen in Nature / Creation which tells us that life never runs at an absolute regularity or constant (storms and their activity to soil and strata prove this) and in reality, must allow for metabolism and nature to some degree run at a differing speed now than 4,000 years ago by an unknown rh-factor (as it relates to blood and metabolism)  and an unknown x-factor.

An example of putting forth a theory of science in a place where we can see the application more rigidly, I can put forth a clear answer to the Riemann hypothesis after this fashion. Remember, this is just an example of theoretical science. In his hypothesis, Riemann used Gematria and 4 languages to show a formula where .33 = .33 using a cubicle, or three-dimensional analysis, as does Einstein in his E = mc square formula. Riemann, as a student of Hebrew and Greek under his theologian father, was aware that the Greek letters, created at Phoenicia, were actually shapes from a lost art of mathematical engineering calculations using a cubicle or 3-dimensional expression. In our day, we have to use computers to rediscover what some ancients already knew. By taking his formula as a simplified expression of symbols and Gematria, Riemann was able to use a shortcut method of verifying his calculations, which is exactly what geniuses are able to do. And to this day, mathematicians are taking the long way round, when the short method is what Riemann was teaching us by his example.

In this, we formulate an hypothesis knowing the history of Riemann, his hobbies, his correspondence, his habits, his past writings...and we reach an intelligent alternate theory as to what lay behind the riddle of his hypothesis. It doesn't have to be correct...simply plausible enough to be correct. And strangely enough, the debate about ancient history, is done in much the same way. The more we know...then the more we know. We are information junkies in need of learning as much as we can, because so very few of us can sift and properly analyze the dat we have received from the ancient past.

Getting back to Carbon - 14:

Our Northern Hemisphere river run-off in our current day is probably much slower than even 200 let alone 2,000 years ago. An example of this was a report done on the speed of the flow of Niagara Falls in the 1700s, and the erosion process decreasing over many decades. The run-off, as we have seen in a recent rain in Texas, can be the equivalent of 50,000 to 80,000 years of corrosion in a matter of a few days., baffling those of the related Earth Sciences.


Compared to the era of the Black Sea deluge, even our planetary and magnetic conditions are different. Our magnetic sphere is decreasing at a rate that cannot allow the Earth to be older than 80,000 years, for example, without attaining polarity equivocal to a forming star. Ozone levels and human population conditions are vastly different. And especially important to radio carbon dating, the amount of water available to evaporate into the atmosphere (such as in non-glacial form) will also affect carbon dating.

We know that the ancient testimony was that Europe was still a glacial wilderness as late as 1000 B.C.; and this can be seen (or perhaps we should say, reasoned) in the very slow migration into the Continent. For example, why did Rome form in the 700s B.C., and never expand first to unoccupied Gaul and further inland northwards? The Celts themselves are tracked as in the northern regions of Turkey and near the Caspian Sea, yet 600 years later, they are only just settling in Gaul. Why? Their Germanic cousins have moved into central and western Europe from Macedonia, of which Alexander was. why did it take so long, if not for Glacial recession?

Again the amount of water available to evaporate into the atmosphere (such as in non-glacial form) will also affect carbon dating.

When the Mediterranean began to rise, that Sea flowed into the Black Sea basin, and filled it. The question, is when? Greek history tells us of the great cataclysm, or destruction by water and ice.


It is important that we realize that modern and past science does not hold the answers. And more and more, we have to apply what we know in combination with the past testimony of the ancients. Too many people wish to rewrite H.G. Wells as George Orwell did, and make a new history of the past that never existed based on a philosophy to the exclusion of a Creator.

Exploration of various concepts and theories was and is a learning experience. For example, I would recommend the reading Immanuel Velikovsky’s correspondence with Einstein:
http://www.varchive.org/bdb/main.htm
http://www.varchive.org/cor/einstein/index.htm

Even if Velikovsky’s theories are controversial, and sometimes incorrect, follow the line of reasoning of his contentions with ancient Greek and Patristic literature:

1) Electromagnetism or other forces yet unknown or uncomprehended may play a more important role in the human history and hence the local cosmos than has been generally recognized heretofore:

2) It is quite obvious that the alleged chronology of ancient Egypt is seriously flawed, which many historians apparently lean on too heavily as if factual, and create new history based on flawed interpretations of Egypt's chronology.


Other writings of Velikovsky should be read and thought upon.
http://www.varchive.org/tac/index.htm


http://www.varchive.org/dag/index.htm

http://www.varchive.org/itb/index.htm

http://www.varchive.org/ce/index.htm

In doing so, plausible explanations to miraculous events may spring to mind. For example, though somewhat off the subject: Has science ever considered the effect of a moon sized Ice Comet colliding with the sun? If so, would the projections be similar to what happened at the time of Christ's crucifixion, between noon to 3 pm -- that is, an effect spoken of in Acts and Joel?

Iin Velikovsky's way of looking at things, the idea is to present valid theories to consider, not in having the absolute truth. And if time and science proves otherwise...then at least we arrived to a point of greater knowledge and understanding much more quickly because we examined all the data and possibilities.

My take, based on Greek and Patristic historians and apologists, is that the Black Sea began to be filled in 1551 B.C. at the time of the Hebrew exodus and the explosion of Santorini island.

In regard to Carbon-14 dating, we need a basic understanding: http://edmall.gsfc.nasa.gov/99invest.Site/science-briefs/ace/ed-radioact.html
http://www.c14dating.com/int.html
http://www.moravek.com/

These will illustrate or concentrate on the theme of a Carbon increase when life dies...but no one dares factor in the Earth's population explosion and other Carbon releases in the last 300 years. So if the part per million (ppm) of Carbon is increasing in the atmosphere to 350 ppm, we are increasing animal and human life and death while decreasing the ratio of plankton and plant life compensation to off-set the increase. We need more trees and shrubs and plankton to perpetuate life on Planet Earth...but instead, politicians and multi-owning Corporate movers and shakers would rather establish a New World Order and oppress mankind into slavery to some kind of world government.

But in regard to Carbon-14, the spike and adjustments in life and death variables of mass populations or regions is never factored in the Carbon-14 dating; making C-14 projections into the ancient past an often unreliable exercise that cannot be technically called "scientific" because so many results can come from the same batch of ground, even if created at about the same time.

Maybe there is some concern when Carbon-14 is scaled back by other concerns from Creationists:
http://www.creation-science-prophecy.com/C14fp.htm
because science, when removed from the myth of evolution,
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles_alpha.htm
offers a perspective that leaves evolution as more than a little inconconclusive
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/41/41_1/Helium.htm
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/40/40_3/Henry.htm


Compare the last above link article with Nasa:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/17jan_solcon.htm

Ozone holes are noticeably affected by volcanic eruptions...but our concentration on Carbon-14, says NASA, spills over into other dating problems:

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/1211millenium.html


And what about approved teaching materials?

Try this Home page: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html

And this Carbon-dating section:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/cardat.html#c2

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Has Carbon-14 and its relation to Ozone holes and Global warming been truly thorough? Or asked another way, has the primary collected data from 1962 -1993 that sparked the Global Warming Crisis theories been inclusive of affected nuclear detonation test areas?

North and Southern hemisphere raw data 1962-1993
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp057/

"ABSTRACT

Nydal, R., and K. Lövseth. 1996. Carbon-14 Measurements in Atmospheric CO2 from Northern and Southern Hemisphere Sites, 1962-1993. ORNL/CDIAC-93, NDP-057. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. 67 pp.

In the 1960s, thermonuclear bomb tests released significant pulses of radioactive 14C into the atmosphere. This major perturbation allowed scientists to study the dynamics of the global carbon cycle by measuring and observing rates of isotopic exchange. The Radiological Dating Laboratory at the Norwegian Institute of Technology performed 14C measurements in atmospheric CO2 from 1962 to 1993 at a network of ground stations in the Northern and Southern hemispheres.

These measurements were supplemented during 1965 with high-altitude (9-12.6 km) air samples collected using aircraft from the Norwegian Air Force. The resulting database, coupled with other 14C data sets, provides a greater understanding of the dynamic carbon reservoir and a crude picture of anomalous sources and sinks at different geographical latitudes.

This database is outstanding for its inclusion of early 14C measurements, broad spatial coverage of sampling, consistency of sampling method, and 14C calculation results corrected for isotopic fractionation and radioactive decay. This database replaces previous versions published by the authors and the Radiological Dating Laboratory.

Fourteen stations spanning latitudes from Spitsbergen (78°N) to Madagascar (21°S) were used for sampling during the lifetime of the Norwegian program.

Some of the stations have data for only a brief period, while others have measurements through 1993. Sampling stations subject to local industrial CO2 contamination were avoided.

The sites have sufficient separation to describe the latitudinal distribution of 14C in atmospheric models. The sampling procedure for all the surface (10-2400 m asl) 14C measurements in this database consisted of quantitative absorption of atmospheric CO2 in carbonate-free 0.5 N NaOH solution. The 14C measurements were made in a CO2 proportional counter and calculated (14C) as per mil excess above the normal 14C level defined by the US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Atmospheric 14C content is finally expressed as 14C, which is the relative deviation of the measured 14C activity from the NIST oxalic acid standard activity, after correction for isotopic fractionation and radioactive decay related to age."

And later on...

"...The 14C tropospheric data show a sharp increase in tropospheric radiocarbon levels in the early 1960s and then a decline after the majority of nuclear tests came to an end on August 5, 1963 through the Test Ban Treaty.

The sharp peaks in tropospheric radiocarbon in the early 1960s are more pronounced in the Northern Hemisphere, reflecting the location of most atomic weapons tests. The measurements show large seasonal variations in the 14C level in the early 1960s, mainly as a result of springtime transport of bomb 14C from the stratosphere ...

During the 1970s, the seasonal variations are smaller and are partly due to seasonal variations in CO2 from fossil-fuel emissions. The rate of decrease of atmospheric radiocarbon provides a check on the exchange constants of the atmosphere and ocean."

In the 1970s, the Science Czar John Holdren joined many others in stating that the fluctuations of Carbon had no effect on preventing the coming Ice Age in the next 30 years. If Science Czar Holdren had it wrong then, what qualifies him to disqualify others like Richard Lindzen, far more competent, honest, and data focused than he? In fact, Holdren, who prefers mass sterilization via public drinking water...even though it might sterilize and make extinct animal life in those same local regions used, is a Liberal ideologue who injects his liberalism into the science, making him a quack.

Some may say Carbon-14 doesn't matter, because science now claims the Universe is 15 Billion years. The number keeps growing by the billions with each generation because of a liberal ned to deny G-D. In regard to a less than 12,000 year old universe in a 15 billion year Big Bang Universe, nuclear physicist Dr. Gerald Schroeder presents an interesting concept of time and space that I think anyone fascinated with age and the Universe.
http://www.geraldschroeder.com/HiddenFace.aspx


It isn't as heavy as one might expect.

Again, reiterating how the complex issue can really be quite simple to solve. Some have called the Riemann hypothesis a near impossible mathematical riddle. It isn't. Riemann was multi-lingual, so a basic knowledge of his interests and capabilities was the key in deciphering that riddle...and it was quite easily done for someone knowing what the keys were. Languages in the elements of the formula itself, as seen through the 19th Century mind. By converting the Riemann hypothesis into 4 languages plus a fifth element, the formula simply states that .33 = .33 (using Gematria as part of the solution). In another example, in reading the mathematical sequence and formulas in the strokes of Greek Letters, by converting them into a 3 dimensional manifestation, we discover the same basic mathematical principal of Einstein's E = MC2 as a Greek cubicle of the letter for 900, in the same manner or way that the Riemann hypothesis is a cubicle summation that uses simplicity to ensure accuracy, going back to his theological studies in Hebrew under his Christian theologian father, etc. These claims can be duplicated by any Technology Institute in the world. The only question is, "will the resultant technology created from this insight open for mankind a Pandora's Box"? It could to some extent, perhaps...but the Bible assures us that the Jesus will never let mankind fully extinguish himself as a species.


In the 1970s, the Science Czar John Holdren joined many others in stating that the fluctuations of Carbon had no effect on preventing the coming Ice Age in the next 30 years. If Science Czar Holdren had it wrong then, what qualifies him to disqualify others like Richard Lindzen, far more competent, honest, and data focused than he? In fact, Holdren, who prefers mass sterilization via public drinking water...even though it might sterilize and make extinct animal life in those same local regions used. Copenhagen is a means of unleashing 1500 Holdren-like quacks -- (many of whom may me complicit in falsifying Climate Science Data to editorial license like Holdren himself has done http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17183 ) -- via a One World Government upon the Earth.

At Copenhagen, the United States will be in a Group chaired by Australia, and also represent New Zealand, Canada, Russia, Japan, and Norway. The Chair, also speaking for its member partners, with a US Department of State or higher Representative, has already pledged to sign the Copenhagen One World Government Treaty...in spite of its bad science used for creating what has to be a violent world oligarchy and enslaving system.

More Data and Considerations on Dating the Hebrew Exodus from Egypt

The Eruption of Thera: Date and Implications From the Thera Foundation
http://www.therafoundation.org/articles/chronololy/theeruptionoftheradateandimplications calls for a rethinking of chronology.

From past radiocarbon dates, and the shape of the calibration curve between c. 1625-1525 BC, there appear two possible results: an ambiguous result compatible with both a high or lower chronology ... or that including a result compatible with the 17th century BC radiocarbon analysis.

The weighted average from the five dates with carbon-13 normalization in the central 12 (P-2791, P-2793, P-2795, K-3228, K-4225) is c. 3351 ± 32 BP. Calibrated on the Pearson and Stuiver (1986) curve this yields: c. 1687-1618 BC. The weighted mean of the five dates on samples pre-treated with NaOH in the central 12 (P-1889, P-1892, P-1894, K-3228, K-4225) is c. 3330 ± 25 BP. Calibrated on the Pearson and Stuiver (1986) curve this yields c. 1676-1609, 1552-1547 BC. [/b]

1552-1547 B.C. - for those trusting Carbon dating; or within 150 years for those that don't as much (from 1687 or 1676 B.C. worst case scenario), still puts 1551 B.C. as more highly likely than a 1400s dated Exodus. That is, Santorini / Thera may well have blown (like Krakatoa) and contributed to the Exodus events in Egypt after all.


James B. Pritchard's "Ancient Near Eastern Texts" Princeton, 1969, lists on pp. 252-253 the stela of the Seti family at Tanis, dedicated by Ramesses II, in which he lists his family struggle as Ra / Re 's representative as being 400 years old.

...(5) His majesty commanded the making of a great stela of granite bearing the great name of his fathers, in order to set up the name of the father of his fathers (and of) the King Men-maat-Re, the Son of Re: Seti Mer-ne-Ptah, (Seti I) and abiding forever like Re every day: Year 400, 4th month of the third season, day 4,' of the King of Upper and Lower Egypt....

That is, beginning 400 years prior, Ram II's ancestor was a high priest of Ra/Re who sparked the revolt against the Hyksos. Depending on when we date the stela, this will determine when the revolts of Egypt against the Hyksos began...and it took many decades to succeed.

on p.231, we read a proclamation which says:

"...since the Asiatics [the Hyksos] were in the midst of Avaris of the Northland, and vagabonds [the Hebrews] were in the midst of them, overthrowing that which had been made. They ruled without Re, and he did not act by divine command down to (the reign of) my majesty. (Now) I am established upon the thrones of Re...."


The Jews are listed in Egyptian terminology, not as Jews or Asiatics, but as bums and vagabonds (depending upon the translator). Have Egyptologists followed upon this "vagabond" terminology...the ones who were in the midst of the Hyksos Asiatics and who also overthrew them? Now, there may be those who wish to espouse different dates than me by centuries in regard to the Exodus...but the historical record can be reasonably interpreted to support my thesis. That's all I need to do: present a sound thesis based on historic data that is verifiable by a couple or several sources independent of each other in antiquity, reaching the same conclusions. Acadaemia very often can't even do that.

In regard to my Egyptian date support, we can always bring up Tell el-Yahudiyeh, and others, which even the Israeli Antiquities Authority says falls into the 30 year margin of era criteria some may pine for.


Eusebius: Chronicle -- Egypt from 1st father to Cleopatra's death as 2206 years

[p131] THE EGYPTIANS

How [the history of] the Ethiopians is included in the chronology of the Egyptians, and [the times when] the Ptolemaei ruled over Egypt and Alexandria.
How the Egyptians have kept records of their dates.
After the chronology of the Chaldaeans, the Assyrians and the Hebrews, it it time to move on to the records of the Egyptians.
Diodorus, in the first book of his historical library [ 1.44 ], writes as follows: "Some of them tell the story that the first rulers in Egypt were gods and heroes, who ruled for slightly less than 16,000 years;

[note the very obvious hyperbole and myth-making aspect of the account]

the last of the gods who ruled there was Horus the son of Isis. Then men became kings of the country, in the time of Myris, and have continued for slightly less than 5,000, until the 180th Olympiad [60-57 B.C.], when I [Diodorus] visited Egypt, in the reign of Ptolemaeus, who was called the New Dionysus.

[p133] "For the great majority of that time, the country has been ruled by native kings; but for short periods it was ruled by Ethiopians, by Persians and by Macedonians.

There were only four Ethiopian kings, and they did not rule in a single sequence, but at separate times; in total, they ruled for slightly less than 36 years.

During the supremacy of the Persians, which was established when Cambyses conquered the [Egyptian] people by force, and which lasted for 135 years, the Egyptians rose in revolt, because they could not endure the harsh government and the impiety [of the Persians] towards the native gods.

Then the Macedonians and their descendants became kings, for 276 years. For the whole of the rest of the time, [Egypt] was governed by native rulers, who consisted of 470 kings and 5 queens.

"Records about all of these rulers have been kept by the priests in their sacred books, which have been continuously handed down from one [generation] to another, since the most ancient times. These books tell about the character of each king, their virtue and their bravery, their spirit and their nobility, as well as the achievements of each of them in their reigns. However it is unnecessary, and moreover worthless, for us to write down the deeds of each of them; especially since many of them were judged to be insignificant even in their own times." That is what Diodorus says.

And now it is right and fitting for us to add to this Manetho's account of the Egyptians, which seems to be a reliable history.

From the Egyptian records of Manetho, who composed in 3 books commentaries about the gods, demi-gods, spirits, and the mortal kings who ruled over the Egyptians, up until the time of Dareius the king of the Persians.

The first man amongst the Egyptians was Hephaestus, who discovered fire for them; he was the father of Sol [the Sun]. After him came [(?)Agathodaemon; then] Cronus; then Osiris; then Typhon the brother of Osiris; and then Horus the son of Osiris and Isis. These were the first rulers of the Egyptians. [p135]

After them, one king succeeded another until the time of Bidis, for a total of 13,900 years - calculated by lunar years, which lasted for 30 days. That is the period which we now call a month, but the men of that time called it a year.

[Note this...that these thousands of "years" were de facto only lunar months. We are not just talking 12 month lunar adjustments between 365 and 360 day years. This would merely adjust 1158.3 years at 360 days to a year = 1141.65 years. The actual calculation is an hyperbole of years being 30 day months. Divide the sum total by 12 months and then divide into a 365.25 rounded up to nearest hundredth year, multiplying at .9856. This gives a quick approximation as the historical intent of the testimony.]


After the gods, a race of demi-gods ruled for 1,255 years. {de facto, 1255 months at 103 years}

After them, other kings ruled [the country] for 1,817 years.
{149.23 years as adjusted to the formula given}

After them, 30 kings from Memphis [ruled] for 1,790 years;
{147 years}

and then another ten kings from Thinis ruled for 350 years. {28.74 years}

And then the shades and demi-gods were kings, for 5,813 years.
{477.44 years}

The total for all of these is 11,000 years - which are lunar years, or months.

The total time, which the Egyptians assign to the gods and demi-gods and spirits is 24,900 lunar years - which is the equivalent of 2,206 solar years.

Cleopatra to the first Egyptian leader is then at max-out chronology in the historical testimony, only from 30 B.C. extending back to 2236 B.C.

Hence, there is clear testimony according to the ancients, that for modern Egyptologists and others to date Egypt older than the Flood of Noah or into any period pre-2300 B.C., is INACCURATE.

Over 100 years ago, an extensive write up on the historical documents of Egypt showed that at the Karnak Inscription, there is a reference to the name of Rome as being present in Egypt in the 1300s B.C.
(cf. ANCIENT RECORDS OF EGYPT, Historical Documents, EDITED BY JAMES HENRY. BREASTED
VOLUME 3, The NINETEENTH DYNASTY, CHICAGO: THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS
May 1906, p.266). In that case, ROME was the name of a high priest of an idol deity.

As I have demonstrated earlier, there was a direct relationship with Isis and Greece, in which Isis was actually the Greek girl named Ceres, who became queen of Egypt, and then called IO by the Greeks. IO, which is a mathematical formula (the basis of the formation of later Greek letters of its alphabet) and a statement...beginning here, eternity begins. Or, more literarily: "As a civilized society, time begins for us here...", or something to this effect.

In taking in all this, we see that the same Ceres who is Isis in Egypt, and called IO in Greece...also is known as Demeter in ROME. The descendants of Greece and Sicily had pre-10th century B.C. patri-lineal ties to the Delta regions of Egypt.

As Europe thawed from the Ice Age, and the glacial regions of Italy -- and later France and then Germany --receded and gave way to vegetation, new areas (that were previously uninhabitable) opened up.

If ROME was so named as it was, in the 700s B.C., after an Egyptian high priest listed at the Karnak Inscription...and Isis was to be worshipped as Demeter, she who sustains with food and wine and goods...we might wish to look at the connection of trade in which Italy was founded as a Greek colony under Egyptian influence.

Perhaps Mars, the father of Romulus, was half Greek and half Egyptian royal or that of an Egyptian high priest family? Perhaps. But, if not, could Mars have married her who was a beloved sister or daughter of such a one? Perhaps. The more likely hypothetical...Mars was a hired military leader leading a trapping and trading outpost in behalf of Egypt,in an area rich with new life, following the glacial recessions upthe boot of Italy. A reasonable historical presentation for this latter possibility.

The very name of ROME may be meaning that Egypt's trade in the Mediterranean, especially in the low 800s and 700 B.C., and in the centuries going back to Osiris and Isis, was more extensive than what is usually discussed.

The idols that pass in Isaiah's day in the mid-700s B.C. from Rome to Babylon via Israeli ports and Israeli trade route passage, is not by accident. If there were pirates or local interests along the coastal regions of the north and northeast Mediterranean resisting Egypt at that time, the Egyptian merchant vessels must have been escorted by naval military war vessels of some kind.

Egyptian dominance in the Eastern Mediterranean, at least in the time of Isaiah, would likely have been thus limited to the sea lanes well south of Cyprus and Crete.

In Isaiah and post Isaiah prophets, if there is a speaking of Egyptian influence, it may extend out further than was previously supposed.

Even as recent tests in Europe have shown 5-6 knots as the perfect ramming speed in later vessel warfare, we are consistently finding that we are once again changing the perceptions and requirements we modernly place upon the ancients...often worked up by getting away into Orwellian rewrites, as "experts" digress from literary sources and focus on the commentaries on commentaries, perhaps nearer or further based -- in turn -- on the commentary of the translation or historical literary sources. That is, we need to get back to source material whenever possible, so we are less prone to the modern reinterpretation made ignorantly by finger wetting conclusions.

Modern Egyptology bases its chronology on Manetho and Eusebius...and it screws it all up.

The First Dynasty gives way to the Third Dynasty...the Second Dynasty is apart from the First and Third, but the actual simultaneous year, no one has thus far delivered. Manetho has divided the Dynasties in such a pattern as that in which we are to follow the cities until the coming of the Hyksos, and thereafter we see regularity in joining the Delta with Memphis and Thebes. That redating process only puts us into Egypt with its first family in the 2200s B.C., with few dozens to a few hundreds at the first. Even Diodorus' and Polyhistor's contributions from antiquity have shown this to Middle Bronze Age origin of what we call "Ancient Egypt" (and no older than MBA) be the case.

So how much of Assyria and Syria do we date based on what was perceived in dating through modern archaelogical processing foundations in Egyptology? Quite a bit.

As can easily be shown in regard to the Hebrew 215 year sojourn, with good fertility, great numbers in earliest Egypt can be achieved in a short number of years to produce a great labor force. The Rome / Egypt relationship in the 770s to the 740s B.C. is proving to be quite interesting...and may be as simple as the township (and later city of) ROME being a colonial outpost for trapping and trade that came into its own rather quickly.

There is much of the trade and inter-relationship of the ancient world we still don't know. It seems that most historians and scholars of the relevant fields are afraid to openly talk about and compare to the pre-industrial colonial theaters dating back to the Fall of Rome or human patterns of comparative behavior that may or may not apply to aid our understanding of the more ancient past that preceded them some 2000 or more years prior, and why.

In this temporary pdf link, of a 1979 article by Willy Hartner of Frankfurt University, we are informed of the calendral cycles of 19 years, were in place in Babylonia by no later than 503 B.C.

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1979JHA....10....1H&data_type=PDF_HIGH&whole_paper=YES&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf

The significance of this is that there was a large Jewish population in the region when the calendars were perfected to a great accuracy, and this same length of a 19 year cycle, was taken to Israel (probably ff. this date of 503 B.C., but also perhaps earlier) and incorporated at that time...as the 19 year cycle still exists in Jewish calendars to this day.

This data is also consistent with the testimony by generalization (i.e., the Patristics) in the Early Church, by those who were noting a fundamental change in reckonings starting just a couple decades earlier than the latest deadline of 503 B.C. that Hartner specifies for the use of the 19 year cycle.

Wily Hartner, describes the Babylonian calendar as essentially cyclically unintelligible in its reckonings in the centuries before circa 526 B.C.
If the Assyrian calendars are looked into, one will find various cites and regions of Assyria at the same time, showing both different dates and different seasons during the same regnal year of so-and-so. One region to the north might have 3 seasons, and another to the south would have 4 seasons, for example.

Any rate...just the thought of our pin-pointing of the 19 year cycle in Time, as it being used by the Hebrews to this day and that 19 year cycle as being started between 526/525 - 503 B.C. while in Babylonia, and perhaps calculated or at least assisted by wise men from among them, I thought would be interesting to note.


In an assessment of "The Amarna Succession", by James Allen,
http://history.memphis.edu/murnane/Allen%20-%20Amarna%20Succession.pdf
we see that the inter-relationships in Egyptian Chronology cross over neat lines and go into places that Egyptian scholars don't want them to go.

You may come away reading this above temporary pdf. with an interesting conclusion / solution.

It appears that reigns of a grandfather, his daughter, and a child could co-exist in the chronology of Pharaohs as happening simultaneously...whereas modern Egyptologists are determined to neatly separate them.

Hence a king could hypothetically rule 36 years by one account, his daughter 22, her son 9, and the first king to have ruled throughout his daughter's 22 years. Yet by Manetho, in this hypothetical, he would list the first king as ruling but 14 years, NOT 36.

Egyptian girls married and were expected to produce children at age 13 (note53, pdf.). This marriageable age was also used by the Hebrews of ancient Israel as far back as Rebecca's marriage to Isaac (if Rashi is to be lacunae corrected). Boys could ascend the throne of Egypt at age 10, as did Tutankhamen. These two factors, along with incestuous lineage, must be taken into account in examining Egyptian royal chronology against Manetho's accounts.

Of another interest should be separation by racial features, so as to distinguish clans or ruler ethnicities, in order to aid in Egyptian chronology in order to make it accurate.

By example, Tuthmosis IV and His Mother, Tiaa,
http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/tuthmosis4.htm
strangely look more Japanese Asiatic than what we might normally expect for Egyptian lines in Africa's Egypt.

Is it possible, that in an Ice Age world prior to 1,000 B.C., there were Asiatics in the regions west of the Caspian Sea, and settled as far west as the shores of the Mediterranean before migrations took them completely East? That is a question for history, and for the saints to ask the LORD Jesus when he teaches us the meaning behind every text of the Bible in Glory.