One person declined when I discovered, I couldn't get an actual editorial assessment, even on reedsy without paying for it - and I don't have a card to pay with. But here are some other people declining. Motivations are given in order of frequency, not chronologically.

For all: reason for declining
For some: additional comments
For none: the signature, I leave them anonymous

a) My skills are not suitable to work on this project. X 8 For 5, Additional comments A) Thanks so much for thinking of me, Hans, but I feel out of my depth just reading your brief! I hope you can find an editor who specializes in nonfiction and perhaps the Christian market. Best of luck! NN B) Dear Hans, Thank you for getting in touch. I'm afraid this is beyond my area of expertise: I specialise in children's picture books, novelty and non-fiction. For the latter, I work on very young non-fiction projects, for children aged 0-12. I hope you are able to find a non-fiction specialist who is better suited to advise you on this proposal. Best wishes, NN C) Mr. Lundahl, Thank you for contacting me regarding your project, A Table for Biblical Carbon Dating. While your topic sounds interesting, it is way beyond my area of knowledge and expertise. I would not be able to give you a fair assessment as I can already tell it would be struggle for me to grasp and understand. I am sorry. I hope that you find someone that can help you with your project and that God blesses your work. Sincerely, NN D) Hello Hans, thank you for coming to me with this request. Unfortunately, I do not have much availability in the foreseeable future for taking on new projects. I suspect you would also be served better by someone with a stronger scientific background and vocabulary than what I could offer. I hope you are able to find the help you need from another editor here at Reedsy. All the best, NN E) Hello Hans, thank you for reaching out to me with your editing needs. I am a children's book editor, and I don't have the experience or skills needed to edit your book. I do wish you all the best with your project, though! Warmly, NN		b) The book is not in my area of interest. X 4 For 2, Additional comments F) Hi Hans Your book sounds really fascinating and I am very intrigued by verifying biblical claims. However professionally I have no experience with this type of book with the amount of stats and numbers it would entail to even really understand. And I’m not familiar with the market it would publish in to comment on whether it would be a viable product I wish you luck, however, with the book. Kind regards NN G) Hi Hans Your book sounds really fascinating and I am very intrigued by verifying biblical claims. However professionally I have no experience with this type of book with the amount of stats and numbers it would entail to even really understand. And I’m not familiar with the market it would publish in to comment on whether it would be a viable product I wish you luck, however, with the book. Kind regards NN
c) I cannot meet the client's deadline. d) I am currently unavailable to work on new projects.		e) The book is too early at this stage for my services. X 1 Additional comments H) At 3000 words the manuscript is quite brief, technical, and for an unknown publication venue in a genre (Christian literature) I have little interest

Last one first - I intended to write "3000 or more" but it was impossible. So, "3000" it was. But all reasons are not just either misunderstanding or personal. Here is a significant one:

"However professionally I have no experience with this type of book with the amount of stats and numbers it would entail to even really understand."

There are actually no statistics. There is one long table - or series of consecutive tables. That and another (perhaps more) would be the theoretical part. The applied part involves giving dates for different parts of archaeology, first the "normal" carbon date and then the reinterpretation according to my table.

The idea it would involve statistics is perhaps because of how calibrations are usually done now.

Let's take the carbon 14 calibration done for institutions in Cambridge, by Stuiver and Bekker. It is based on tree rings.

In order to be perfectly sure that tree rings dating for 750 BC carbon date as 550 BC (with tree rings considered the more certain), you need lots of tree rings both tree ring dated and carbon dated. You may need to show how many tree rings are anomalous as to their carbon dates or tree ring dates or both, for a particular "clinch" ... the thing is, my calibration is based on the Bible, and supposing I get the right matches for a given Biblical event (Genesis 14 with carbon dated reed mats from En Geddi being probably the easiest to guarantee 100 %) I rely on God's providence they give me the right carbon dates too.

For the Flood, many diverging carbon dates are proposed. CMI presents things "from the Flood" as carbon dating within a ball park of 20 000 to 50 000 BP - on such a coupling, I might want statistics, I don't have them, I have taken an easier road:

• it's impossible that the atmosphere 5000 years ago was both giving 15 000 extra years as per 16.292 pmC original carbon 14 level, and 45 000 extra years as per 0.432 pmC original carbon 14 level;
• therefore, lots of this is either older or younger than the Flood;
• therefore, I pick an extinction event or two in the human family, which lands me with Flood carbon dated to 40 000 BP, now refined to 39 000 BP as per tephra of the Campi Flegrei mega-volcano explosion - and yes, mega-volcanos are as much "Flood" as extinction of only pre-Flood varieties of man.

For items other than Flood and Genesis 14, there is not much that statistics could add to what I do. I either picked the right correspondence or I didn't. The arguments would be more historic, textual and so on, than statistic.

The one mathematic confirmation I can give was also offered by Dr. Robert Carter for the genealogy of Genesis 11 - a nice curve of graduality. On my model, for some reason carbon 14 rises very slowly up to the Flood (probably in part bc the carbon 14 production was diluted by much more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, that got trapped at the Flood), then, the quick rise, from Flood to Fall of Troy, is gradual, doubly so - a) the carbon 14 levels are gradually higher; b) the production of carbon 14 gradually slowed down to the present level. From Flood to Babel, the rise is dependent on a 10 times faster production than now. From Jericho to Troy, it's only 2 or 3 times faster. Overall, it's 5 times faster.

I'll be back with another post giving links to the posts I used for the chapters, since the project is not likely to go forward too well via reedsy./HGL