Noah's Flood...

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 3:40 am

Indeed, by your rationale, the Mississippi flood of 1993 and the Mozambique flood of 2000 are evidence of one global flood

'sigh'

Why shoud we provide evidence to prove something which didn't happen didin't happen? That is the resort of those who know they've already lost the argument. The onus is on you to provide evidence which can only be interpreted in terms of a global flood. Your failure to do so speaks volumes

i have already done so, your turn...

Essan · Post by **Essan** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 6:34 am

archaeologist wrote: The onus is on you to provide evidence which can only be interpreted in terms of a global flood. Your failure to do so speaks volumes

i have already done so, your turn...[/quote]

Sorry, but I obviously missed it .....

incidently, do I take it from your 'sigh' that you interpret evidence of local floods from thousands of years ago as proof of one single global flood but evidence of local floods from just a few years ago as evidence of local floods?

Can you explain in what why they are different?

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 1:43 pm

incidently, do I take it from your 'sigh'

no it is a reaction to another irrational assumption and conclusion. i have repeatedly given sources for evidence that show a disaster on a global scale yet no one listens and continues in their assumptions about me.

drs. ryan & pittman, schoch, hapgood and rehwenkle all have provided evidence in their works for a global flood, though only rehwenkle will and possibly schoch attribute that evidence to noah's flood while the others look for some other answer.

yet the evidence is there to support faith. i am under the impressionthat most of the flood evidence for a global flood is buried deep enough in the earth that searching for it is not cost effective.

Post by **Minimalist** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 1:50 pm

drs. ryan & pittman, schoch, hapgood and rehwenkle

Really?

As I recall Ryan and Pittman were talking about a local flood in the Black Sea and even they have backed off the claim, apparently. Hapgood's theory has been discarded by geologists; Rehwinkle's book was written in the 50's and is hopelessly out of date. What did Schoch have to say?

Post by **Minimalist** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 2:08 pm

While looking for something else, I found this little collection. Interesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deluge_%28prehistoric%29

In the relatively recent geological past, several great floods are widely suspected to have occurred, with varying amounts of supporting evidence, usually as a result of the last Ice Age ending.

At the most recent glacial maximum, so much of the planet's water was locked up in the vast ice-sheets that formed ice domes kilometers thick, that the sea level dropped by about 120 to 130 meters. As the sheets melted starting around 18,000 years ago sea levels rose. Most of the glacial melt had occurred by around 8,000 years ago, but the changes have not been as regular as a constant drip at the edges of the world's glaciers might suggest.

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 2:21 pm

lol
the Bible bashers claim that Schoch supports the flood of Noah is tied in with his dating for the Sphinx
when he originally said 7000bce ish that was taken as meaning that it must have been underwater at that time ergo the Bible was true
despite the fact that Schoch at no time has commented on the flood of Noah beinga reality and despite the fact that Schoch has since revised his dating and now has the sphinx construction well inside the time frame of egyptian civilisation
Leoanard woolley also believed in the great flood
sometimes known as the father of modern archaeology in 1929 having just dioscovered an immense flood in the ruins of the foundations of Ur he cabled london and said "We have found the Flood!" he was later to back down and publish more sober evidence of a quite localized inundation. And since his time, other excavations have indicated multiple flood silt layers at various uncoordinated periods of time in all of the ancient Sumerian cities-as would be expected from normal riparian fluctuations. It is significant to note that at the city of Kish evidence concerning belief in a Flood story was actually found beneath the flood layer in that location.
he actually later wrote :-
"It is not a universal deluge; it was a vast flood of the valley of the Tigris and Euphrates which drowned the whole habitable world between the mountains and the desert; for the people who lived there, that was all the world. The great bulk of these people must have perished, and it was a scanty and dispirited remnant that from the city walls watched the flood recede at last. No wonder that they saw in this disaster the gods' punishment of a sinful generation, and if some household had managed to escape by boat from the drowned lowlands, the head of it would naturally be chosen as the hero of the saga. "

later in the remains of the city of Kish a tablet describing the great flood which in places is word for word the same as the biblical account was found underneath the level that Woolley had originally claimed was the great flood
the tablet was at least two thousand years older than the earliest book in the bible and actually predates the Hebrew language by at least 1500 years
and of course
it describes Enlil the pagan deluge god of Sumeria as sending the flood because he was annoyed at being kept awake by the racket that newly created mankind was making

Post by **Minimalist** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 2:32 pm

when he originally said 7000bce ish that was taken as meaning that it must have been underwater at that time ergo the Bible was true

You lost me there, marduk. Do you mean completely immersed?

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 2:37 pm

yes apparrently anything large that can be proven to have been wet a long time ago is evidence of the great deluge
as long as you have the magic ingredient
Faith

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 2:46 pm

despite the fact that Schoch at no time has commented on the flood of Noah beinga reality

pg. 251 'voyage of the pyramid builders'

"preliminary archaeological research suggests that this flood was real, not a literary invention."

i will read the rest of your post later.

one reason why the flood took place andi think i mentioned this a long time ago here, is for the reason that sin must be punished and the flood was a punishment upon those who chose to go their own way away and stray from God's.

from--"Noah: a righteous man in a wicked age" by Bruce Mcdowell pg. 165

"Of the hal million murders in the past quarter century, slightly more than 7,000 of the murderers received death sentences and fewer than 800 have been executed. when punishment for the guiltyis taken lightly, the people lose all fear of recrimination for their crimes. "

if God did not punish the guilty of Noah's time how could he punish the guiltyof the modern age?

Post by **Minimalist** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 2:48 pm

Oy Vey.

Post by **Minimalist** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 2:49 pm

if God did not punish the guilty of Noah's time how could he punish the guiltyof the modern age?

He should leave that to us. He's too much of a murdering bastard himself.

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 2:52 pm

pg. 251 'voyage of the pyramid builders'

"preliminary archaeological research suggests that this flood was real, not a literary invention."

and the previous line is
"in the biblical account is another clue to India as the origin of the flood story"
(i have an extensive psuedoarchaeology library, you won't get away with selective quoting here arch)

so youre saying that the global flood happened in India
because Schoch said so
you do realise don't you that he goes on to claim that Atlantis is the sunken island of Sundaland
lolol

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 2:52 pm

he was later to back down and publish more sober evidence of a quite localized inundation

It is not a universal deluge; it was a vast flood of the valley of the Tigris and Euphrates which drowned the whole habitable world between the mountains and the desert; for the people who lived there, that was all the world

please provide credible documentation to support such a position.

later in the remains of the city of Kish a tablet describing the great flood which in places is word for word the same as the biblical account was found underneath the level that Woolley had originally claimed was the great flood

same with this

the tablet was at least two thousand years older than the earliest book in the bible and actually predates the Hebrew language by at least 1500 years

actually, the last i heard was we do not know when the earliest book of the Bible was written, which was believed to be the book of Job. yet again, oldest copy discovered does not mean the first copy written nor the first account on the subject.

then we have oral tradition to pre-date the tablets of kish making it just a mere bad copy of what really took place.

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 2:56 pm

hmmm
what i printed is actually well known
Woolley lost his faith in Ur when he realised that Biblical truth didn;t parallel archaeological fact
but of course
you normally decide which bits to pick and choose from to support your hypothesis
you can find the truth about Woolleys flood here
http://www.asa3.org/asa/PSCF/1984/JASA9-84Atkins.html
and an oral record is Hebrew ?
err
ok
this will be the proto Hebrews of the 4th millenium bce who occupied the sumerian ciy of Kish and who spoke and wrote in a non semitic language will it ?

actually, the last i heard was we do not know when the earliest book of the Bible was written, which was believed to be the book of Job

you mean Ludlul Bel Nimeqi, Tabu-utul-Bel the Babylonian story which Job is derived from surely ?
http://www.piney.com/BabTabuBel.html
now where can those Hebrews have heard about that I wonder
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_Captivity

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 3:14 pm

so youre saying that the global flood happened in India
because Schoch said so

no.

Rehwinkle's book was written in the 50's and is hopelessly out of date

so thatmena's darwin's books are out of date and are of no real value any more? thus his theory must be discarded by your thinking here.

Hapgood's theory has been discarded by geologists;

not talking about his pole shift theory, but the evidence thatsupports the Biblical account in which he mentions throughout his book but attributes it to soemthing other than the flood.

you won't get away with selective quoting here arch)

sorry i don't selective quote, you should accuse minimalist of doing that as he is very good at that specialty.

you do realise don't you that he goes on to claim that Atlantis is the sunken island of Sundaland

i am not looking at everything he says but i am looking at the evidence he uncovers as the rest of the paragraph goes;

"in the gulf of cambay off the state of gujarat on india's west coast, possible evidence of extensive human habitation along what once was a river has been discovered 130 feet underwater."

when you look atthe evidence and not the rhetoric then you get a better picture of what happened.

As I recall Ryan and Pittman were talking about a local flood in the Black Sea

yes, rayn and pitman were talking about a local flood because they do not believe the Bible, which minus that data allows them to omit considering that what they found was part of something a lot larger and more devastating.