Atlantis and Noah!

EYE-YAD very nice theory.

In addition, Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of the waters was upon the earth. Gen.7:6)

In order to believe these biblical historians moved the flood story from the first day of creation to the tenth generation of humanity.

Genesis Chronology puts the flood at 1,656 years after the birth of Adam but do to inconsistencies it was moved between 3761 B.C. and 4004 B.C. so it will not be to close to the exodus.

The earliest know knowledge of the flood or floods is in 2000 B.C. in Sumerian documents. During the first Kings of summers.

Now the Sumerians has been around for 432,000 years before the flood accountings appears.

In order for the bible to match their historical accounts to the birth of Jesus, it had to alter many historical facts.

If Atlantis existed at the same time of Sumerian perhaps, it could be related to Atlantis but we know that Abraham was from the city of Sumer when he left on a journey and by the bible accounts they meaning Abraham and Noah could not had been living at the same time.

So it brings me to the fact that the historical timing of the old testament to the birth of Jesus is chronologically wrong and was fixed.



[Edited on 6-8-2004 by marg6043]

The Atlantis event could coincide with another biblical figure, namely Moses.
Theories excists that Atlantis could have been the ancient Minoan civilization on Crete. Then the Santorini volcano-explosion around 1600 BC wipes out the Minoans and creates a floodwave Moses used to split the waters when he fled Egypt...

EDIT: Aha, you thought I was joking? I found this link:
andrewcollins.com...

"Computer simulations show that the Santorini eruption could have triggered a 600ft-high tidal wave, travelling at about 400 miles an hour, which would have been 6ft high and a hundred miles long when it reached the Egyptian delta."

Using "Moses" and "Santorini" as search words gave me 5,670 hits, so there might be better material on this...
Then again, this is not Noah and "Atlantis" is just a maybe...



[edit on 2004/8/10 by Hellmutt]

Originally posted by cyberdude78
Anybody ever heard of the Ice age. When ice melts it turns into water. Thats were you get global flooding. Well with global warming were pretty much screwed. Nice job General Motors for screwing our ozone.

Just curious, but did GM cause the first flood too?

But anyway, I wouldn't worry too much about it this time, there's not nearly that much ice this time around. (Sorry, couldn't resist)

It is my belief that there were two different eras of catastrophes by water.

The event described by the Summerin culture and Noah was the most ancient in which the entire planet was submersed in water. The water came from above because the planet's atmophere had a great deal of water vapor locked into it. It was said that it did not rain before the Great Deluge. A particular event, which I will not go into detail now, which contaminated the atmosphere of water vapor and it then condensed to a liquid and flooded the planet. After some time the continents were pushed out of the water (take note: Poseidon is credited for lifting up his portion and creating Atlantis.) Then the poppulation gets a new start and spreads out from Summer.

Later in the stream of time, around 1300 BC, civilization had grown and great kingdoms had been established all over the world. This being the Bronze Age. Then for some strange reason, certain kingdoms sink into the oceans. I bet that they all sank at the same time. You might say they flooded from the melting of the Polar Caps. Now that's a lot of water to spead across the entire planet. Their's sunken ruins of the coast of Japan (100ft below sea level) , Africa, Meditteranean, and even the Caribbean (2200ft below sea level.) It was as if sea trade from continent to continent was cut off for a period of time.

Then civilization gradually regains global trade after many centuries, producing the world we see today.

Actually the Babilonians also date the flood tens of thousands of years before the time of Noah, the placing of the flood in the tenth generation of kinsgship.

The Babylonians used enourmous time periods in the king lists then they divided in these time frames into smaller units, so when the bible was compiled this time periods were to great to put them in just "few years"

For the Babylonians a time span of 432,000 equals 120 saroi, so when the bible was writen this time span was shorten.

The sumerian and babylonians accounts of the flood are closer in times.

Originally posted by cyberdude78
Anybody ever heard of the Ice age. When ice melts it turns into water. Thats were you get global flooding. Well with global warming were pretty much screwed. Nice job General Motors for screwing our ozone.

LMAO! I'm with ya, but I'm gonna blame Ford... he started it all with his fancy-schmancy assembly line! (thanks man... that's the first time I've smiled in like 2 weeks!) IMHO, gasoline and petrol products are the devil incarnate... but that's for another thread.

I was actually thinking before I read cyberdude's post, but I forgot...

Oh yeah... the polar caps completely melting would only raise the earth water level by appx 300 (meters, feet? Think it's 300 meters). Sadly enough though, you could go to a coastline and fly a kite up to that level to get an idea of the depth... to the observer it would seem pretty huge, but to someone like me (6000 ft ASL+ my whole life) it doesn't really seem like all that much, but here's a little more food for thought:

Ok, the moon's gravitational pull causes a tide, which seems to me pretty drastic since I have only been around inland bodies of water (the rise and fall is drastic). Now, I'm gonna take a deep breath and throw Nibiru/Planet X into this (oooh, I can feel the heat now!). So, if there WAS a Nibiru, it's gravitational pull would probably do more than pull the waters around the earth. A body that big, even if only passing between planetary orbits, could (?) cause a land tide, and after a couple revolutions the bulge would be semi-permanent all the way around the circumference of the earth, in a sense raising the land masses around the bulge, and the waters of the ocean, although equally affected by the pull, would be forced outside of the bulge more. So, to help out on this idea:

Originally posted by The Vagabond
3. Very large portions of the world, maybe even all of it, were flooded in ancient history, probably by the melting of glaciers after they younger dryas. Keep in mind that if the earth were entirely smooth, the water would cover earth entirely. So, what if the ocean floor used to be significantly closer to sea level somehow? The sea floor has been under unfathomable tons of water for thousands of years- I'm not a geologist, but my gut tells me that such circumstances might have changed things.

Maybe the force pulled the floor of the oceans up and basically smoothed out the earth a bit more? Who knows, just thinking outloud.

Anyways, I posted a thread about the 'sinking' of Atlantis that noone apparently took seriously except the skeptics (skepticism is just as much of a disease as faith). www.abovetopsecret.com... Actually, I just reread... guess it wasn't the skeptics as usual (sry Byrd and Vag ). I still think liquifaction holds up alot more with the Atlantis story than any of the other theories I've heard. IF it was 'sank' by a liquifaction process, the liquifying tremors could also have been caused by the same forces that flooded Noah's region, as well as others. This could have possibly been caused by an outside source that could have vibrated the entire earth. This process could have started floods on sunken valleys and planar regions, leading to the flood stories. Read the thread and you may get a bit more of what I'm talking about here. Throw Nibiru back into the mix and I think it may have come a bit close to earth (ever held two speakers close enough together when they are out of phase? Creates some pretty gnarly hormonics! Same if you take an 8 inch woofer=earth and a 10 or 12 inch woofer=Nibiru and face them. They have different resonance because of size, coil, driver magnet, frame, materials, etc, so they don't phase properly, and they create some pretty neat subfrequencies... getting my drift?).

Ok Vag... go ahead and bonk me on the head again, I'm prepared lol.

And on another note, it could be possible that Atlantis 'sank' to observers, but in reality the waters rose around it. I still hold to my liquifaction theory though.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
That wasn't really hell- might be able to pass it off as purgatory or at least limbo maybe.

Of course, I was merely joking when I said i'd be giving you hell.

stgeorge:
There is evidence for rapid risings and sinkings,oceans flooding causing salination,magnetic reversals,and instant weather changes.

How does the rising or falling of sealevel result in a change in the earths magnetic field? Can you show the evidence you are saying is out there?

stgeorge:
Prophesy says it will be an act of God, which is in fact earth movements and terraforming by the forces at the Visitors command. They have hardley showed you what they can do yet.Warnings are always given, but you refuse to listen to any emmisaries,then we go ahead.

Warnings about what? We are discussing the lack of evidence for a global flood and that there are no remains of any ark on any turkish or nearby mountain tops.

spidergooch:
Noah may have landed on Ararat, and there is evidence of the Ark still being present there, contrary to what some might say.

If the ark is there then why isn't there any evidence for it?

spidergooch:
It is interesting to note, that one of Noah's descendents was named Peleg, for the Earth was divided in his lifetime. I believe we have an allusion to Pangea.

How does Peleg=pangea? Pan gea; its greek for 'all earth' and thats why scientists, when they reconstructed the continental positions in the past, named the supercontinent that existsed 'pangea'. Not because of anything in the bible.

lostinspace:
The water came from above because the planet's atmophere had a great deal of water vapor locked into it. [

The vapor canopy idea has been looked at in good detail and has no basis in any sort of realitity. Look here for some information on why there just couldn't have been one.

It was said that it did not rain before the Great Deluge.

Why eactly wouldn't the hydrologic cycle be functioning then?

Their's sunken ruins [...] the Caribbean (2200ft below sea level.)

Where?

Actualy the great flood was not so great,

The calculation of the flood are wrong, so actually the myth of a flood that lasted 40 days and 40 nights may never happend after all and it was just a story like many other stories in the bible.

The part about 40 days and 40 nights?

"Just an estimate. It was so dark and stormy we did not know whether it was night or day.There were earthquakes all the time and we were terrified." 2IC

Originally posted by Nygdan

There's sunken ruins [...] the Caribbean (2200ft below sea level.)

Where?

Here are many links that discuss about the anouncement of potential sunken ruins found off Cuban waters with the use of side scan sonar imaging. The team was originally looking for sunken ships with valuable loads and then they stumbled across strange readings pinging off the depths of 2200ft. Northeast of Cabo San Antonio and down about one-half mile (2200ft) off the western tip of Cuba are large stones in rectangular and pyramidal shapes.


www.canoe.ca...

www.cyberspaceorbit.com...

www.freerepublic.com...

www.freerepublic.com...

www.100megsfree4.com...

www.andrewcollins.com...

www.crystalinks.com...

www.rense.com...

www.marsearthconnection.com...

www.morien-institute.org...

www.unknowncountry.com...

www.nightly.net...

www.earthfiles.com...

Earthfiles has the most details because the owner of the site has had interviews with Paulina Zelitsky and Paul Weinzweig, the Owners of Advanced Digital Communications International, Inc.
The site has been given permission to post some of the images taken by the side scan sonar and even the more recent video shots taken by a submersible.

Here's the direct link to that, but you'll need to sign up to a subscription in order to see the photographs.

earthfiles.com...

Originally posted by lostinspace

Originally posted by Nygdan

There's sunken ruins [...] the Caribbean (2200ft below sea level.)

Where?

Here are many links that discuss about the anouncement of potential sunken ruins found off Cuban waters with the use of side scan sonar imaging.

These reports were made in 2002 and they mentioned furhter explorations to be taking place in december of that year it appears. What are the results of those further expeditions? A national Geographic article about it notes:

Iturralde makes it clear, however, that just because no natural explanation is immediately apparent, it doesn't rule one out. "Nature is able to create some really unimaginable structures," he said.

So i have to ask if he, upon furhter investigation over the past two years, confirmed that the structures are natural. Obviously the evidence in these reports isn't conclusive; the person actually handling the data makes note of this.

It looks like one rock sample that was found was claimed by Zelitski to be polished granit, but Manuel Iturralde, the geologist involved, doesn't seem to be saying that.

Either way, thanks for the links, very interesting. Too bad they haven't been able to get conclusive evidence. Some of the other sites mentioned that this would be the deepest any underwater city has ever been found at. So it would certainly be remarkable.

How come no comments about the refutation of the water canopy idea?

\\




Noah and atlantis??????/ Please clarify Atlantis first, truth or myth? fable story what?

Originally posted by Earthscum
Ok Vag... go ahead and bonk me on the head again, I'm prepared lol.

Nah, I aint gonna bonk you on the head. (I've got this special hammer i'm saving for the next time WestPoint23 lets his guard down, and I'm storing up all of my bonking energy to power it.)

Actually, I don't think I'm the one who jumped on you the worst about liquification, am I? (if so, 1000 pardons, since I know as much about geology as G-Dub knows about grammar... and nobody say a word cause i'm voting for him anyway).
I come down pretty firm about Atlantis becuase I'm sick and tired of people who wan't to latch on to the least believable portions of Plato's word and disregard the rest- it's given me a real hair trigger. Now the land tide idea is infinitely interesting. I'm gonna be trying to figure out how to incorporate that into a theory for a long time, cause it's just so incredibly out there that somebody is -BOUND- to buy the book. (seriously i like the idea). The only thing I have to warn Nibiru believers about is that Sitchin has even taken heat over his interpretations from guests on Coast to Coast AM with George Noory. You gotta be a real bad boy in the conspiracy world to get rebuked there.

Originally posted by EternalLeaderof Truth
sorry I must have missed class that day what is atlantis

here ya go

Before Plato, an author Hellanicus supposedly wrote a book called 'Atlantis', but I have no idea what it was specifically about or whether or not Plato had access to it.

Outside of that, most other stories about it are, well lets just say apocryphal.

As for the truth of it, well, its wildly debated. Some people think Plato made it up entirely. Some think he himself only had part of the story. Some take the dialogues he wrote about it literally, others would say that theres a kernel of truth in it all, and that its been elaborated to a great degree, even in ancient times. So for some people Atlantis is a continent that formerly existed in the atlantic ocean. For others its a story that came out of the destruction of an island (not a continent) that actually existed, and everything in between.

Outside of this thread, I don't think that there is much on a connection between noah and atlantis.

Here's part of a recent interview (2003) of Paulina Zelitsky.


"...Well, it's difficult to say because what we see is only above the sandy soil of the ocean bottom. That could be up to 15 to 20 meters, but there could be extensive structures below the loose sand, white sand on the ocean bottom.

WHEN PAULINA WAS DESCRIBING ONE OF THE CROSSED OVALS AT LEAST ONE OF THE INVESTIGATORS THOUGHT MIGHT BE ON ONE OF THOSE, WAS IT ON ONE OF THE MEGALITHIC STRUCTURES OR WAS IT ON A SINGLE, SEPARATED STONE?

It was on what we call � the word 'megalith' is used to describe both the structures and the individual stones that are part of the structures. The stones are also very large.

WHAT'S THE SIZE OF THEM?

They could be 10 to 15 feet high.

BY ABOUT WHAT WIDTH?

5 to 10 feet wide. We did not videotape many of these stones, so we have a few samples. But they are very large and some of them appear to be fitted � that is, one on top of the other in a comfortable position.

AND IN FITTINGS, WOULD IT LOOK SORT OF LIKE STONEHENGE KIND OF CONSTRUCTION OR?

That's right. Not so long, but certainly more square, more rounded, more perpendicular. As I say, the entire ocean bottom in that region is simply white sand with a few outcroppings of blackened limestone. By the way, when limestone is blackened, it's because of contact with oxygen. So, that also suggests the area was once above sea water. These things (megalithic structures) just appear out of nowhere that look like granite. Because there is no granite on Cuba. Cuba is a limestone similar to the Yucatan. It's mostly limestone, the whole area is limestone.

WHAT ABOUT THAT PYRAMIDAL SHAPE THAT WAS IN THE IMAGE OF PAULINA LOOKING AT THE COMPUTER MONITOR?

That's a stone. It's one of the stones.

AND IT DOES SEEM TO BE PYRAMIDAL SHAPED?

Yes. Yeah, it has a shape that doesn't appear often in nature. It's not a shape one would expect to see in nature.

IN TERMS OF THE ROBOT YOU HAD HOPED YOU COULD GET DOWN THERE WITH MAYBE ONE OF THE ADVANCED SPACE ROBOTS THAT COULD GO AND DRILL INTO SOME OF THESE STRUCTURES AND FIND OUT EXACTLY WHAT THEY ARE?

We are discussing a proposal with National Geographic right now to do a preliminary survey using our own technology, but a more extensive survey than we've done before and on the basis of those findings, to decide whether to go forward or not. If we do go forward, of course, it would be with more advanced technology.

ARE YOU NOW CLOSER FOR NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC TO HELP WITH SOME FUNDING AND EQUIPMENT HERE?"



There's more in the real article.

Originally posted by Nygdan

How come no comments about the refutation of the water canopy idea?

I read the details you linked on this subject and I understand the logic and physics as to why it could never happen in that particular way described, but I still believed it happened. Everything's just speculation from a believer's standpoint. All we have going for us is the Biblical narrative. The numerous flood legends from around the world and sea shells on top of some mountains. It is my personal belief that Earth used to look like Venus, atmospherically, before life began to sprout here. Venus has a dense atmosphere and so could have Earth in its early stages. Water locked up in that ancient atmosphere could have been the source of the Global flood. I do not believe the vapor was locked into rings orbiting the planet.

Originally posted by lostinspace

Originally posted by Nygdan

How come no comments about the refutation of the water canopy idea?

I read the details you linked on this subject and I understand the logic and physics as to why it could never happen in that particular way described, but I still believed it happened.

So you have arived at this position as a matter of faith then?

Everything's just speculation from a believer's standpoint.

I find it ironic, and I am not trying to be hostile here, but i find it ironic that you are saying that for which we have evidence is speculation and the 'water canopy' is not. Or do you agree that the canopy idea is pure speculation?

All we have going for us is the Biblical narrative. The numerous flood legends from around the world

Why cite anything to support the idea? You just said, all you have is the biblical narrative. Why go any further? The fact that there are stories about floods amoung many cultures is probably more likely a result of multiple local floods. We see catastrophic, but none the less local, floods throughout history and even to this day. If the newspapers in california and india report floods, is that supposed to be taken to support the idea that there was a world flood? I do not see how one can say it doesn't, if multi-cultural flood myths do.

and sea shells on top of some mountains.

The scienceof geology and plate tectonics allows us to understand that those mountain tops were once ocean floors that were uplifted. Spectacular yes, but within the domain of science.

Venus has a dense atmosphere and so could have Earth in its early stages.

And, like Venus, the greenhouse effect would raise the temperature to ludicrously high degrees.

Water locked up in that ancient atmosphere could have been the source of the Global flood.

Anything -could have- happened. But the actual evidence, the remains of past history that are left to us indicate otherwise.

[edited this in]

Didn't notice the interview transcript.
Its all very interesting, but also, I need to caution that its extremely preliminary. They may have found something. The evidence so far doesn't, in my opinion, warrant spending millions of dollars to confimr that a peice of granite was a xenolith rather than a worked stone. I do -hope- that they get the funding, hell i hope they find what they are talking about, it'd be incredible.

Allthought, I don't see what it has to do exactly with the flood in the bible. There are sunken cities all over the place.

[edit on 9-8-2004 by Nygdan]

If the newspapers in california and india report floods, is that supposed to be taken to support the idea that there was a world flood?

That depends on what the news papers say. If they both say "heavy rain caused this certain body of water to rise 6 feet and flood a certain town" then no. If they both say "we were warned there would be a huge flood to destroy the world, and then sure enough there was a huge flood that we had to escape by building boats or going to mountains" then you've got a whole other matter in front of you.

My point is simply that you are abusing logic with that particular part of your arguement. The spin stops here . (I'm an Irish American conservative... why wont FOX give -ME- a show? Probably because I'm not a giant like O'Reily and I haven't got a liberal friend to pick on like Hannity. It's discrimination.)

Excuse me,but Noah would not have the time to scurry up into the mountains to build his ark. It must have been done on his own property.
He was a craftsman,my sources say "A builder of houses".
The land was lifted up,then became mountains.Yes...upheavals can occur overnight. Look up the Great Mid-East Quake of North America and see what it did.

Originally posted by The Vagabond

If the newspapers in california and india report floods, is that supposed to be taken to support the idea that there was a world flood?

they both say "we were warned there would be a huge flood to destroy the world, and then sure enough there was a huge flood that we had to escape by building boats or going to mountains" then you've got a whole other matter in front of you.

Ha, good call. Perhaps its not the best analogy. But, where is the physical evidence for a flood?

[qoute]I'm not a giant like O'Reily and I haven't got a liberal friend to pick on like Hannity. It's discrimination.)
I can almost see the missing word there.

stgeorge:
The land was lifted up,then became mountains.Yes...upheavals can occur overnight. Look up the Great Mid-East Quake of North America and see what it did

Why don't you tell me what it did. I googled around for "Great Mid-East Quake of North America". Got lots of irrelevant stuff. What in particular were you thinking of? Are you claiming that the Himalayas were formed overnight?