Noah's Flood...

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Sat Jul 29, 2006 4:35 pm

it is quite clear that the evidence being discovered, no matter how long ago, points toward the credibility and truthfulness of the Bible. crying for more evidence won't change that fact.

in that case from the evidence it is quite clear that the Bible is based on the mythhology and the legends of Sumer
the sumerians originated the global deluge myth thousands of years before Judaism even existed when YHWH (the true god of the bible didn't even exist)
the sumerians don't say that the deluge don't say it covered the whole earth
they say it covered the "Ki"
"Ki" means earth under your feet
"Kisar" mean planet earth and notably they didn't use "Kisar"
we know how to translate sumerian properly using modern lingusitic study
the jews when they were copying down what they regarded as a good story didn't

so what you are saying
is that a theory by Hapgood about a geological event that no qualified geologist has ever agreed with agrees with a very small part of the bible that is in essence to qualified scholars a very obvious mistranslation
and youre calling that evidence ?
really ?
is the sky blue or pink with green spots this week where you are ?

you know where Hapgoods qualifications lie don't you Arch, it wasn't geology
it wasn't even Hapgoods idea, he stole it form Hugh Auchincloss Brown who was qualified as an electrical engineer and not a geologist
so youre basing your theory that Hapgood is correct on what exactly ?
your personal belief
sorry buddy
but personal beliefs aren't qualifications either

I'm wondering at this point if you have actually read any of Hapgoods books or if you are just going on what you think he wrote in them from hearsay
can you tell me for instance where in the bible that it mentions that God made a planet without making sure that the crust wasn't perfect so that anything he then created on it was in the danger of a cataclysm out of his control
because what youre saying in essence is that because of Hapgoods theory God is fallible
is that bit in Genesis, can you quote me where it says that chapter and verse ?

maybe he planned to nail it down securely on the sunday but the though "oh bugger it i'm tired"

your approach to solid evidence is laughable and coloured by your belief in a god that you don't even know the origins of

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sat Jul 29, 2006 4:45 pm

so youre basing your theory that Hapgood is correct

again you do a mis-direction, i am not arguging that hapgood and his theories are right but am pointing to the evidence that he is reporting, which supports not undermines the biblical account.

in that case from the evidence it is quite clear that the Bible is based on the mythhology and the legends of Sumeria

again you go to the old argument that the oldest mss. discovered are the first ones written. since we do not know when (well rather we do but it is not accepted generally by scholars) the biblical account was first written or spoken, it is safe to say that the sumerian account is nothing but a cheap copy of the Bible.

there is a theory i came across but have not proven yet which goes like this---(not my theory but i can't remember which book i read it from so the following is not my idea or words)--

"whenever Jesus quoted the old testament, He would use the words , 'Hath not Moses written' or made some reference to Moses; yet whenever He quoted Genesis He always said something similiar to 'is it not written' or 'it is written'; giving rise tothe idea that Genesis may be older than the other 4 books of the pentateuch."

Post by **Minimalist** » Sat Jul 29, 2006 4:55 pm

Now, I know where arch gets his info. He saw it on a bumper sticker!

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Sat Jul 29, 2006 5:01 pm

again you do a mis-direction, i am not arguging that hapgood and his theories are right but am pointing to the evidence that he is reporting, which supports not undermines the biblical account.

So you haven't actually read any of his work
he doesnt mention dinosaurs Arch
he mentions mammoths
i suggest you read this
http://www.geocities.com/dolph322000/mammoth.html
it proves that his evidence was not reliable and therefore refutes any claims about them supporting anything

again you go to the old argument that the oldest mss. discovered are the first ones written

actually the original version is carved on tablets
this was done shortly after the invention of writing
so its pretty certain that they were both the oldest and the first ones written
the mistakes in the Hebrew version can only come around from a mistranslation in that direction
or are you claiming that the Hebrews who didn't exist until around the first millenium wrote of a planet covering flood and then the Sumerians writing over two thousand years earlier copied from them and made it a local event
can you smell what you're shovelling or do you actually have a deficiency ?

which version are you actually using as a guide anyway ?
you sound like a good catholic boy to me
did you see this ?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 32,00.html
"But the first 11 chapters of Genesis, in which two different and at times conflicting stories of creation are told, are among those that this country’s Catholic bishops insist cannot be “historical”. At most, they say, they may contain “historical traces"
the flood story is in Genesis 7
so even the church says you are wrong
read it and weep for thou god has forsaken you

Post by **Minimalist** » Sat Jul 29, 2006 5:06 pm

Oops, big mistake, marduk.

Arch has said that catholics aren't christians.

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Sat Jul 29, 2006 5:11 pm

Arch has said that catholics aren't christians.

so what,
the Jews who invented his god aren't christians either

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sat Jul 29, 2006 5:22 pm

So you haven't actually read any of his work
he doesnt mention dinosaurs Arch

well we know you haven't read it as he mentions dinosaurs on pg. 318 of the path of the pole.

this was done shortly after the invention of writing

so you theorize.

or are you claiming that the Hebrews who didn't exist until around the first millenium wrote of a planet covering flood and then the Sumerians writing over two thousand years earlier copied from them and made it a local event

common sense tellsme not toanswer that but to have you think about it for awhile. same with t he rest of your post, those are not contradicting accounts and i could care less what the catholic church says.

so even the church says you are wrong
read it and weep for thou god has forsaken you

the churchisn't God so no again you are on the wrong track.

you believe geocities esapecially when they use no footnotes or reference sources nor quote any credible scientist... you really have no credibility then and thanks for the chuckle that was good...

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Sat Jul 29, 2006 5:50 pm

well we know you haven't read it as he mentions dinosaurs on pg. 318 of the path of the pole.

no he mentions the alacambro statues which have since been debunked as a modern fabrication. he just didn't know it because he never checked the evidence he was presenting. you and Hapgood are very much alike you know

so you theorize

and its not just me, the current theory which i reiterated to you was first put forward by christian theologians at the beginning of this century. so you're now desperately twisting on that self imposed skewer that you call faith arent you Arch

common sense tells me not toanswer that

why, its never stopped you saying stupid things before, why don't you be honest and say that you have no answer

the church isn't God so no again you are on the wrong track.

the church is Gods portals to us humans or didn't you actually read your bible, if you don't continue to put money in the collection plate the poor priests will have to get another Job selling kiddie porn or something similar

you believe geocities esapecially when they use no footnotes or reference sources nor quote any credible scientist...

a footnote is so called because it is at the foot of the page
clearly if you'd actually bothered to read the page you are foolishly attempting to refute before giving us all your expert opinion based on your erroneous ancient middle eastern pagan religion you would have seen this

NOTES:-

(4) Memoires de L'Academie imperials des Sciences de St. Petersbouro, VII Serie, Tome XLII, No. 13., Wissenschaftliche Resultate der Von der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften sur Erforschung des Janalandes und der Neusibirischen Inseln in den Jahren 1885 und 1886 Ausgesandten expedition. ["Scientific Results of the Imperial Academy of Sciences of the Investigation of Janaland and the New Siberian Islands from the Expeditions Launched in 1885 and 1886" -- ed.] Abtheilung III: Die fossilen Eislager und ihre Beziehungen su den Mammuthleichen, by Baron Eduard v. Toll (St. Peterabourg: Commissionnaires de I'Academie Imperiale des sciences, 1895).

(2) Radiocarbon Dating Evidence for Mammoths on Wrangel Island, Arctic Ocean, until 2000 BC
S. L. Vartanyan etal - published in Radiocarbon Volume 37, Number 1, 1995, pp. 1-6. Copyright © 1995 by the Department of Geosciences, The University of Arizona

(3) Discoveries And Study Of Carcasses Of The Mammoth Fauna In Yakutia - Petr Lazarev – paper presented to the 3rd International Mammoth Conference (3rd IMC) May 2003

(4) The Sevsk woolly mammoth (Mammuthus primigenius) site in Russia: Taphonomic, biological and behavioral interpretations - Evgeny N. Maschenko, Svetlana S. Gablina, Alexey S. Tesakov and Alexandra N. Simakova – 3rd IMC

(5) Kochegur, A New Locality For Mammoth Remains In The Shestakovo Beast Solonetz District (Western Siberia) - Sergey V. Leshchinskiy and Elena M. Burkanova - 3rd IMC

(6) Preserved Wooly Mammoths (Mammuthus Primigenius) And Associated Palynological Spectra From Northeast Siberia - Anatoly V. Lozhkin1 And Patricia M. Anderson – 3rd IMC

(7) Quaternary mammal remains from the Krasniy Yar locality (Tomsk region, Russia) - A.V. Shpansky – 3rd IMC – Published in Quaternary International
Volumes 142-143 , January 2006, Pages 203-207

(8 ) Results of the Cerpolex/Mammuthus expeditions on the Taimyr Peninsula, Arctic Siberia, Russian Federation - Dick Mol etal - 3rd IMC – Published in Quaternary International
Volumes 142-143 , January 2006, Pages 186-202

and hey buddy
you don't spell especially like that

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sun Jul 30, 2006 12:15 am

no he mentions the alacambro statues

obviously you are a good liar, and don't say no to me especially when i have the book beside me. pg. 318 he mentions dinosaurs. another person has pm'd me about catching you in lies so why don't you take a hike.

at least minimalist is honorable in his abuse. so from now on i will ignore your posts as you have proven how little character you have. and i looked for those footnotes in your posts and saw none so i either missed them or they just weren't there

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Sun Jul 30, 2006 4:29 am

and don't say no to me especially when i have the book beside me. pg. 318 he mentions dinosaurs

well then smartass why don't you tell us all exactly what he says about Dinosaurs on page 318

those footnotes clearly are there as well
http://www.geocities.com/dolph322000/mammoth.html
why don't you take another look
they are at the "foot" of the page asshole

forgotten how to read now have you

and don't say no to me

I'll say whatever I like to you Arch, every time you can't answer one of my questions or make an excuse why you can't every one can see what a fraud you and your religion are
a big fat lying fraud

Post by **Minimalist** » Sun Jul 30, 2006 11:35 am

at least minimalist is honorable in his abuse

Okay.

I will abuse you honorably.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sun Jul 30, 2006 1:15 pm

I will abuse you honorably.

much appreciated. now backto topic--- it isn't just schoch, ryan, pittman and hapgood that report finds that lend support to the Biblical account. on pg. 66 of Ian Wilson's book, 'Before the Flood' there is the discovery of artifacts 311 feet under water off the coast of turkey:

"As we went very carefully- practically inch by inch-- over this site we began to see stone tols. These stone tools arepecked stone...not small blades... but seemedto be pecked or ground stone. I don't know if they were hammers or chisels...

Some of these apparant stone tools seemed to behighly polished and they were carefully drilled with circular holes. there was also a chisel or axe head which hiebert noted to bear a striking resemblance toone that he had seen in a museum at sinop. there were fragments of ceramics. As hiebert descibed these, they:

...were litterally exposed on the floor of this structure [the retangular building]. it was amazing to see this becausewe imagine that the sediments would have covered them. But hereon the ancient coastline sedimention is so low that the ceramicswere exposed. we were able to see that this structure more or less is in the shape of what we would think is an ancient house. It had ceramics. It had these ground stone implements. it had the clear remains made out of mud with sticks and beams as their major [mode of] construction."

this was taken from Ballard's expedition not ryan and pitmann's.

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Sun Jul 30, 2006 1:28 pm

Ballards expedition wasn't off of the coast of Turkey
it was to the inland Black sea
the level of the black sea is dictated by the rivers that fill it coming down from the Caucasus mountains that border it on three sides
and Ballard has been completely debunked since on this particular expedition he accounted for a sudden rise in water level as being the result of the inrush of the mediteranean from the bosphorus which would mean that the mediteranean had somewhow flowed uphill
the fact that he also concludes that the flood of Noah is based purely on this localised flood of the black sea water level is something i thought you might have noticed Arch, its so against your ideals that it actually appears here
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.c ... s-6-9.html
on the debunking christianity website (one of your favourites i'm sure)

you appear to be reading just those selected highlights that support the Hebrew story again
why bother
no one qualified or with any common sense ever believes psuedo attempts to rewrite history of which the bible is one amongst thousands
or as they say in the vedas
like fish in the ganges

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sun Jul 30, 2006 2:08 pm

pg. 60---

"Ballard was already shipping his latest array of underwater exploration robots and surface command systems to the port of sinop on Turkey's black sea coast.."

on page 61---

"This was a coastline very much as Dimitrov had first discovered deep down off Bulgaria's black sea coast in the 1970's and which ryan and pittman had encountered of Russia's balck sea coastduring their 1993...expedition."

on page 64---
"...the northern horizon began its first proper surveying, of an area off Turkey's northern coast..."

it is still off turkey's coast so why not stop mis-representing things now and accusing me of what you are doing.

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Sun Jul 30, 2006 2:19 pm

the black sea is an inland sea entirely surrounded by land as opposed to what you are claiming a port entirely surrounded by water

so you don't know anything about geography either
so you have that in common with Moses and Jonah