More proof of world wide flood...

[Bronzesnake]

 Scientists have recently discovered an underwater city off the coast of Cuba. The amazing thing is that the ruins are buried under 1,900 to 2,500 feet of water!!

The following is from the National Geographic web site...

"Deep in the waters of Cabo de San Antonio, off Cuba's coast, researchers are exploring unusual formations of smooth blocks, crests, and geometric shapes. The Canadian exploration company that discovered the formations, Advanced Digital Communications, has suggested that they could be the buildings and monuments of an early, unknown American civilization.

Many scientists are skeptical of any theory that might tempt people to draw a parallel with the fabled lost city of Atlantis. Geologist Manuel Iturralde, however, has stressed the need for an open mind while investigations of the site continue.

"These are extremely peculiar structures, and they have captured our imagination," said Iturralde, who is director of research at Cuba's Natural History Museum. Iturralde has studied countless underwater formations over the years, but said, "If I had to explain this geologically, I would have a hard time."

In his report on the formations, Iturralde noted that conclusive proof of man-made structures on the site could reinforce some oral traditions of the Maya and native Yucatecos. These people still retell ancient stories of an island inhabited by their ancestors that vanished beneath the waves."



Also...Off the coast of Mahabalipuram, in Tamil Nadu, South India, the discovery of a complex of submerged ruins has sparked an investigation into their origin. Local lore has long held that the area once boasted seven magnificent temples, but that six of these were swallowed by the sea. The seventh, and only remaining temple, still stands on the shore.

 Main stream scientists still refuse to acknowledge even the possibility of a world wide flood, preferring to stick with "isolated, regional" disasters. Even though there are sunken cities all over the globe.

 God said He flooded the entire world...and He did. There are sunken cities, fossils on the highest mountain peaks and a huge wooded ship stuck in the side of a mountain at 17,000 feet! God is real, His Word is true, the proof is all around us.

Bronzesnake

[Bronzesnake]

Two cities that lay at the edge of the Mediterranean more than 1,200 years ago, Herakleion and Eastern Canopus, disappeared suddenly, swallowed by the sea. Now, an international team of scientists may have figured out the mystery of why it happened.

The researchers have concluded that the two cities collapsed when the land they were built on suddenly liquefied.
Until recently, the only evidence that they existed came from Greek mythology and the writings of ancient historians. Then, during expeditions in 1999 and 2000, a team of French marine archaeologists headed by Franck Goddio found the ruins—almost completely intact—buried on the seafloor of the Abu Qir Bay in Egypt.
The collapse was sudden and catastrophic, said Stanley. "We can tell," he said, "because in both places we've found gold and jewelry, which, if there had been time, people would have taken with them when fleeing."

Gateways to Egypt

Herakleion and East Canopus once stood at the mouth of the now-extinct Canopic branch of the Nile. Built sometime between the seventh and sixth centuries B.C., as the days of the Egyptian Pharaohs were coming to an end, the cities flourished as gateways to Egypt.

Herakleion was a port of entry to Egypt that grew wealthy collecting taxes on goods being shipped upriver.

Frozen in time below the waters were many temples and statues of gods and goddesses, also attesting to the cities' role as destinations for religious pilgrims.

Until the undersea discovery, historians knew about the cities only through myth and ancient literature. Menelaus, the king of Sparta and husband to Helen, over whom the Trojan War was fought, was said to have stayed in Herakleion following the ten-year war against Troy.

[Bronzesnake]

Traces of Ancient Habitation Beneath Black Sea
from ( National Geographic web site)

Traces of Ancient Habitation Beneath Black Sea
Lisa Krause (September 13, 2000)
Off the coast of northern Turkey, 311 feet (95 meters) below the Black Sea, explorer Robert Ballard has discovered remains of an ancient structure that was apparently flooded in a deluge of biblical proportions. The find may lend credence to a theory that a Black Sea flood gave rise to the Noah story and other flood legends.

Today Ballard, famous for finding Titanic, confirmed that his research team, sponsored in part by the National Geographic Society, has identified a wooden structure on a gently sloping shelf near the convergence of two submerged ancient river beds.

“This is an incredible find,” Ballard said in a telephone call to the National Geographic Society from the expedition ship Northern Horizon. “It consists of [the remains of] a single building with a hewn beam and wooden branches that formed the walls and roof of a structure—most likely a house. We have also found and photographed stone tools, possibly a chisel or an axe, and ceramic storage vessels, all untouched since the flooding of the Black Sea.”

The find represents “the first concrete evidence for the occupation of the Black Sea coast prior to its flooding,” says expedition archaeologist Fredrik Hiebert, of the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. “This is a major discovery that will rewrite the history of civilizations in this key area between Europe, Asia, and the Middle East.”

[Bronzesnake]

How does a flooded city under current sea levels offer evidence (let alone proof) for a world wide flood?

Surely you need to find a city destroyed by flood on the top of a Tibetan mountain or similar.

 We find many such locations on mountain tops where there are ancient ruins. The trouble is that the water has long since receded, and it is virtually impossible to figure out what caused the destruction after thousands of years.. We do find many many thousands of sea creature fossils on the highest mountain peaks in the world, and what does that tell you?

 The bible says that God's flood went 15 cubits above the highest mountain top...

Gen 7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that [were] under the whole heaven, were covered.  


Gen 7:20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

 Does that sound "regional to you?"


 The Cuban city is under 1,900 to 2,500 feet of water! This obviously wasn't a tsunami or regional flood. This type of catastrophe was immense! If this was the only example of this level of flood devastation on the globe, we would be perplexed as to what type of "natural disaster" could possibly have happened. However, there are similar examples found the world over. Either there was a world wide flood, or there was a "once in a lifetime" event which happened over and over and over again. Ask yourself, if you have ever seen such an event in your lifetime which would cause a city to be left under 2,000 feet of water. Has there ever been such a catastrophe recorded in human history besides the biblical account?

[Bronzesnake]

Hi ebia.

 So, you think it's plausible that a mountain peak which is thousands of feet above sea level, was once on the ocean floor, slowly began to rise up due to tectonic plate collisions, and over thousands, or even millions of years, and catastrophic change of "biblical" proportions, these delicate fossils somehow not only survived in great numbers, but against all conceivability, happened to remain on the surface of these giant mountain tops?
 Can you imagine the type of upheaval that had to have occurred in order for these mountains to form? How can anyone seriously believe that any fossil could remain from ocean bottom, or even shoreline, to mountain top intact? They would have been completely buried or destroyed through such a devastating process.

Also, the bible does not say the water returned to it's former levels. As a matter of fact, the bible tells us that, not only did it rain, but there was great devastation in the ground which cause enormous cracks to open up and floodwater came up from the ground. Those type of floods generally do not recede.
 There is a gravel quarry near where I live, one day, while they were digging deeper into the pit, water began to spring up like a giant upside down water fall. Today, we catch huge bass in that "lake" It must be 75 to 100 feet deep.

 As for the Black Sea, there is much debate by many scientists as to whether this was a regional event, or part of a global catastrophe. Creation scientists are not alone in believing it was part of a world wide disaster, there are also mainstream scientists leaning toward this idea.

 

We're not talking about whether the bible portrays a regional, widespread or global flood, but about whether there is archeological evidence to back it up

 The bible doesn't get the credit for historical, and archaeological accuracy that it so richly deserves.

 I challenge you to find one example of historical inaccuracy or any archaeological evidence which disproves a single biblical account.
 In a court of law, if a piece of testimony can not be corroborated, the wittiness is given the benefit of the doubt, as long as all his/her other testimony has been credible.

[Shammu]

For some odd reason I don't trust scientist. They have been know to distort the facts to what they want. Not what the Lord tells us to be true.
I know on the other hand, it happened, Noahs Flood. The Bible tells me so.  

[infotechadviser]

It doesn't specifically say the water returned to it's former level, but it seems to me a rather contrived reading to think it doesn't imply that.

It may or may not have, but "contrived"? If there had been tales of the Siberian of explosion of 1908 (was that the year?), but dated back in those times, it would seem rather contrived to a skeptical mind wouldn't it?

 

We're not talking about whether the bible portrays a regional, widespread or global flood, but about whether there is archeological evidence to back it up

There's plenty! Gobs and gobs. Dick Morris got a whole book's worth. All this supposed "evidence" for evolution, before Darwin's time, was generally understood as obvious results of the Flood.

You can't use the bible to prove the bible, and then claim you've proved the bible from external proof.

For one thing, nobody here is doing this. This thread began in fact with something you should have understood as "evidence", since you seem to be wanting that, and then claim that one is using the Bible to prove the Bible?

This is an example of mental blockage. Free your mind to consider the actual evidence! I did, and the actual science and evidence plus clear logical thinking got me to where I had no choice but to believe. Went from evolutionist, communist, anarchist, to beilever.

We're discussing one, right now.

Are you afraid of believing "fairy tales"? In such a case, do an about face quick! Or try denying the fact of the Flood! Or try explaining biology without a Creator! Or worse yet for diehard stubborn dogmatic atheists-even-if-God-Himselfs-speaks-to-me-directly folks, try believing the universe you live in exists without its Creator! Cosmologists today are in disarray over the fact that they are face to face with undeniable design in the "anthropic principle". The big bang itself in disarray. The speed of light even took a fall. They are coming to believe the only believable alternative, the Bible, by the thousands and tens of thousands.

Thats completely beside the point - you are claiming to prove the bible is true from external sources.  You can't then use the bible itself as a key piece of evidence in your proof.

A point here is that you also can't nullify the explanations of eyewitness testimony of one who claims they were a witness simply by saying it doesn't count. It counts as evidence of a Flood also unless you have counter testimony to refute it.

Or to spell it out in letters of the alphabet. The eyewitness says  one thing. The sunken city says something else, but it's the same thing! Oh, another sunken city.

Or in other words. You can't talk about each different piece in isolation. If this isn't clear enough, just say so. Also, I'd rather be talking about the evidence itself rather than giving a class on what counts as evidence.

I mean, wow, God is real and He loves us!

[Bronzesnake]

Hi ebia...

 

You can't use the bible to prove the bible, and then claim you've proved the bible from external proof.

 I'm not doing that at all.
I challenged you to find one example in the bible, through historical, or archaeological records which disprove a single biblical account. You may have a contrary "opinion" in regard to the biblical account of the flood, but you can not prove it did not happen. There was a time when people such as yourself claimed that the bible was merely a book of "stories" "myths" King David was a fictional character as were the other central figures of the bible. Funny thing happened though, archaeologists dug up ancient records of King David and his kingdom. Same thing with Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon. There were scoffers who laughed at the thought of a "literal" walls of Jericho, until archaeologists dug it up and discovered the walls had fallen outward! There are many, many such examples to be found in the archaeological records, why don't you look for yourself.

 The fact remains...you can not find a single example where the Bible can be disproved.  

[Bronzesnake]

Hi ebia. Here are some Biblical, archaeological examples for you...

 The discovery of the Ebla archive in northern Syria in the 1970s has shown the Biblical writings concerning the Patriarchs to be viable. Documents written on clay tablets from around 2300 B.C. demonstrate that personal and place names in the Patriarchal accounts are genuine. The name "Canaan" was in use in Ebla, a name critics once said was not used at that time and was used incorrectly in the early chapters of the Bible. The word "tehom" ("the deep") in Genesis 1:2 was said to be a late word demonstrating the late writing of the creation story. "Tehom" was part of the vocabulary at Ebla, in use some 800 years before Moses. Ancient customs reflected in the stories of the Patriarchs have also been found in clay tablets from Nuzi and Mari.




The Hittites were once thought to be a Biblical legend, until their capital and records were discovered at Bogazkoy, Turkey. Many thought the Biblical references to Solomon's wealth were greatly exaggerated. Recovered records from the past show that wealth in antiquity was concentrated with the king and Solomon's prosperity was entirely feasible. It was once claimed there was no Assyrian king named Sargon as recorded in Isaiah 20:1, because this name was not known in any other record. Then, Sargon's palace was discovered in Khorsabad, Iraq. The very event mentioned in Isaiah 20, his capture of Ashdod, was recorded on the palace walls. What is more, fragments of a stela memorializing the victory were found at Ashdod itself.

Another king who was in doubt was Belshazzar, king of Babylon, named in Daniel 5. The last king of Babylon was Nabonidus according to recorded history. Tablets were found showing that Belshazzar was Nabonidus' son who served as coregent in Babylon. Thus, Belshazzar could offer to make Daniel "third highest ruler in the kingdom" (Dan. 5:16) for reading the handwriting on the wall, the highest available position. Here we see the "eye-witness" nature of the Biblical record, as is so often brought out by the discoveries of archaeology.



The most documented Biblical event is the world-wide flood described in Genesis 6-9. A number of Babylonian documents have been discovered which describe the same flood.

Ancient tablet listing the Sumerian kings
[More information]
 
The Sumerian King List (pictured here), for example, lists kings who reigned for long periods of time. Then a great flood came. Following the flood, Sumerian kings ruled for much shorter periods of time. This is the same pattern found in the Bible. Men had long life spans before the flood and shorter life spans after the flood. The 11th tablet of the Gilgamesh Epic speaks of an ark, animals taken on the ark, birds sent out during the course of the flood, the ark landing on a mountain, and a sacrifice offered after the ark landed.





The Story of Adapa tells of a test for immortality involving food, similar to the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.

Sumerian tablets record the confusion of language as we have in the Biblical account of the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11:1-9). There was a golden age when all mankind spoke the same language. Speech was then confused by the god Enki, lord of wisdom. The Babylonians had a similar account in which the gods destroyed a temple tower and "scattered them abroad and made strange their speech.

 There's much much, more if you want it ebia. How much proof do you need before you admit that the Bible is accurate and true? I'll bet you don't hold any other book of antiquity to the same standard as you do the Bible. If you did, then we wouldn't have any historical figures such as Julius Caesar, Alexander, etc, not to mention locations, and historical events.

[Shammu]

For some odd reason I don't trust scientist.

So presumably you don't travel on aeroplanes, drive a car, use a computer, see a doctor or otherwise make use of the results of science?

No ebia, you need to read my whole post not part of it. Scientist will put a spin on the flood as they do what ever doesn't suit their fancy (ie. Noah's flood.)

[Bronzesnake]

There's much much, more if you want it ebia. How much proof do you need before you admit that the Bible is accurate and true?

I do believe it's true.  I don't believe it's a history book.

Similarities betwen Gilgamesh and Genesis are interesting, but they no more prove the bible is an accurate historical account than they prove that Gilgamesh is.  That they both draw on the same or similar real events is plausable - no-one's disputing that catastrophic floods happened, but they don't prove that the any one of those accounts is 100% accurate.

I'll bet you don't hold any other book of antiquity to the same standard as you do the Bible. If you did, then we wouldn't have any historical figures such as Julius Caesar, Alexander, etc, not to mention locations, and historical events.

I don't believe Genesis is meant to be a history.

Your comparison between Genesis and Julius Caesar is inappropriate on several levels:
1.  Ancient documents that make extraordinary claims must be treated to higher degree of suspision than documents that are plausable.  To use your law court analogy, you are going to take a witness more seriously if he says the bank robber drove off in a car, than if he says the bank robber disappeared in a puff of smoke.  Do you treat Gilgamesh the King as an accurate history, and if not why not?

2.  Genesis is a much more ancient document than Julius Caesar, and describes events purporting to happen vastly earlier than it's purported (human) author.  It's not an eye witness account, or a second hand eye witness account, or even the writing down of the oral tradition of eye witnesses, since there were no human eyewitnesses to the first few verses.   It purports to be from God, and therefore has to be examined as a book purporting to be from God.  Examining it's claims on the same basis as an (human) eyewitness account, or the account of a historian close to the period, is misleading.

 So, in your view God is too weak to get His message out as a 100% real and true document? God didn't do the things as recorded in Genesis? Man's testimony is more credible and reliable than God's? When God says He caused a world wide flood, He was either wrong, or a liar?

 What else didn't God do? Hey, maybe there really isn't a God! Or perhaps all that Jesus stuff isn't historical either!
Do you see the problem you get into when you don't take God literally?

You say you believe it's true, then you totally contradict yourself by disputing the details. In other words, you believe we were created, and there must be a "God" but the bible isn't from Him, because it's full on non historical, inaccurate stories and myth made up by men.

 Or, God gave ancient men His written Word, and He wasn't powerful enough to ensure it remained intact,. Men added their own mythology and mistakes as time went on, and now what remains is a skeleton of the book as it originally was.

Or, God decided to toy with us little ants, and fill a book with ambiguous myth and legend, only to claim it's literal context and content, so that it is impossible to come to any consensus as to the true meaning of any given doctrine. He, of course did that in order to see how many cults and insane self serving human "gods" would manifest, and all for His own amusement.

 I don't know if I could trust a God who was so fallible as that my friend.

Bronzesnake

[Bronzesnake]

No-one take the bible 100% literally - you can't.  Do you believe each of the parables actually happened?  Do you believe Jesus was literally a grape vine?  If there is a slippery slope, we are all on it, because we all have to decide what is literal, and what is not

You're playing dumb now ebia. You seem intelligent enough to understand what I mean when I say we must take God literally.

 If I told you that I was going to "fly" down to the store, would you take it literally even though you know I won't be flying? Or would you have the same attitude with me as you do with God's Word, because there are similes, and exaggerated verbs and nouns used in order to clarify a message. We use them every day of our lives, in every day conversations, should everything we say be doubted, or not taken literal also?


Yes, Jesus used parables, and they are understood to be parables when He uses them. However, in each case where Jesus uses a parable He also explains the exact meaning of the parable. He used parables to make His point about human behavior in relation to our salvation through following His instructions.

 Jesus confirmed that there was a world wide flood, was He wrong? or a liar? or was He a mad man? or maybe He didn't really say it...perhaps that statement was added by "Christian radicals" in order to legitimize God's Word.


 Mat 24:37 But as the days of Noe [were], so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.  


 Mat 24:38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,  


 Mat 24:39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away;

 The reason people don't take God literally is because they will be forced to change their lifestyle. A lot of "Christian homosexuals" are going to lose their salvation because they don't take God's Word literally, fornicators, adulterers, murders, who live without true obedience and repentance will also go to hell.

On the contrary, He's too strong to need to be bound to our 20th century idea of truth.  Genesis is 100% true, but it's not history.  To regard history and science as more true than myth is a very modern idea.

That's convoluted reasoning my friend. If Genesis is true, it automatically became history. History is a retelling, or record of true events.

Besides being our guide to eternity, the Bible is a great historical document, because it's a record of true events in human history.

 Take the challenge if you are so sure of yourself ebia. Find a single example in the bible that has been disproved beyond a reasonable doubt. I challenge you.


Bronzesnake

[Bronzesnake]

Hi ebia...

 

I'm not saying you do take everything literally, I'm saying we all have to make choices about what is meant to be taken literally, and what isn't.  You and I make different decisions, but you are fooling yourself if you think that you aren't making those decisions, or that your decisions are inevitably the right ones.

Point taken. However, I don't think it's too difficult to recognize when God is relating a real historical event. When God, quite specifically gives details about how He created life on our planet, for example, I believe Him.

 Contrary to your assertions, the Genesis account has not been disproved beyond reasonable doubt, it has been refuted by people who either, are non believers, or even Christians, who can not believe their God could complete such an enormous task as the creation of the planet and all life forms in the order, and time period that He says He did.
 So He was either bragging, or He was being ambiguous when He used the precise order of events, and time period.

 You probably have more faith in science than you do in God's ability to do such a "miraculous" thing. After-all, science has proved that God doesn't even exist haven't they? Our planet came into existence as the result of the "big bang" right? All life forms are the direct result of a series of beneficial DNA mutations which were shaped through the need to conform to an ever changing environment did they not? How life first sprang into being isn't important to scientist, because it's a "fact" that it did...somehow. Oh, I know there's the annoying problems such as, the fact that there are no graduated transitional fossils, and the only "proof" science has is a huge variety of different, unique, creatures which were spread throughout the ages. That is proof enough for them that early creatures must have warped into different creatures which have similar biological features...that's science for ya! It doesn't matter to the blind scientist that DNA never has been found to be "improved" on the contrary, mutations are always a result of damaged or corrupted DNA.

 Today, there is a small handful of cases in which a genetic mutation has helped a creature to survive better than those without it. These types of mutations are referred to as “beneficial mutations.” But even these beneficial mutations do not improve the code in DNA: rather than adding any meaningful information, they destroy it.

 That's why I believe God over evolutionist scientists my friend. When you have a close, unbiased ( I know you will challenge me on this) look at their research and the logic used to explain it, you come to the conclusion that it is based solely on the fact that they can not bring themselves to believe in God.

 The science behind carbon and radiometric dating is seriously flawed also...

 The most commonly used radiometric dating methods are potassium-argon, uranium-lead, and rubidium-strontium. The concept of how these methods work is simple: one element decays into another at a rather predictable rate. Potassium decays and becomes argon. Uranium decays into lead. And rubidium decays into strontium. All three of these decay processes have half-lives measured in billions of years. Half-life is simply the time required for half of the atoms in a pound of uranium, for example, to disintegrate into lead. That time is approximately 4.5 billion years.

 The accuracy of these dating methods depends “critically” on several assumptions. To date a rock by radiometric means, one must first assume:


1) What the initial amount of the parent atoms was at the time that the rock formed.

2)That the original composition of the rock contained no daughter atoms.

3)That neither parent nor daughter atoms have ever been added or removed from the rock.

4)That the decay rate of parent atom to daughter atom has always remained constant.


If these assumptions are correct, then the radiometric dates are correct. However, there is no way to independently test these assumptions. If they are wrong, the method could yield faulty dates that might be far too old.

 Rock which was formed in 1986 from a lava dome at Mount St. Helens volcano was dated by the potassiumargon method as 0.35 ± 0.05 million years old.


Rocks from five recent lava flows at Mount Ngauruhoe in New Zealand were dated using the potassium-argon method, and resulted in dates ranging from <0.27 to 3.5 million years — but one lava flow occurred in 1949, three in 1954, and one in 1975.


Salt Lake Crater on Oahu was determined to be 92–147 million years, 140–680 million years, 930–1,580 million years, 1,230–1,960 million years, 1,290–2,050 million years, and 1,360–1,900 years old, using different radiometric dating methods.


How did 1,000-year-old carbon-dated trees in the Auckland volcanic field of New Zealand get buried under 145,000-465,000 year old potassium-argon-dated lava rock?

 In the end, you either place your faith in the science of man, or the omniscient, omnipotent creator...God.

Intelligent people can take God at His word ebia. You don't have to compromise.

Take care my friend...

Bronzesnake.

[iconHis]

After reading all this, which was extremely interesting, I am really thirsty.... I think I'll go quence my thirst and put my mind to some spiritual things that are going to happen in the future
verrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry soon.

Thanks for all the info on this post.  Have a good day
whenever you read this one.

           iconHis

_{for as by Adam all die, so by the Anointed also, will all be restored to life.    1Cor.15;22}

     

[Bronzesnake]

After reading all this, which was extremely interesting, I am really thirsty.... I think I'll go quence my thirst and put my mind to some spiritual things that are going to happen in the future
verrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry soon.

Thanks for all the info on this post.  Have a good day
whenever you read this one.

           iconHis

_{for as by Adam all die, so by the Anointed also, will all be restored to life.    1Cor.15;22}

     

 Give us your point of view my friend....

Bronzesnake