Archaeologica.org

Posted: **Sat Jun 10, 2006 11:58 pm**

very funny but once you put science above God then science can not help you. science is not the definitive answer here because of its limitations.

you do not have enough time in life to dig up the world to prove the Bible right or wrong; at some point you must resort to faith no matter which path you choose to follow.

wooley found evidence for a flood during his excavations, most critics proclaimed that it could only be a local flood, yet they have no proof of that; but if you put wooley's discovery together with the blacksea and india's evidence then you have a greater picture that the world wide deluge is more accurate and true.

you can try to maipulate the facts but it doesn't hide the truth for long.

Posted: **Sun Jun 11, 2006 12:06 am**

at some point you must resort to faith

Thank you, but no. I live in the 21st century....not the 6th.

Posted: **Sun Jun 11, 2006 3:56 am**

Thank you, but no. I live in the 21st century....not the 6th

good luck to you--hope you come to your senses soon

Posted: **Sun Jun 11, 2006 6:59 am**

[img][img]http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h298/LL3850/th_IndianEmpire.gif[/img]

Click to enlarge.

Regarding the connection between Abraham and Brahma, we can see that the Indian Empire at it's maximum didn't reach to the Ur of the Chaldees.
The influence probably came from the connecting civilization of the Harrapans in the Indus Valley.

I'll post a link later.

Posted: **Sun Jun 11, 2006 7:53 am**

http://www.hermetics.org/Abraham2.html

This is one of many urls on the subject.

Posted: **Sun Jun 11, 2006 10:34 am**

"The Jews descend from the philosophers of India.

The Jews were not called "Jews" by anyone until the Babylonian conquest. The Babylonians renamed their new province Yehud and the name sort of stuck.

Posted: **Sun Jun 11, 2006 6:53 pm**

Well, yeah. But the issue is about a figure that looms large in two ancient civilizations.

Posted: **Sun Jun 11, 2006 7:33 pm**

wooley found evidence for a flood during his excavations, most critics proclaimed that it could only be a local flood,

Wooley's stupidity was first detected in the early 1940's. His 'flood' did not even cover the whole city! A classic example of a bible-thumper with a shovel in one hand and a bible in the other.

More rational scholarship is needed and fortunately we are now getting it!

Posted: **Sun Jun 11, 2006 7:36 pm**

Right on. ( that's a 60s kinda thing)

Posted: **Sat Jun 17, 2006 4:54 am**

I guess I should read all 25 pages, but why is there a thread about Ryan and Pitman since we know their idea about a Black Sea Flood is almost certainly wrong? (I presume that's been pointed out).

Posted: **Sat Jun 17, 2006 10:07 am**

DougWeller wrote:I guess I should read all 25 pages, but why is there a thread about Ryan and Pitman...

You are free to discuss anything related to archaeology here Doug.
Just post away.

BTW - I'm still agreeing with Ryan and Pitman, but that's a long story.

Posted: **Sat Jun 17, 2006 10:18 am**

but why is there a thread about Ryan and Pitman since we know their idea about a Black Sea Flood is almost certainly wrong?

We had a Ryan and Pittman specialist, Daybrown, but she hasn't been around in a while.

Posted: **Sat Jun 17, 2006 10:22 am**

I messed up that quote - what's new.

Posted: **Sat Jun 17, 2006 10:37 am**

Minimalist wrote:
but why is there a thread about Ryan and Pitman since we know their idea about a Black Sea Flood is almost certainly wrong?

We had a Ryan and Pittman specialist, Daybrown, but she hasn't been around in a while.

I know Daybrown - she seems to be supporting them. She supports Gimbutas too.

Check her claims yourself would be my advice.

Archaeologica.org

Noah's Flood...