+- +-


Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Total Members: 51
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Total Posts: 14884
Total Topics: 258
Most Online Today: 41
Most Online Ever: 201
(December 08, 2019, 11:34:38 pm)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 18
Total: 18

Author Topic: Lost Cities and Civilizations  (Read 14187 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31757
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Lost Cities and Civilizations
« Reply #45 on: February 22, 2015, 07:53:02 pm »
Response to Dr. Ross's claim that Noah's Flood was local PART 1 of 2 PARTS

Agelbert NOTE: This is my last post on this thread. I will post any subsequent information in regard to the subjects of ancient maps, archeology, the worldwide flood(s), ancient high tech civilization evidence and evidence, or the lack of it, for ET influence on Homo SAPS on some other thread.   

I stand corrected. I see that you believe humanity was limited to the area around where Noah lived. Then, of course, the flood would not need to be world wide.

Of course the account of Noah does not say that non-aquatic animals were singled out for destruction; that's a logical conclusion a biblical researcher I read about in the 1980's reached when he studied the Noah's Ark and what types of life forms (all surface air breathers) were in it. Quite frankly, that's a no-brainer. But that researcher went on and on about seeds surviving so no seeds needed to be carried, dormant insects, insect eggs and pods that float (and so on). It wasn't necessary for all that to be spelled out in Scripture, was it?

As to the polar bears and penguins, both species would survive in a worldwide flood even though they are air breathers because they hang around and feed on ice flows. But the gist of your question is not about polar bears and penguins; it's about overkill. I get it.

So let me address it. You are the Biblical Scholar, not me. You are the one that has discussed the curse now and then from Adam on down. I have absolutely no sympathy for God's decision to curse all of life because Adam was disobedient.

I don't believe God "cursed" all creation, as in he supernaturally placed a hex on it. I believe he was pointing out the simple fact that creation would now be subjected to the misuses and abuses of sinful humans. The "curse" was a natural consequence of humanity's fall.

You can define "curse" anyway you want, but  "Entropy and the wearing down and deterioration of every life form until it physically dies" is a fairly good working definition.

Nature apparently got shafted because of Adam's disobedience, PERIOD. Dr. Ross, when discussing another act by God  (Noah's flood) claims it was local, but the laws of thermodynamics that govern physical life processes in this universe, not just biochemstry on planet earth,  oviously are not.  I consider that massive overkill.

I'm right there with WHD in being highly ****ed about the idea that a just God would do such a thing. I do not get it. I do not understand it. But just like all of nature was cursed because of whatever actually happened (I DO think the garden of Eden is 100% allegorical!) a long time ago between our species and God, the death of millions of totally innocent animals in the flood is a given that I accept.

So yeah, I believe the flood was worldwide and covered all the mountain tops (as the Scripture says). There are marine fossil shells found in the highest of mountains. The scientists claim that is because the mountains got pushed up. Some of them, sure. But marine fossils on mountains are ubiquitous all over the planet. And Ashvin, there is lot more evidence, hard evidence, of a geologically recent worldwide flood than that.

I primarily rely on Hugh Ross for the scientific side of this:

The Waters of the Flood
January 1, 2000
By Dr. Hugh Ross

"Perhaps the most controversial aspect of the Genesis Flood is its geographical extent. Part of the basis for the controversy is that Genesis addresses the geophysics, geology, and geography of the flood only secondarily. Its main message is that God was compelled to cleanse the earth of the wickedness of man. The message of God's judgment against rampant evil is very clearly stated and understood in any translation. However, in order to comprehend the geological details concerning the flood, it is helpful, perhaps in this case essential, to read the Genesis text in the original Hebrew, and even then the text is not always as specific as one might like.

A good rule of Biblical interpretation is to analyze that which is less specific in the light of that which is more specific. As I mentioned in part seven of this series, the Bible is very specific about the extent of the defilement of man's sin and about God's response. The defilement is limited to the sinners, their progeny for several generations, birds and mammals which are part of their livelihood, their material possessions, and their agricultural land. Nowhere in the Bible do we see God's meting out judgment beyond those limits. Hence, we can expect that if mankind had never visited Antarctica, God would not have struck that territory. The extent of the Genesis flood would be limited to the extent of the defilement of man's sin. This interpretation is supported by the Genesis author's choice of the Hebrew words for creatures" destroyed by the flood, namely basar and nephesh. Part seven gives further details.

In Genesis 7:4-12 we are told that the flood arose from the earth's troposphere and from underground aquifers (not from some unknown place in outer space). These water resources are considerable, to be sure, but fall short of what verse 19 seems to require. According to Genesis 7:19, the waters "rose greatly ... and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered." The English translation seems to imply that even Mt. Everest was submerged under the flood waters.

Science has indeed discovered there is enough water locked away beneath the earth to flood the planet ABOVE the mountain tops. I'll dig up the article if you want.

Dr. Ross is unconvinced by the evidence presented by the scientific community of meteor fragments hitting the planet 12,500 years ago as a direct cause of Noah's flood BECAUSE of a biblical account that is NOT an eye witness account like the waters all around the ark are.

I see his logic. It's pretty good but it falls short. Noah saw a lot of water but there is no way he could have ascertained that the flood was global, so Noah's account of a global flood is suspect, particularly in the area of water torrents coming from inside the planet.

But that certainly does not rule out the hard scientific evidence of meteor fragment strikes, fossilization mechanism (discussed below) and the discovery of, not small, but gigantic (enough when added to our oceans to flood the whole planet!), under the earth, amounts of salt water that certainly could get freed by a lot of meteor induced tectonic activity. That knowledge comes from that very same geophysical body of knowledge Dr. Ross subsequently uses to claim the flood was local. He is cherry picking. That's not kosher.

  The Hebrew word for "high," however, simply means elevated" and for "mountain," means anything from "a small hillock" to "a towering peak." The Hebrew verb for "covered" allows three alternatives: (1) inundated, (2) rained upon, or (3) washed over as by a rush of water. In any of these cases, 15 cubits of standing water, 15 cubits of sudden rainfall, or a 15-cubit rush of water, there would be no human or animal survivors. 

This is speculation. Wood floats. People hang on to it and float too. A cubit equals 450 mm = 18 inches. Fifteen cubits =  22.5 feet. The 2004 tsunami had survivors that hung on to things that floated. Some of these people were found alive in the ocean after several days.

Does Dr. Ross accept that the waters were (15 cubits above the surface of all Homo SAPS) for the length of time Moses claims that Noah claimed there were? If so, he had better deep six that word "rush" to describe the waters.  If so, he has a lot of explaining to do about how so much water could be in a previously dry area for so long.

But he doesn't go there because that would argue for a much larger flood (though not necessarily a planetary one) than a relatively small local flood. His faulty calculus is that God is limited to offing just mankind and the "defiled by association" animals and land. I wish that was true.

Please obseve more cherry picking below. Here he accepts the rather broad, and impossible to verify, Biblical claim that the waters went back to their previous levels. There is simply NO WAY that Noah could know that unless God told him that. Dr. Ross is reticent to believe other things God allegedly told Noah but accepts this revelation as fact?

Hello? We all agree that, after Noah's flood, the human population did not require birth control, right? It was going to be a while before Piri Reis made his map, right?  Noah did NOT KNOW WHERE the shores were before the flood and certainly did not know afterwards, period (this is an excellent argument for claiming antedilluvian civilization was NOT high tech. If it had been, Noah would certainly have known where the pre-flood shorelines were - Dr. Ross probably would claim that Noah and mankind were in such a small area that they COULD, in LOW TECH fashion,  measure the shorelines before and after the flood - how convenient for his local flood hypothesis.).

If the flood covered the planet and Noah knew where the shorelines were before and after the flood, he either lived in a global high tech civilization prior to the flood or got his info through Divine Revelation.   

As you see below,  Dr. Ross is being highly selective in what he claims science backs up as accurate and what Genesis is accurate on. His statement about the claim made by some that there were no high mountains before the flood is impossible to verify and not accepted by geological science OR claimed by the Bible either; it's just another red herring we must ignore. I've already stated that science has, indeed, discovered that there IS enough water to flood our planet to the mountain tops.

Genesis 8 gives us the most significant evidence for a universal (with respect to man and his animals and lands), but not global, flood. The four different Hebrew verbs used in Genesis 8:1-8 to describe the receding of the flood waters indicate that these waters returned to their original sources. In other words, the waters of the flood are still to be found within the aquifers and troposphere and oceans of planet Earth. Since the total water content of the earth is only 22 percent of what would be needed for a global flood, it appears that the Genesis flood could not have been global.

The argument I have heard most frequently against this conclusion is that before the flood, there were no high mountains or deep oceans. The present day relief of the earth's surface is said to have been generated in a period of just a few months. I see several major problems with such a suggestion:
-it contradicts a vast body of geological data;
-it contradicts a vast body of geophysical data, at the same time requiring such cataclysmic effects as to render highly unlikely Noah's survival in an ark;
-it overlooks the geophysical difficulties of a planet with a smooth surface; and
-it contradicts our observations of the tectonics. The mechanisms that drive tectonic plate movements have extremely long time constants, so long that the effects of such a catastrophe would easily be measurable to this day. Since they are not, I conclude that the flood cannot be global.

As for the reference, "under the entire heavens," such expressions must always be understood in their context. What would constitute under the entire heavens for the people of Noah's time? The extent of their view from the entire region in which they existed or operated. Perhaps a verse from the New Testament will clarify my point. In Romans 1:8 the Apostle Paul declares that the faith of the Christians in Rome was being "reported all over the world." Since "all over the world" to the Romans meant the entire Roman Empire (and not the entire globe), we would not interpret Paul's words as an indication that the Eskimos and Incas were familiar at that time with the activities of the church at Rome.

Further support for a regional, rather than global, cataclysm comes from consideration of God's command to Noah after the flood, the same command He had given to Adam and later gave to the people who built the tower of Babel: "Fill the earth." The fact that God repeated this command to Noah (and intervened dramatically to disperse the people of Babel's day) implies that the people of Noah's generation had not filled the earth. This view is consistent with the geographical place names recorded in the first nine chapters of Genesis. They all refer to localities either in or very close to Mesopotamia."

Dr. Ross is a marvel of supposition and groundless logic. He is obviously swayed by the "vast body" of geological "evidence" by our geologists being challenged today by credentialed scientists.  He is rather pedantic as well.
His claim that the main controversy from a scientific perspective with the flood is the geographic extent is inaccurate. The main controversy, from a scientific perspective, is the FACT that one, or seven, breeding pairs is too narrow of a gene pool to guarantee the survival of species.

There is zero evidence that biblically clean animals require more breeding pairs than biblically unclean animals. The whole Ark trip is a massive bag of worms scientifically. So that means portions of it may be allegorical and there possibly were hundreds of arks in diverse places on the earth.

Ross is merely trying to establish the geographic area of the flood (the subject of his analysis), as the most controversial issue. It's a nice rhetorical touch. If the local flood hypothesis is established as the correct one, the other "issues" are minor details.   

Then he comes up with this clever gem of pedantic posturing:
A good rule of Biblical interpretation is to analyze that which is less specific in the light of that which is more specific.

That application of that "good rule" properly depends on what the definition of "less specific" and "more specific" is. But on the face of it, it is an illogical premise. "MORE SPECIFIC", in regard to EVIDENCE, is where one must start to reach and/or define "LESS SPECIFIC", not the other way around. But we can hairplit that all day so let's assume he has a lick of sense and see where he goes with this.  .

" defilement is limited to the sinners, their progeny for several generations, birds and mammals which are part of their livelihood, their material possessions, and their agricultural land."

Beyond the "defilement" of the sinners and progeny , possessions and land, WHILE THEY LIVE ON IT ONLY (there is old testament scripture that challenges the progeny "defilement" too, by the way), the Bible certainly does not maintain anywhere that animals that are part of sinner livelihood (beyond DOMESTIC ANIMALS) are "defiled". But that term, "defilement", is a very, very devious term as applied here. Millions of WILD animals, totally unrelated to the LIVELIHOOD of mankind were KILLED by drowning.

To claim it was because they were "defiled by association" using his "less specific" to "more specific" baloney is ridiculous!

And this is the prize of gross assumptions:

"Nowhere in the Bible do we see God's meting out judgment beyond those limits. "

It's magical thinking but it sounds so pious and good. So he is saying that every bullock and every turtle dove and so on that got sacrificed on an altar deserved it? Will he doubletalk sacrifice for sin as NOT being "judgmental" or related to JUDGMENT?  According to Scripture, God ORDERED that done, NOT because those animals were part of the livelihood of man but because of mankind's sins.

Those animals were NOT DEFILED. In fact, unclean animals COULD NOT be sacrificed! 

And even that SENSELESS BUTCHERY was low level atonement sans total forgivess (not enough to do the job), so Christ had to be the Lamb of God. Christ was/is INNOCENT. ALL those sacrificed animals were INNOCENT. Scape goating ordered by GOD is a buck passing prima facie UNJUST act!

Dr. Ross is full of doubletalk.

To human eyes, unjust behavior by God is ALL OVER THE OLD TESTAMENT!  The young girl that had to DIE because some idiot promised God that the first person he saw would be sacrificed was UNJUST.

Many, many other examples abound. The 21 or over Israelites in Exodus were judged for their disobedience but the kids got a free pass. That was logical and just! The under 21 members of a people that had attacked the Israelites ordered killed was NOT justice.

People slaughtered because of what their ancestors did to the Israelites centuries previous, anyone?

Job, anyone?

Dr. Ross reads what he wants to into the Bible. I don't question God's sovereignty. And I do not sugar coat it either.

Then Ross proceeds to play fast and loose with "the earth" and "the heavens" by cherry picking a quote from Paul. And hairsplitting with the translations of "hills", "mountains" and water depths ignores that Scriptrure quote in Genesis where it states that the Ark was a certain number of cubits ABOVE the  HIGHEST mountains at maximum flood. He wants to define the term "highest" away too!  How convenient. This is hairspliting on steroids! Even a cursory search of the 66 Bible books would find numerous irrefutable uses of the adjective "highest" to mean exactly that!

End of Part 1 of 2 Parts:  Response to Dr. Ross's claim that Noah's Flood was local

Response to Dr. Ross's claim that Noah's Flood was local PART 2 of 2 PARTS
Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate:
For the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them. Pr. 22:22-23


+-Recent Topics

U.S State Politics by Surly1
January 19, 2020, 08:21:49 am

January 19, 2020, 08:00:32 am

Doomstead Diner Daily by Surly1
January 19, 2020, 07:51:46 am

🚩 Global Climate Chaos ☠️ by AGelbert
January 18, 2020, 07:42:27 pm

🦕🦖 Hydrocarbon 🐍 Hellspawn Mens Rea Actus Reus modus operandi by AGelbert
January 18, 2020, 07:36:46 pm

Mechanisms of Prejudice: Hidden and Not Hidden by AGelbert
January 18, 2020, 07:28:07 pm

Creeping Police State by AGelbert
January 18, 2020, 05:09:32 pm

You will have to pick a side. There is no longer Room for Procrastination by AGelbert
January 18, 2020, 04:17:54 pm

Earthquakes by AGelbert
January 18, 2020, 01:58:04 pm

Non-routine News by AGelbert
January 18, 2020, 01:23:42 pm