In this article, you raise some avenues of investigation into carbon dating from a creationist perspective.
The Existence of Carbon-14 in Very Old Fossil Material
I do not think there is a lot for me to add further to what has been discussed above; we both agree there is some degree of contamination. I am satisfied that together with inherent limitations of 14C measurement, that explains any trace radiometric carbon; beyond that we are at an impasse at present.
Errors in the Calibration Curve in the Historical Era
It appears to me that 14C dating is applied to validate archaeology much more than the other way around. For one, the earliest specific date which seems to enjoy universal recognition seems to be 690 BC with Sennacherib’s engagement with Hezekiah and Taharqa. Earlier than that and bickering over dates for historic events and figures is a cottage industry. If one cannot find a date to argue over, there is always the Thera eruption. Another limitation is that reuse, repurpose, and recycle was practised by conscientious ancients, so association with a given site does not guarantee an object is of the same age. There has been work on the dead sea scrolls as you mention elsewhere, and 14C dating routinely goes on so the list of artifacts dated piles on up, but I do not think anything too out of line with history has presented itself.
Given that you wrote this in 1997, I am not sure how you would respond to the considerable work done since. Intcal98, Intcal04, Intcal09, Intcal13, and Intcal20, have advanced the art. There is a better understanding of systemic regional offsets due to hemisphere, latitude, growing season, and other local effects. A very significant development from 2012 is the recognition of what stands as the most pronounced cosmogenic event to be captured in the record. This signature from AD 774 is found in dendrochronologies from Japan, North America, Europe, New Zealand, and Russia, providing a sharp synchronization event at a reasonably past distance. Interestingly, to my knowledge no tree ring chronologies had to be modified as a result. Zero missing rings over a millennium serves to validate confidence in the tree ring chronologies, and I am unable to find a creationist response.
Given that you do not seem to be a fan of speeded up decay, and that the tree ring / 14C conscilience is well supported, it appears to me that of the options you lay out in the article, that an ancient flood, constant decay model is the only one consistent with this scope of evidence.