# Pre-Noahic civilizations



## nwink (Nov 29, 2011)

Could anyone recommend any further resources for studying more about Pre-Noahic civilizations based on archaeological research, etc?


----------



## py3ak (Nov 29, 2011)

In Romans 16:19 Paul warns the Romans that they are in danger of false teachers - because their obedience has come abroad to all men. Therefore Paul wants them to be wise. The command for discernment given to the Thessalonians is always necessary, and not always heeded in the church.

All of that to say, while I am not a scientist, historian, or archaeologist, there are urban legends within the Christian church, some may be spread by false teachers, many could be transmitted just from one trusting person to another. Sadly Christians are not always rigorous in their thinking, or in suspending judgment until the evidence has been collected and digested. In the past I think I have been insufficiently hesitant about accepting historical and scientific claims, from all parties. 

If it's not quite clear, I'm saying that I doubt you can trust any creationist group (not because I believe in anything other than a literal 6-day creation, mind you) unreservedly, and I'd be very leery of historical claims about the times before the Flood. George Orwell ran into Hindus who always affirmed that their brahmins had invented airplanes and so forth a long time ago, but just weren't interested in them. It's an easy thing to say or believe - but if we needed to know it, it would be found in Scripture.


----------



## TimV (Nov 29, 2011)

> I mean, granted, I understand the scientific world tries to hide/suppress information that doesn't fit into its worldview,



 I know you didn't mean it like that, but on the surface you're saying several million people from all walks of life, cultures, religions and languages get together on a hidden website every morning and plan on what sort of info they're going to distribute to the rest of us


----------



## nwink (Nov 29, 2011)

Ruben, thank you for your helpful words of caution. I completely agree.

What I was mostly getting at with my post was to see what others on PB think about the archaeological evidence that seems to indicate that there were moderately advanced civilizations in the ancient past...not that they were all low-level-intelligence people who lived in caves. I wanted to see if anyone knew of other resources about the ancient past along these lines. 

---------- Post added at 03:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:17 PM ----------




TimV said:


> I know you didn't mean it like that, but on the surface you're saying several million people from all walks of life, cultures, religions and languages get together on a hidden website every morning and plan on what sort of info they're going to distribute to the rest of us



Tim, what I was saying is that the scientific "elite" and media determine what facts get the spotlight and which don't. It's the same way with politics -- focus on whatever evidence most supports your case and neglect the rest.


----------



## TimV (Nov 29, 2011)

Sure, that's probably true. What I do on websites like that is go to random pages until I find something that can be proven or disproven. So from your linked site I saw:



> "Thirteen nuclear reactors existed in "prehistoric" periods along the 200-metre mine bed at Oklo --it was discovered in 1972, and they were comparable to the modern nuclear reactor in power and heat combustion.
> 
> This mine had the capability of enabling self-sustained nuclear chain reactions". This discovery shocked the entire scientific community back in 1972---but hold on,-- we'll get back to this later.



It's easy to write the guy off as either uneducated or afflicted, and of course it's true, but how do you convince a True Believer? Well in the above case you could read through back issues of several scientific journals and see if, say, Popular Mechanics or Scientific American devoted large amounts of space to the claim. If not, then he's wrong. And if you do that three for four times at random and he's always wrong, it's fair to write him off. Especially if geologists show that mine in Gabon did, in the far past, produce a reaction because of it's unique geology and that there aren't any human remains around it. And the context being ancient civilizations and their technology, not naturally occuring geological formations.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Nov 29, 2011)

Nathan, I don't remember if this has any pre-Noahic stuff in it, but it deals with very ancient civilizations and their artistic and technological achievements - mostly from archaeological finds. Roger Oakland is a sound Biblical creationist.

Amazon.com: Ancient Man:Created Or Evolved [VHS]: Roger Oakland: Movies & TV


----------



## jwright82 (Nov 29, 2011)

This is no different than dealing with the historicity of Adam. Lets say that we have ZERO evidence for the existence of "pre-flood" peoples. Does that mean that we should doubt our faith and the bible? No, if God saw fit not to provide any evidence of these peoples or give much detail of them in the scriptures than that is just fine. 

Does God explain how Adam is the father of the entire human race? No, that was not revealed to us in scripture. Big deal though. It is modern man that says "wow if it doesn't make sense to us than it doesn't make sense at all." So when modern Christians try to reconcile evolution with Genesis and say "that all that was just myth but thats o.k.", they are not wise at all they are bowing down to modern man and that is idolatry. We don't have to make sense out of everything for it to be true, God's silence on these issues tells me exactly what he thinks about modern man and his skepticism.

It is just fine to investigate these things, just take it with a grain of salt. I think that often christians feel obligated to answer these questions because of modern man's skepticism, we don't pander to them.


----------



## JoannaV (Nov 29, 2011)

I looked through that website briefly, and I liked that the author appeared, to me, not to be trying to force any theory on anybody. He has merely gathered together a lot of different information, some which is a lot more speculative than others, and some which he personally thinks is probably a good historical interpretation of the facts and others which he does not. And he said himself, that it is at most interesting. These are not things we need to know. It is just interesting to think about.

Lots of things happened prior to the flood. We don't know much about it. All we _need_ to know is in the Bible. But one thing I do know is that whatever geologic oddities were found at Oklo can*not* be explained by something that happened two billion years ago.

We know that _some_ people lived for a very long time, and so one would assume that they could do some useful things. But that's about it.


----------



## Rufus (Nov 29, 2011)

py3ak said:


> there are urban legends within the Christian church, some may be spread by false teachers, many could be transmitted just from one trusting person to another. Sadly Christians are not always rigorous in their thinking, or in suspending judgment until the evidence has been collected and digested.



Like Siberian miners digging a pit to hell....


----------



## TimV (Nov 29, 2011)

> Trouble is that some scholars note the biblical measure used to describe the Ark - a cubit - may be anywhere between 18 inches and 3 feet, which might make the Ark bigger than the Titanic.



This, after he admits the CIA looked an an anomaly on Mt. Ararat, and the expert said is was too big to be the ark of the Bible, according to the Biblical description. So you use the old "Some Bible scholars" card. OK, so I go to esword, type in "cubit" and see:



> Jdg 3:16 And Ehud made for himself a sword with two edges, a cubit in length, and he bound it on his right thigh under his clothes.



A three foot assassin's blade?  Boy, that would easily be hidden on a guy's thigh!


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Nov 29, 2011)

This is something the Creation Museum does very well, In my humble opinion. The attention to detail in that place is amazing. (Like in the ark exhibit they have Noah using Sumerian Cuneiform to write.)


----------



## JoannaV (Nov 29, 2011)

TimV said:


> > Trouble is that some scholars note the biblical measure used to describe the Ark - a cubit - may be anywhere between 18 inches and 3 feet, which might make the Ark bigger than the Titanic.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And the king was very fat, but maybe not that fat!


----------



## py3ak (Nov 29, 2011)

Rufus said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> > there are urban legends within the Christian church, some may be spread by false teachers, many could be transmitted just from one trusting person to another. Sadly Christians are not always rigorous in their thinking, or in suspending judgment until the evidence has been collected and digested.
> ...



I once heard a recording of that.


----------



## TimV (Nov 29, 2011)

JoannaV said:


> And the king was very fat, but maybe not that fat!



! Yeah, I thought of that too! To have needed a three foot blade to get to the innards of even a fat guy is something I don't even want to take time to think about  And to think of a ship made by one family out of one kind of wood being bigger than the Titanic is even worse.


----------



## Brother John (Nov 29, 2011)

I remember listening to a lecture in the past where the speaker mentioned they thought there were somewhere around 3 billion people alive at the time of the flood. One question I have been thinking about that maybe someone else can help me with is this, are there fossils of human remains? It would seem that if you had billions, millions or even hundreds of thousands of people who died in the flood there would be fossil remains. Any thoughts?


----------

