# The Flood, 3000 BC or before.



## Pergamum

This is a fascinating website here: Ancient Patriarchs: 
https://ancientpatriarchs.wordpress.com/2018/02/27/wow/

In the youtube video it speaks of the preference of the LXX over the Masoretic for the geneologies in Genesis. It makes more sense. 

I am a Young Earth Creationist but have always doubted the 2350 date for the Flood put forth by many YEC folks. There was not enough time between the Flood and Babel. This website shows the Flood was probably more likely at least 3000 BC.

Reactions: Informative 2


----------



## Puritan Sailor

Very interesting and a compelling presentation.


----------



## JimmyH

Fascinating, looks like we need new Bible translations !


----------



## Pergamum

Jimmy,
It does appear the LXX was correct on those geneologies.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## JimmyH

Pergamum said:


> Jimmy,
> It does appear the LXX was correct on those geneologies.


Yes Perg, my post above was not in jest. The information contained in the video you posted is really 'fascinating' to me. It is far beyond my expertise to confirm or deny it, but the presentation makes perfect sense, and if there is tension between the dating of the flood, the tower of Babel, and the question of why no water damage evidenced on the pyramids, this explains it. I'd like to see some OT/Hebrew scholars weigh in and confirm or deny the assertions. 

I particularly noted their reference to Titus 3:9, But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain. I had assumed that Paul was referring to the genealogies in Matthew and Luke. I knew there has been some dispute over the differences in the two, and the explanation being one if of Joseph, the other Mary's antecedents. Here again, the video makes a lot of sense.

In doing a lot of reading on the Received versus the Critical texts some of the authors had portrayed the scribes of the OT as being far more meticulous than those who copied the NT. On the other hand, I've come across claims that the Masoretic text is also 'corrupted' in places. From my own experience in typing excerpts from hard copy texts in posts I've made on this board I have no doubt that anything human beings copy will have mistakes. Anyway, I hope the revelations made in the video lead to correcting the texts as far as possible.


----------



## Afterthought

Maybe I need to lower my standards of evidence for the field of textual criticism, but a lot of this seems speculative and does not follow (as often seems to me to be the case in textual arguments). The scientific arguments are interesting, but I am not sure how relevant they should be in determining the original text. I am also not sure how this fits in with providential preservation.

That aside though, here is an argument from the other side: https://creation.com/lxx-mt-response

I had heard that Methusaleh dies after the flood in the LXX chronology, but I have not checked for myself. The video did not address this. Also, it is possible for a name to be given prophetically, so the Tower would only need to occur in the lifetime of Peleg. I'm not sure how that affects the population growth. I also do not know where this 30,000 number is coming from with respect to the Tower: the Tower was not completed, and we do not know how far along they got. People can do crazy things when they are blinded by idolatry.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 2


----------



## Pergamum

Is there an extra Cainan in the geneologies?

John Gill even thought so: https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j18_2/j18_2_41-43.pdf

"‘Ver. 36. Which was the son of Cainan, … This Cainan is not mentioned by Moses in Ge 11:12 nor has he ever appeared in any Hebrew copy of the Old Testament, nor in the Samaritan version, nor in the Targum; nor is he mentioned by Josephus, nor in 1 Ch 1:24 where the genealogy is repeated; nor is it in Beza’s most ancient Greek copy of Luke: it indeed stands in the present copies of the Septuagint, but was not originally there; and therefore could not be taken by Luke from thence, but seems to be owing to some early negligent transcriber of Luke’s gospel, and since put into the Septuagint to give it authority: I say “early”, because it is in many Greek copies, and in the Vulgate Latin, and all the Oriental versions, even in the Syriac, the oldest of them; but ought not to stand neither in the text, nor in any version: for certain it is, there never was such a Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, for Salah was his son; and with him the next words should be connected.’"

I REALLY don't like this doctrine which allows "copyist errors" but I agree that it does not hurt the doctrine of inerrancy.


----------



## Afterthought

I also don't like the "copyist errors" view, although it is a common view concerning the second Cainan in Luke. I think Turretin also considered it spurious. There is another view though that allows the Cainan to be original and non-redundant (as other explanations--that affirm Cainan should be there--tend to make him).

https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/KJV-today.84430/#post-1056118

Should Cainan be in the genealogy in Luke 3:36? - King James Version Today
"It is perfectly understandable why the genealogy of Luke includes a name that never appeared in any Jewish genealogy, including Genesis, Chronicles and Josephus. Previous Jewish genealogies focused on biological sonship. However, the genealogy of Luke clearly focuses on sonship by adoption. Luke 3:23 says that Jesus was “the son of Joseph” despite Joseph having no biological connection to Jesus. Jesus was the adopted son of Joseph. Luke 3:23 also says that Joseph "was the son of Heli” (literally "was of Heli") despite Joseph being the biological son of Jacob (Matthew 1:16). Heli was actually the father of Mary, Joseph’s wife. Thus, Joseph was the adopted son (son in law) of Heli. If this pattern continues in the genealogy, it would not be surprising to find an adopted son who had previously been omitted from biological genealogies. Thus, we can reasonably accept that Cainan was the adopted son of Arphaxad, and that Cainan raised Sala, who was the biological son of Arphaxad. The Masoretic text is not in error because its genealogies in Genesis and Chronicles focus on biological sonship."


----------



## Pergamum

Afterthought said:


> I also don't like the "copyist errors" view, although it is a common view concerning the second Cainan in Luke. I think Turretin also considered it spurious. There is another view though that allows the Cainan to be original and non-redundant (as other explanations--that affirm Cainan should be there--tend to make him).
> 
> https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/KJV-today.84430/#post-1056118
> 
> Should Cainan be in the genealogy in Luke 3:36? - King James Version Today
> "It is perfectly understandable why the genealogy of Luke includes a name that never appeared in any Jewish genealogy, including Genesis, Chronicles and Josephus. Previous Jewish genealogies focused on biological sonship. However, the genealogy of Luke clearly focuses on sonship by adoption. Luke 3:23 says that Jesus was “the son of Joseph” despite Joseph having no biological connection to Jesus. Jesus was the adopted son of Joseph. Luke 3:23 also says that Joseph "was the son of Heli” (literally "was of Heli") despite Joseph being the biological son of Jacob (Matthew 1:16). Heli was actually the father of Mary, Joseph’s wife. Thus, Joseph was the adopted son (son in law) of Heli. If this pattern continues in the genealogy, it would not be surprising to find an adopted son who had previously been omitted from biological genealogies. Thus, we can reasonably accept that Cainan was the adopted son of Arphaxad, and that Cainan raised Sala, who was the biological son of Arphaxad. The Masoretic text is not in error because its genealogies in Genesis and Chronicles focus on biological sonship."


I like that interpretation better. Thanks!


----------



## Smeagol

JimmyH said:


> Caught this video on youtube and it makes some interesting claims. In another thread the LXX
> versus the MT is being discussed. Not wishing to derail that thread I place this here. Anything to it ?


Interesting Video. Seems very single sided. I would love to hear a good response supporting the current reading in our English translations for the genealogies and the duration of time spent in Egypt. The video seemed to make good common sense when adding the additional 650 years. However, I do not *ultimately* depend on my "common sense" when reading the scriptures. I am a young earth creationist, but it seems you can still hold this view, even if the video is correct considering he is only advocating for adding approx. 600 years.

P.S. However, as Paul tells us, not much worth in debating genealogies! Maybe that undercuts the entire video...ha

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol

https://hermeneutics.stackexchange....00-or-50-years-from-the-age-of-the-fathers-at

Thoughts?


----------



## JimmyH

Grant Jones said:


> https://hermeneutics.stackexchange....00-or-50-years-from-the-age-of-the-fathers-at
> 
> Thoughts?


Well, I watched some of it again and took some notes. The vid starts out with the observation that there is no water damage on the pyramids, and claims that using Ussher's dating they would have already been built before the universal flood. So why, if that is correct is there no water damage ?

The LXX, Samaritan Pentateuch, and Flavius Josephus agree in their historic dating, opposing that of the MT. The added 650 years puts the pyramids after the flood, accounting for the lack of water damage. It also makes more sense, according to the video, in a larger population able to build the Tower of Babel. Going by the MT it is unlikely that the population of that time could have done it.

The premise advanced in the video, if I understood it correctly, is that Rabbis conspired with scribes at the time the MT was being transcribed to deliberately change the ages of Noah's progeny in order to say that his son Shem lived long enough to meet Abram (Abraham) as Melchizedek. Their purpose to contradict the Christian belief that Melchizedek was a priest outside of the Levitical order, and therefore, if Shem was actually Melchizedek, Christ Jesus could not be our high priest, as His was not a Levitical lineage.

According to the LXX, they say, Shem died before Abraham was born, so he couldn't have been Melchizedek, contradicting the claim that he was a Levitcal priest after all.

There is a lot more to it than that, but I can understand busy OT scholars on the PB not wanting to waste 31 minutes on what may be spurious conjecture.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Afterthought

Not an OT scholar, but here were my thoughts when this was brought up previously: https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/the-flood-3000-bc-or-before.97261/#post-1188499

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Smeagol

Afterthought said:


> Not an OT scholar, but here were my thoughts when this was brought up previously: https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/the-flood-3000-bc-or-before.97261/#post-1188499


Thanks for sharing. I was having trouble finding another Puritan board thread that dealt with this. Maybe the @moderators should combine the thread’s and re-open.


----------



## JimmyH

Grant Jones said:


> Thanks for sharing. I was having trouble finding another Puritan board thread that dealt with this. Maybe the moderators should combine the thread’s and re-open.


This previous thread disturbs me ... I'm 70 years old, and think myself cognizant. I clicked on Ramon's link and was interested to see what response the older thread received. I was shocked to see that I posted twice in the older thread ... and had no remembrance of having seen the video or the thread ! Am I coming down with old timer's disease ?

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1


----------



## Smeagol

JimmyH said:


> This previous thread disturbs me ... I'm 70 years old, and think myself cognizant. I clicked on Ramon's link and was interested to see what response the older thread received. I was shocked to see that I posted twice in the older thread ... and had no remembrance of having seen the video or the thread ! Am I coming down with old timer's disease ?


Haha... I thought the same thing when i saw your post on the thread from last month! Maybe you’re part of the conspiracy!

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Dachaser

JimmyH said:


> Caught this video on youtube and it makes some interesting claims. In another thread the LXX
> versus the MT is being discussed. Not wishing to derail that thread I place this here. Anything to it ?


The MT would be the correct Hebrew text for studying the OT with, as while the LXX was used in certain NT passages to us, the Hebrew text would be the one inspired from God to us.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Logan

David...I'm trying to be kind here but it does confuse me why you often make statements on rudimentary aspects that are only vaguely related to the topic (in this case, the connection is tenuous at best). 

May I suggest reading a little more closely and assume people here are reasonably well-educated on the subjects at hand? And resist the compulsion to post as often?


----------



## Dachaser

Logan said:


> David...I'm trying to be kind here but it does confuse me why you often make statements on rudimentary aspects that are only vaguely related to the topic (in this case, the connection is tenuous at best).
> 
> May I suggest reading a little more closely and assume people here are reasonably well-educated on the subjects at hand? And resist the compulsion to post as often?


I know that many here on the PB are much better versed in certain areas then I am in regards to translations, theology etc, as I am just seeking to become more understanding on those issues, but will also be trying to keep myself to essential postings only!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JimmyH

Dachaser said:


> The MT would be the correct Hebrew text for studying the OT with, as while the LXX was used in certain NT passages to us, the Hebrew text would be the one inspired from God to us.


David, the way I understand it ... the LXX was a translation of an older OT manuscript than that used for the MT, into Greek for the benefit of those in the captivity, who had forgotten, or never learned Hebrew/Aramaic, but for whom Greek was the Lingua Franca. The LXX does not contain a translation of the NT, because it came to be before the birth of our Lord. Unless I misunderstand what you've said ....

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

JimmyH said:


> David, the way I understand it ... the LXX was a translation of an older OT manuscript than that used for the MT, into Greek for the benefit of those in the captivity, who had forgotten, or never learned Hebrew/Aramaic, but for whom Greek was the Lingua Franca. The LXX does not contain a translation of the NT, because it came to be before the birth of our Lord. Unless I misunderstand what you've said ....


Thanks, as I was just wondering how some would see the LXX itself as maybe being the inspired text that the Church should have adopted for use over the MT itself.


----------



## JimmyH

To the Admins ... If possible can this thread be merged with Pergamum's original thread on the topic ? ... Or this thread be closed and further posts, if there is any interest, be posted to the original thread.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Threads merged, Jimmy.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## greenbaggins

Parts of the presentation make sense to me, at least initially. The explanation of Genesis 11 and the years of the genealogy, given the evidence of the versions, makes sense. I usually give the benefit of the doubt to the MT. However, it usually creates problems just at this point in Genesis 11 with the Egyptian chronologies usually given by Egyptologists. And, as has been said on other threads, the LXX is a translation of a Hebrew manuscript, which in places (not the whole, like the video claims!) differs from the MT. Not everywhere does it differ, however. For instance, I just read through Jonah in the MT and LXX for my class on the LXX, carefully comparing the two. It seems evident that there are almost no differences in the Hebrew manuscript that the LXX used as its Vorlage (parent manuscript) and the MT. So, the video broadens its claims too much with regard to the points he makes about the LXX and MT generally. As to whether there was a Jewish conspiracy to undermine the high priesthood of Jesus, that is a possibility. However, trying to prove intent regarding such a change is quite difficult. That Jews have used the shorter years of the MT genealogy to try to undermine Christ's priesthood is beyond doubt. However, whether that, in turn, proves Masoretic messing with the manuscripts, that is something else.

Reactions: Informative 2


----------



## JimmyH

greenbaggins said:


> *That Jews have used the shorter years of the MT genealogy to try to undermine Christ's priesthood is beyond doubt. However, whether that, in turn, proves Masoretic messing with the manuscripts, that is something else.*


Reverend Keister, is there a scholarly consensus on the LXX longer years versus the MT shorter years ? The life span of Shem compared to his progeny ? I'm in the midst of reading 'The Infallible Word' and Robert Dick Wilson, among others, is referenced a lot. The premise being that most of the differences in the LXX/MT are matters of vowel points and the like. So far no mention of the genealogies.


----------



## greenbaggins

Jimmy, the commentators tend to prefer the MT. However, equally clearly, they don't raise the issues that the video raises.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Pergamum

greenbaggins said:


> Jimmy, the commentators tend to prefer the MT. However, equally clearly, they don't raise the issues that the video raises.


When Jesus read in the synagogue, he seemed to follow the LXX, right?


----------



## greenbaggins

Perg, the subject of the LXX and the MT in the NT is a tricky issue. By and large, the NT followed the LXX, but this has to be qualified. First, there is still mostly overlap between the LXX and the MT, even on the quotations in the NT. Secondly, there are a few places where the NT follows more the MT than the LXX. So, it is complicated.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Pardon my ignorance as I read something that inferred or actually said the negative but don't recall now the details (if it was here, bygones). Do we know that the LXX is the LXX circa 30 A.D.?


----------



## greenbaggins

Chris, there are a number of Greek translations that enter the discussion. There is the LXX (but many scholars don't think we can talk about just one LXX), Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion. There is an entire textual critical question regarding the LXX itself, as well, since there are rescensions of manuscripts that introduce more or less purity (scholars talk about the Lucianic and Hexeplaric rescensions). That there was an LXX in 30 AD, I think most scholars would agree that there was.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## lynnie

Finally had time to watch this. Fascinating. Thanks Perg. The movie clips are hilarious.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum

lynnie said:


> Finally had time to watch this. Fascinating. Thanks Perg. The movie clips are hilarious.


Any thoughts?

I am still wrestling over the issues.


----------



## Afterthought

The CMI pepole have this article where they build a population model that supports having a large population more quickly than the video suggests is possible (I don't have time to read the article in detail): https://creation.com/biblical-human-population-growth-model


----------



## JimmyH

Pergamum said:


> Any thoughts?
> 
> I am still wrestling over the issues.


Maybe it is an age thing, I'm a 70 year old guy ... but I found the movie clips annoying, and thought they detracted from the presentation.

I am very intrigued by the subtraction of the 100 years in the genealogies. The premise that the Masorites and scribes conspired to identify Shem with Melchizedek, putting him in the Levitical lineage, and eliminating the typology which qualifies our Lord to be our High Priest.

Makes sense ... but when I asked (posts 25 & 26) Reverend Keister if there were any scholarly tomes investigating the apparent discrepancies, only to find out that academia tends to prefer the MT, but they 'haven't raised these facts' ... has me hungering for a believer with the language skills, and the educational credentials to really investigate the suppositions, and come to a conclusion on the merits.


----------



## Regi Addictissimus

The following may be of some interest to this topic. I personally haven't had a chance to go through it. Hopefully, I can get to it tomorrow.

"The Case for the Septuagint's Chronology in Genesis 5 & 11"
"ABSTRACT
Many biblical scholars who interpret the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 as yielding a continuous chronology from
Adam to Abraham claim the Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT) preserves the original begetting ages for the patriarchs.
The MT’s total for this period is 2008 years. The Samaritan Pentateuch (SP) presents markedly different chronological
data for each epoch, for a grand total of 2249 years. Calculations derived from the primary manuscripts (MSS) of the
Greek Septuagint (LXX) yield a chronology of 3394 years for this period, 1386 years greater than the MT. The MT is
classically represented by the Ussher chronology, which places creation at 4004 BC and the Flood at 2348 BC. Figures
from the LXX place creation at ca. 5554 BC and the Flood at ca. 3298 BC (Table 1; Appendix, n. 1).
This paper proposes that the LXX preserves (most of) the original numbers in Genesis 5 and 11. Most of the MT’s
chronology in Genesis 5 and 11 does not represent the original text, and is the result of a deliberate and systematic post–
AD 70 corruption. Corroborating external witnesses, internal and external evidence, text critical and LXX studies,
and historical testimonies will be presented, along with arguments rebutting LXX inflation hypotheses. Explanations
for important, accidental scribal errors will be discussed, and a text critical reconstruction of Genesis 5 and 11 will be
proposed."
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=icc_proceedings&ved=2ahUKEwjeqeyFytjgAhXGiVQKHZLTDYc4ChAWMAN6BAgDEAE&usg=AOvVaw0uWntnCe-9OmcTeDKmV7Dx

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## J.L. Allen

Reformed Bookworm said:


> The following may be of some interest to this topic. I personally haven't had a chance to go through it. Hopefully, I can get to it tomorrow.
> 
> "The Case for the Septuagint's Chronology in Genesis 5 & 11"
> "ABSTRACT
> Many biblical scholars who interpret the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 as yielding a continuous chronology from
> Adam to Abraham claim the Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT) preserves the original begetting ages for the patriarchs.
> The MT’s total for this period is 2008 years. The Samaritan Pentateuch (SP) presents markedly different chronological
> data for each epoch, for a grand total of 2249 years. Calculations derived from the primary manuscripts (MSS) of the
> Greek Septuagint (LXX) yield a chronology of 3394 years for this period, 1386 years greater than the MT. The MT is
> classically represented by the Ussher chronology, which places creation at 4004 BC and the Flood at 2348 BC. Figures
> from the LXX place creation at ca. 5554 BC and the Flood at ca. 3298 BC (Table 1; Appendix, n. 1).
> This paper proposes that the LXX preserves (most of) the original numbers in Genesis 5 and 11. Most of the MT’s
> chronology in Genesis 5 and 11 does not represent the original text, and is the result of a deliberate and systematic post–
> AD 70 corruption. Corroborating external witnesses, internal and external evidence, text critical and LXX studies,
> and historical testimonies will be presented, along with arguments rebutting LXX inflation hypotheses. Explanations
> for important, accidental scribal errors will be discussed, and a text critical reconstruction of Genesis 5 and 11 will be
> proposed."
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=icc_proceedings&ved=2ahUKEwjeqeyFytjgAhXGiVQKHZLTDYc4ChAWMAN6BAgDEAE&usg=AOvVaw0uWntnCe-9OmcTeDKmV7Dx


This is interesting. I’ve sent the information contained in your post to one of my Bible professors here at Moody. I respect him immensely and this is a personal interest of his.

Reactions: Like 3 | Funny 1


----------



## Regi Addictissimus

Johnathan Lee Allen said:


> This is interesting. I’ve sent the information contained in your post to one of my Bible professors here at Moody. I respect him immensely and this is a personal interest of his.


Sounds good. I look forward to hearing their response. Hopefully, by then, I'll have worked through it myself.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Perg, in post #7 you asked, “Is there an extra Cainan in the genealogies?” I quote from an old post of mine discussing Biblical genealogies,

As for Luke 3:36, which places Cainan in the lineage between Arphaxad and Salah (Sala), where the Genesis genealogy omits mention of Cainan, some remarks:

First, the absence of a person in the lineage does not annul the tightly interlocking numeric values between the patriarchs and their offspring. As Floyd Nolan Jones, in his _Chronology of the Old Testament_ puts it,

For regardless of the number of names or descendants that might be missing between Arphaxad and Salah (or any other two patriarchs) their lives are mathematically interlocked and a fixed relationship exists; when Salah was born, Arphaxad was thirty-five years old and so on across the entire span in question. Consequently, no time can possibly be missing even though names may so be. Strange as it may seem at first, in this instance the two concepts are mutually exclusive. (p. 34)​
Dr. Jones is firm that both the Genesis genealogy and the one in Luke 3 are correct and both the infallible word of God. While admitting there is no explanation for the omission given in Scripture, Jones gives a number of scenarios to show how it may have come to be. Here is one of them:

In this scenario both Arphaxad and Cainan (Arphaxad’s son) married young. Cainan dies after conceiving Salah but before his birth. At age 35, Arphaxad then adopts his grandson, Salah (like Jacob adopted his grandsons, Ephraim and Manasseh). (Mat. 1:1; Heb. 7:9-10) [Footnote: Compare Ruth 4:17which declares that “there is a son born to Naomi”, whereas technically she is his step mother-in-law. . .] (Ibid., p. 35)​
At any rate, the Cainan spoken of in Luke 3:36 poses no threat to the timeline of Genesis 11, only a mystery. The LXX versions of Genesis 11 which posit a Cainan in them are spurious, patently contriving to construct an order which fails.​


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Regarding the video you posted, here is some information to consider. The book I’ll be quoting, I’ll attach below in its entirety.

From, _The Septuagint: A Critical Analysis_, by Floyd Nolen Jones, Th.D., Ph.D, “The History of the LXX” Chapter 1, pp 11-13

*DISCORDANT AGES OF THE PATRIARCHS IN THE LXX *[1]

One point where the LXX and the Hebrew text differ in the Pentateuch is with regard to the ages of the ante-diluvian patriarchs relevant to the birth of their sons. Six of the first ten of these patriarchs fathered exactly 100 years later in the LXX than in the Hebrew O.T. The total span of these differences is 586 years – the LXX being greater than that of the Hebrew text. The importance of this discrepancy can hardly be overstated as in calculating and reckoning the chronology of the Old Testament, the numbers recorded in Scripture are our only guide. That the variations in the Septuagint are due to contrivance or design, and not due to accident, is plain from the systematic way in which the alterations have been made.

It is simple to demonstrate which list is correct. The majority of LXX manuscripts give 167 as the age of Methuselah at the birth of his son, Lamech (the Hebrew reads 187 - Gen. 5:25). However, if Methuselah were 167 at the birth of Lamech, Lamech 188 at the birth of Noah, and Noah 600 at the Flood (as recorded in the LXX), Methuselah would have been 955 at the date of the Flood. Since he lived to be 969 (the life span given in both), the LXX becomes entangled in the absurdity of making Methuselah survive the Flood by 14 years! Yet Genesis 7-10 and II Peter 3:20 are adamant in proclaiming that only Noah, his three sons and all four of their wives; that is, only 8 souls survived the Deluge. Discordances of a similar nature and magnitude are found with regard to the Post- diluvian patriarchs except that here the life spans also differ, often by more than 100 years.

The Patriarchal chronology of the LXX can be explained from the Hebrew on the principle that the translators of the former desired to lengthen the chronology and to graduate the length of the lives of those who lived after the Flood so as to make the shortening of the life spans gradual and continuous, instead of sudden and abrupt. This fit into their philosophic concept of gradual and uniform change (pre "uniformitarianism"); a philosophy which embraced the basic precepts of evolution. That is, they were primeval evolutionists. Thus the dramatic life span changes, which manifested the historic results of the sudden catastrophic transformations upon the earth and all life due to the worldwide Deluge, were altered to eliminate such positive evidence which was contrary to their religious-philosophic beliefs.

The constructor of the scheme found in the LXX lengthens the chronology of the Patriarchs after the Flood unto Abraham's leaving Haran by 720 years. He also graduates the length of the lives of the Patriarchs throughout the entire register, both those before and after the Flood. The curious result is that with the three exceptions of Enoch, Cainan (whose life exceeds that of his father by only 5 years) and Reu (whose age at death is the same as that of his father), every one of the Patriarchs from Adam to Abraham is made to die a few years younger than his father. Could anything be more manifestly artificial?

Incidentally, the Samaritan text [2] evinces similar signs of tampering. For example the interval from Adam to the Deluge is 349 years shorter (A.M. 1656 MT - 1307 Sam. = 349) [3] in this text as compared to the Hebrew and the interval from the Flood to Abraham is longer by 490 years. After analyzing the disparity between these discordant ages of the Patriarchs in both the LXX and the Samaritan Pentateuch with regard to the Hebrew, C.F. Keil concluded that the Hebrew Text was the only reliable account:[4]

“That the principal divergences of both texts from the Hebrew are intentional changes, based upon chronological theories or cycles, is sufficiently evident from their internal character, viz. from the improbability of the statement, that whereas the average duration of life after the flood was about half the length that it was before, the time of life at which the fathers begot their first-born after the flood was as late and, according to the Samaritan text, generally later than it had been before. No such intention is discernible in the numbers of the Hebrew text: consequently every attack upon the historical character of its numerical statements has entirely failed, and no tenable argument can be adduced against their correctness”.​_____

[1] Martin Anstey, _The Romance of Bible Chronology_, (London: Marshall brothers., 1913), pp. 73-76. See his diagrams for a more detailed analysis.

[2] The Samaritan Pentateuch is not a version; it is the Hebrew Text written in Samaritan or old pointed Hebrew script and is preserved in the Sanctuary of the Samaritan Community at Nablous (Shechem). It was quoted by Jerome and Eusebius in the 3rd and 4th centuries A.D. as well as other so-called Church Fathers. It was published in A.D. 1632. Although the text itself is believed by many to go back as far as the time of the 9th century B.C. Moabite Stone (or at least to that of Hezekiah in the 8th century B.C.), most of the Samaritan scrolls containing the whole or a part of the Pentateuch are supposed not to be older than the 10th century A.D. [J.I. Munro, _The Samaritan Pentateuch and Modern Criticism_, (London: J. Nisbet & Co., 1911)].

In 1815, the text came under the careful scrutiny of the great Hebrew scholar Gesenius. He concluded, as does this author, that it was a vulgar text with many corruptions, hence far inferior to the Masoretic Text and with little critical value. Moreover, the Samaritan text differs in matters of varying significance from the Masoretic Text in about 6,000 places. In A.D. 1867, McClintock and Strong succinctly summed the Samaritan Pentateuch's status: "This last (the Samaritan Pentateuch), however, need not come into consideration, since it is well understood that the Samaritan text, here (Genesis 5 & 10) as well as elsewhere, is merely fabricated from the Greek; and those who treat it as an independent authority only show themselves ignorant of the results of criticism on the subject". [McClintock and Strong, _Cyclopedia of Biblical Theological & Ecclesiastical Literature_, Vol. II, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1867), p. 298.]

[3] Martin Anstey, _The Romance of Bible Chronology_, (London: Marshall brothers., 1913), op. cit., p. 73-74. See chart on Anstey's p. 73.

[4] C.F. Keil, _Commentary On The Old Testament_, Trans. by James Martin, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1976), p. 123.​[End Jones]
____

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## JimmyH

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Regarding the video you posted, here is some information to consider. The book I’ll be quoting, I’ll attach below in its entirety.


Here is another point of view by Henry B. Smith, Jr., MA, MAR, in Bible and Spade
http://www.biblearchaeology.org/fil...ight+Cosner+Carter+Response+Fall+2018+BAS.pdf


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Jimmy, I came across this recently: 
Is the Septuagint a superior text for the Genesis genealogies? [contra Henry Smith]


----------



## Pergamum

Steve, 

You wrote: 

"..every one of the Patriarchs from Adam to Abraham is made to die a few years younger than his father. Could anything be more manifestly artificial?"

It seems quite natural for me and exactly what we would expect.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tom Hart

Pergamum said:


> Steve,
> 
> You wrote:
> 
> "..every one of the Patriarchs from Adam to Abraham is made to die a few years younger than his father. Could anything be more manifestly artificial?"
> 
> It seems quite natural for me and exactly what we would expect.



It would seem so to me as well. Including more of the quotation show the author Floyd Nolen Jones even admits exceptions, the presence of which make it seem to me anything but artificial.


Jerusalem Blade said:


> "with the three exceptions of Enoch, Cainan (whose life exceeds that of his father by only 5 years) and Reu (whose age at death is the same as that of his father), every one of the Patriarchs from Adam to Abraham is made to die a few years younger than his father. Could anything be more manifestly artificial?"


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

I will leave you guys to your own devices - I've had my say.


----------



## J.L. Allen

Reformed Bookworm said:


> Sounds good. I look forward to hearing their response. Hopefully, by then, I'll have worked through it myself.


I forgot to give an update, and now I’m working from my dreadful memory. He’s heard of this before and thought it should be loose in our grip. In other words, don’t divide over such a small thing. I believe he looked at this in the overall debate and wanted unity. I haven’t been able to follow up with him about the meat of the article since I don’t have a class with him this semester. That’s a bit of an anticlimactic follow up.


----------



## Logan

I had this playing in the background this morning and while some of the points brought up were compelling and interesting to consider, I disliked how quickly it went from supposition to conclusion. 

I don't think it should be a foregone conclusion that the translations were from an older version of the Hebrew text which was "correct". I don't know much about the older translations but is it possible that say, the Greek translation came first, had an error in the genealogies and the other translations came from it? Or they all came from the same source but not necessarily the "correct" one? That's just one possibility (perhaps incorrect) that occurred to me. 

Later points in the video devolved into the highly speculative (e.g., Jews disputing over genealogies meant they had altered them so Shem = Melchizedek).

How are the pyramids dated, and what would "water damage" look like on them? Even though I always assumed they were built after the flood. I know I have an abundance of historical and archaeological ignorance but it doesn't seem like hard facts or a tight case to me, and even if it is interesting to consider, I wouldn't conclude the Masoretic text is wrong.


----------



## Tom Hart

Logan said:


> what would "water damage" look like on them?



I wondered the same. After all, the exterior of the pyramids at Giza as they stand today would give no clues, as they were stripped of limestone in the 12th century.

However, if the pyramids had been submerged in the Flood, one would expect the many artefacts found inside to show some indication of it.


----------



## Pergamum

Egyptian society was built by the refugees of Atlantis.


----------



## Tom Hart

Pergamum said:


> Egyptian society was built by the refugees of Atlantis.


----------



## RamistThomist

Pergamum said:


> Egyptian society was built by the refugees of Atlantis.



I don't know how I ever missed that. That's brilliant. There is some logistics difficulty in that it's a far distance from Egypt to where Atlantis probably was. Not impossible, though.

But yeah, epistemology in ancient Egypt has some really eerie overtones with modern computer technology (hint: see the "power" button of modern computers and it's shape builds on Egyptian mathematics).

The main problem is that if you are going to posit an Atlantean civilization, you almost have to go with some Old Earth hypothesis. The timeline doesn't work, otherwise.


----------



## Tom Hart

We were having a perfectly respectable discussion.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

Where would you squeeze that Atlantis theory into Genesis 10? It's clear Egypt descended from Ham's son. 

The earliest myth about Atlantis is from Egypt. I know some have argued that Atlantis was part of the Minoan civilization (specifically on the island of Thera/Santorini which was destroyed by a volcano) and the story of it's demise came to Egypt shortly afterward. But Egypt already existed in that scenario.


----------



## RamistThomist

Puritan Sailor said:


> Where would you squeeze that Atlantis theory into Genesis 10? It's clear Egypt descended from Ham's son.
> 
> The earliest myth about Atlantis is from Egypt. I know some have argued that Atlantis was part of the Minoan civilization (specifically on the island of Thera/Santorini which was destroyed by a volcano) and the story of it's demise came to Egypt shortly afterward. But Egypt already existed in that scenario.



The main difficulty with the Atlantis myth is that Plato almost says he made it up. Now, concerning Egypt: some variants of the myth say Egyptian civilization copied elements of Atlantis, or that Atlanteans eventually made their way to Egypt. Either one works with Genesis 10.


----------



## Pergamum

BayouHuguenot said:


> I don't know how I ever missed that. That's brilliant. There is some logistics difficulty in that it's a far distance from Egypt to where Atlantis probably was. Not impossible, though.
> 
> But yeah, epistemology in ancient Egypt has some really eerie overtones with modern computer technology (hint: see the "power" button of modern computers and it's shape builds on Egyptian mathematics).
> 
> The main problem is that if you are going to posit an Atlantean civilization, you almost have to go with some Old Earth hypothesis. The timeline doesn't work, otherwise.



Jacob,

No need for an old earth for Atlantis to be real. October *23,* 4004 BC can still work.

Plato didn't say he made up Atlantis. He heard the tale from Critias, who heard it from Dropides, who heard it from the wise Solon, who traveled to Egypt and heard it direct from Egyptian priests.

The Egyptian Edfu building texts help confirm Solon's tale and tell us the same basic story - that the founders of Egypt came from the refugees from an island of the gods, and this island (destroyed in a sudden tragedy) was very advanced. A tragedy hit and they came in a boat to Egypt and tried to replicate its technology there. They chose the spot because it was special. That is why the pyramid is such a precise and amazing structure.

Solon did not even have to get his tale from Edfu. He probably got it from Nefru in Sais (a temple not there anymore due to flooding). The priest's name was supposed to have been Sonchos of Sais from later accounts. But all the ancient priests would have memorized the same canon.

People will object and say the Edfu temple is more recent than Solon, but many temples (and even the pyramids I believe) are placed on top of prior more ancient structures.

Most people assume Herodotus and Plato and others embellished. But I believe their accounts are largely reliable, they wrote what they heard. For example, Homer wrote of the Trojan War and I believe the Trojan War happened (and Schliemann did, too). Flood, Dispersion at Babel, Atlantis, giants. even fighting dragons, I believe all are based in real history.

Here is a possible hypothesis (not my own theory but mixed from others):

Joseph was in Egypt enduring the famine around 1750 BC.

Solon said Atlantis was 9,000 years prior. But maybe it was only 900 years prior. It was destroyed maybe around 1,480 BC or thereabouts. So the fouinding of Atlantis was probably several hundred years earlier by Poseidon and his sons.

The Exodus was about 1500 bc.

(from a website I follow): "Noah had three sons; Shem, Ham and Japheth. After the flood, the world was divided between these three sons.

Similarly, after Zeus overthrew Cronos, he and his two brothers, Hades and Poseidon, drew lots to determine what portion of the world each would rule. Poseidon got the sea.

Similarly, Japheth's descendants, especially Javan and his descendants, seem to be associated with ships and the isles of the sea. Almost everywhere in the Bible where you find the word Tarshish, it is associated with ships and often with gold, silver and ivory, all of which figure highly in Plato's description of Atlantis. The city of Tarshish is thought to be the Phoenician settlement of Tartesus in Spain.

Javan in Hebrew was Iawan which would seem to be the source of the term Ionian, while Kittim or Chittim would seem to refer to Cyprus, the ancient city of Citium or Kition and the inhabitants referred to in Ancient Pheonician as kt or kty. Elishah, Elissus or Elis could very well be the origin of the term Hellenes.

All island dwelling and sea-faring groups.

Atlas (for whom the Atlas mountains, the Atlantic Ocean and the "Island of Atlantis" were all named) was the eldest son of Poseidon (who was probably Japheth or his son).

Noah divided up the world and sent each son to colonize a part. Sometimes after the Flood. Jewish myths speak of Noah taking multi-year trips to settle the lands and take dominion over the earth.

The Tower of Babel was supposedly built by Nimrod, a descendant of Ham, using the descendants of Japheth as slave labor. Ham and his sons tried to take over (the ancient Jews had lots of bad things to say about the lineage of Ham. We can blame it on pure prejeduce, or maybe some of it was historical memory and their myths/histories).

After the destruction of the tower around 2200 BC (so the story goes) the 70 grandchildren of Noah spread out to colonize the then totally uninhabited world. None of the Egyptian pyramids or other structures could have been built prior to this time, and if a rival kindom had been founded in the Atlantic, it also couldn't have been founded until after 2200 BC.

So Atlantis would have been founded by Japheth/Poseidon or one of his descendants around 2200 BC. It would have existed in competition with Egypt and other Mediterranean powers from 2200 BC until about 1500 BC (700 years) at which time some calamity struck causing the plagues of Egypt, completely destroying Atlantis and setting Greece and other Mediterranean powers back to the stone age.

At that same time, 1500 BC, survivors of the catastrophe could have set sail from Northern Africa (the "Old Red Land") and settled in the American continent where legends persist of the destruction of the "Old Red Land" and the migration across the sea to the new world."

[end of the web info I copied and edited...I am trying to remember the sources, Ancient Partriarchs I think was the name of the blog].

After the Flood was the one great Ice Age and this made the oceans much lower due to more frozen water at the poles. 

The Book of Job was written during this Ice Age.

Ironically, the waters would have been warmer at that time. And the ancients sailed much of the world. They even mapped much of the world. Read about the maps of the Ancient Sea Kings.

At the end of the ice age the waters rose quickly, flooding many lands. For instance, google Doggerland (England was not always an island). From thence comes the underwater cities we see off Egypt and Japan and the tales of Mu and Lemuria and Atlantis.

A great future is for Christians to get into underwater archaeology. We will discover more and more cities under the waves.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tom Hart

Pergamum said:


> A great future is forChristians to get into underwater archaeology. We will discover more and more cities under the waves.



No need for that! It looks like you've got it all figured out already.


----------



## Pergamum

Tom Hart said:


> No need for that! It looks like you've got it all figured out already.



Tom,

Be civil, please.


----------



## Tom Hart

Pergamum said:


> Tom,
> 
> Be civil, please.



All right, then. I'll say it civilly.

Present some evidence before your conclusions, please.


----------



## Pergamum

BayouHuguenot said:


> I don't know how I ever missed that. That's brilliant. There is some logistics difficulty in that it's a far distance from Egypt to where Atlantis probably was. Not impossible, though.
> 
> But yeah, epistemology in ancient Egypt has some really eerie overtones with modern computer technology (hint: see the "power" button of modern computers and it's shape builds on Egyptian mathematics).
> 
> The main problem is that if you are going to posit an Atlantean civilization, you almost have to go with some Old Earth hypothesis. The timeline doesn't work, otherwise.



Jacob,

As to the location of Atlantis, check out this recreation of the world according to Herodotus and see Atlantis on the left just south of the Atlas Mountains. 

http://zenpundit.com/?p=3250

I see no reason to question it. There was vast climactic change in the Sahara, whale bones found in the desert and ancient myths/traditions of lakes throughout where the Sahara now lies. 

The ancients were also a lot more advanced than admitted. There was trans-atlantic travel long before the "Great Age of Discovery": 

(1) Herodotus proves the Phoeniceans circled Africa 

(in 4.42 he speaks of the sun direction, "the Phoenicians made a statement which I myself do not believe (though others may if they wish) to the effect that they sailed west around the southern end of Africa, they had the sun on their right".

This is exactly what they would have seen going west around the Cape of Good Hope at the southern tip of Africa, because the sun appears to the right when traveling westward in the southern hemisphere, but how could Herodotus have known this at such an early date if the journey did not take place."), 

and 

(2) There is South American cocaine found in the tombs of Egyptian mummies. 

(3) The megalithic cultures all had too similar of features to have developed independently 

(anthropological "diffusionism" has been poo-poo'd for years, but I believe it to be true). 

In school we learn of the mystery of the Late Bronze Age Collapse. They set it at about 1200 BC. But around 1500 BC is when the one single real Ice Age ended, causing massive disasters and upheavals, setting civilization back (and helping the people of God in Egypt).


----------



## Tom Hart

Pergamum said:


> I see no reason to question [Herodotus's rendering of the world].



The historian's duty is to question. _Ιστορία_ is, literally, "inquiry" or "investigation". Nothing ought to be taken for granted; mere speculation (especially speculation without a shred of actual evidence!) will never suffice.

Of course Herodotus should be questioned. And so should any novel ideas of sunken continents. (And those are quite novel indeed.)

Not everything on the internet is true. And sometimes even the History Channel gets it wrong.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Pergamum

Tom Hart said:


> The historian's duty is to question. _Ιστορία_ is, literally, "inquiry" or "investigation". Nothing ought to be taken for granted; mere speculation (especially speculation without a shred of actual evidence!) will never suffice.
> 
> Of course Herodotus should be questioned. And so should any novel ideas of sunken continents. (And those are quite novel indeed.)
> 
> Not everything on the internet is true. And sometimes even the History Channel gets it wrong.



Most of the time the wisdom of the ancients is to be preferred over the pedantic sarcasm of the moderns.


----------



## Tom Hart

Pergamum said:


> Most of the time the wisdom of the ancients is to be preferred over the pedantic sarcasm of the moderns.



"Most of the time." "The ancients." "The moderns."

Your statement is impossibly broad.


----------



## Pergamum

Another example of where Herodotus was doubted and then proved right was about the very construction of the pyramids:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...xiyOb4T44yAOb4_Cyt7pyseh7ODefVfzouWMKFkpGacPY

As usual, the Inquiries of Herodotus were dismissed for years. And then...archaeology suddenly confirms what was already known to the ancients and already told to us by Herodotus and other historians of the past. 

In general, the accounts of the ancients are ignored as fable or incorrect. AND...in general, these ancient historians are usually proved correct in due time. 

This is a good reason to have kids read the source material in school instead of what modern scholars think about the source material. 


And, just this week: 

https://www.theguardian.com/science...eck-herodotus-archaeologists-thonis-heraclion

"In the fifth century BC, the Greek historian Herodotus visited Egypt and wrote of unusual river boats on the Nile. Twenty-three lines of his _Historia_, the ancient world’s first great narrative history, are devoted to the intricate description of the construction of a “baris”.

For centuries, scholars have argued over his account because there was no archaeological evidence that such ships ever existed. Now there is. A “fabulously preserved” wreck in the waters around the sunken port city of Thonis-Heracleion has revealed just how accurate the historian was."

WAIT?!? Did someone else just say "Sunken port city" under the sea?

Reactions: Informative 2


----------



## Tom Hart

Pergamum said:


> This is a good reason to have kids read the source material in school instead of what modern scholars think about the source material.



I absolutely agree. Too rarely do students touch primary sources, even in the universities. The secondary sources are dangerous nowadays, tainted as they are with Marxism or identity nonsense. (I have plenty of first-hand experience with this at a top university in Canada.)

What I am saying is that we do not simply believe everything Herodotus (or any other historian) says. Evidence is needed. Knowing men exaggerate and lie, we approach with doubt.

Very often it must be left to archaeology to supply the physical proof. Or perhaps there is no other mention in any other written sources. One mention in an ancient source does not truth make.

Conversely, we ought not discount what the ancient historians say. The writings of Tacitus are a mine of knowledge of Gauls and Germans of his day. But what Tacitus says should be prefaced with "Tacitus says".

Ancients had their biases, too. They had arguments to make and bones to pick. History is not neutral.

Thanks for sharing those links, by the way. Great stuff.


----------



## lynnie

I finished reading Charles Hapgood's "Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings" last night. I skipped over a great deal of the mathematical technicals.

Some ancient civilization mapped out the whole world before Babylon or Egypt or Sumeria, and back when Antarctica was not ice covered. They measured longitude in the unknown past, well before that calculation was rediscovered in the 1700s. Columbus had their old maps but due to the ignorance about longitude though he'd hit Asia.

The author is typical old earth, but that's OK, I just read it knowing that it is all from soon after the flood when those first generations mapped the world. If you want historical evidence, check out the maps.


----------



## Tom Hart

lynnie said:


> I finished reading Charles Hapgood's "Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings" last night. I skipped over a great deal of the mathematical technicals.



Charles Hapgood might not be the most reliable author of history. I haven't read anything by him, but the book you mention, _Ancient Sea Kings_, is, to put it delicately (or civilly), not the most conventional history.



lynnie said:


> Some ancient civilization mapped out the whole world before Babylon or Egypt or Sumeria, and back when Antarctica was not ice covered. They measured longitude in the unknown past, well before that calculation was rediscovered in the 1700s. Columbus had their old maps but due to the ignorance about longitude though[t] he'd hit Asia.



Columbus had their old maps? No, he didn't. No maps survive from the ancient world. We have Ptolemy's written account, though, in his _Geography_.



lynnie said:


> The author is typical old earth



Hapgood is not that. He thought the Acambaro figures proved humans and dinosaurs lived side by side. (They were a hoax, in any case.)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acámbaro_figures

Hapgood wasn't even Christian, so it's odd to call him a proponent of "typical old earth" views. He wrote an entire book about the messages he received, via a medium, form certain famous dead people, as well as, for good measure, the Hindu god Vishnu. Oh, and Jesus.



lynnie said:


> If you want historical evidence, check out the maps.



Hapgood's book is hypothesis, not evidence. The maps presented are from the 16th century A.D. Even if they are based on certain ancient maps, that is hardly conclusive, since, as I've said, there's no reason to assume ancient people were somehow right on every point of cartography, and still there should be allowance for errors in transmission.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum

lynnie said:


> I finished reading Charles Hapgood's "Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings" last night. I skipped over a great deal of the mathematical technicals.
> 
> Some ancient civilization mapped out the whole world before Babylon or Egypt or Sumeria, and back when Antarctica was not ice covered. They measured longitude in the unknown past, well before that calculation was rediscovered in the 1700s. Columbus had their old maps but due to the ignorance about longitude though he'd hit Asia.
> 
> The author is typical old earth, but that's OK, I just read it knowing that it is all from soon after the flood when those first generations mapped the world. If you want historical evidence, check out the maps.



Yes. That is a good book. 

I believe the Megalithic cultures are all related, and the Megaliths were star maps,

(as the patterns of the heavens is above, so below as well...we see this in Scripture as well. The Pyramids lined up. There were three stars in Orion's Belt, three *pyramids which lined up*. That fertile plain was a mirror of the heavens. 

...and the Hebrew tabernacle was also supposed to be a pattern of the heavens. For every holy thing, the kingdoms of the world have a satanic imitation, they subvert the truth and twist it a bit).

---

We are finally awakening to the fact that our ancient ancestors were our intellectual superiors. We merely stand on their shoulders.

This so confuses modern man that he has to make theories of alien intervention to be preferred before he will believe that the first generations of mankind were better than us, and us degraded. 

The Ancient Aliens theory is a result of man seeing part of the truth but not being able to believe the bible and running to other theories. The ancients were brilliant, therefore, ET must have helped them. Of course, the Jewish traditions do say that the fallan angels did help them, too.

Instead of evolution pushing forward, the Creation groans and degrades. I have studied out this issue because I have people keep calling my tribe "primitive" - but the tribe I work with is likely several hundred years old at very most (they split and divide and split and divide until they don't even really make their own music). 

These tribes are not primitive...they are merely degraded and have fallen into barbarity.

Sumer in 2200 BC was more technologically advanced than some tribes of interior Africa and Melanesia in the 20th Century.

--

p.s. Please research ancient "Ley Lines" if the Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings intrigued you. These Ley Lines, such as found in England, show how well the ancients mapped vast landscapes. 

For example: Research the St Michael's Ley, one of the longest, aligned along the path of the sun on 8 May (The feast day of St. Michael). It passes through several megalithic sites before it reaches "Glastonbury, (artificially shaped to follow the direction of the ley), and then on to the Avebury/Silbury complex, both significant English landscape features." I believe the later Catholic faith used pre-existing astronomical knowledge, probably taken from the Druids (who might have had a connection with Egypt and it's knowledge/religion). For those who scoff at me, you can research how most Western men have the same DNA as found in many pharoah's, who sometimes had red hair, and there is also the myth/tradition of Queen Scota, the daughter of the pharoah and the Egyptian mother of the Scottish people.


----------



## Pergamum

Tom Hart said:


> Charles Hapgood might not be the most reliable author of history. I haven't read anything by him, but the book you mention, _Ancient Sea Kings_, is, to put it delicately (or civilly), not the most conventional history.
> 
> 
> 
> Columbus had their old maps? No, he didn't. No maps survive from the ancient world. We have Ptolemy's written account, though, in his _Geography_.
> 
> 
> 
> Hapgood is not that. He thought the Acambaro figures proved humans and dinosaurs lived side by side. (They were a hoax, in any case.)
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acámbaro_figures
> 
> Hapgood wasn't even Christian, so it's odd to call him a proponesnt of "typical old earth" views. He wrote an entire book about the messages he received, via a medium, form certain famous dead people, as well as, for good measure, the Hindu god Vishnu. Oh, and Jesus.
> 
> 
> 
> Hapgood's book is hypothesis, not evidence. The maps presented are from the 16th century A.D. Even if they are based on certain ancient maps, that is hardly conclusive, since, as I've said, there's no reason to assume ancient people were somehow right on every point of cartography, and still there should be allowance for errors in transmission.



You deny that humans and dinosaurs walked side by side?

The maps mentioned in the book are copies and intepretations of older maps. Your argument is like saying the bible isn't true because we don't have the originals. Hapgood's Christian faith is not consequential.

The construction of many ancient megaliths and the pyramids were very precise. There was a sacred math involved and one that proves that the ancients knew the roundness of the earth, it's measurement, and even its rotation and the precession of the equinoxes. This math was later passed on to Pythagoras and basically became a math cult.

The ancients even used frequencies in their construction so that the sound would vibrate at a certain resonance. This has led to some New Age theories, but the basic fact seems true, that the ancients studied resonance, sound, harmonies, frequencies as well, and saw that some were harmful or hurtful to the health of the human body. 

https://phys.org/wire-news/16438660...acoustics-to-alter-consciousness-and-spe.html
"Ancient Man Used “Super-Acoustics” to Alter Consciousness (... and speak with the dead?)"

They sat and chanted and took drugs in these vaults as part of their religion. 

Jerusalem Blade created a post about the relationship with drugs and demons. He focused on pot and weakened his argument (though they are cultivating stronger strains now), but hallucinogenic drugs have been used by ancients and to speak with spirits and modern day drug users speak of the "machine elves" who talk to them on a trip.


----------



## Tom Hart

Pergamum said:


> You deny that humans and dinosaurs walked side by side?



I said no such thing. I am a young earth creationist. I did point out, however, that Hapgood was apparently not an old earth type.



Pergamum said:


> The maps mentioned in the book are copies and intepretations of older maps. Your argument is like saying the bible isn't true because we don't have the originals.



Not at all. Unless you believe ancient maps (and Herodotus?) to be Holy Scripture.



Pergamum said:


> Hapgood's Christian faith is not consequential.



You're right. I said, "Hapgood wasn't even Christian, so it's odd to call him a proponent of 'typical old earth' views."



Pergamum said:


> The construction of many ancient megaliths and the pyramids were very precise. There was a sacred math involved and one that proves that the ancients knew the roundness of the earth, it's measurement, and even its rotation and the precession [sic] of the equinoxes. This math was later passed on to Pythagoras and basically became a math cult.



Yes.



Pergamum said:


> The ancients even used frequencies in their construction so that the sound would vibrate at a certain resonance. This has led to some New Age theories, but the basic fact seems true, that the ancients studied resonance, sound, harmonies, frequencies as well, and saw that some were harmful or hurtful to the health of the human body.



Yes.



Pergamum said:


> They sat and chanted and took drugs in these vaults as part of their religion.



Yes.



Pergamum said:


> Jerusalem Blade created a post about the relationship with drugs and demons. He focused on pot and weakened his argument (though they are cultivating stronger strains now), but hallucinogenic drugs have been used by ancients and to speak with spirits and modern day drug users speak of the "machine elves" who talk to them on a trip.



OK, now we've gone off topic.


----------



## Logan

It would be nice to see a map of these purported ley lines that actually include all the rest of the cathedrals that could have been on a line. As it is, it looks like someone took a linear regression and threw out all the points outside a certain deviation.


----------



## Pergamum

Logan said:


> It would be nice to see a map of these purported ley lines that actually include all the rest of the cathedrals that could have been on a line. As it is, it looks like someone took a linear regression and threw out all the points outside a certain deviation.




From a blog:

"The term “ley lines” is believed to have been coined by British amateur archeologist Alfred Watkins to describe the strange alignment of ancient significant places – both manmade and natural – in straight lines. After confirming his theory with a map, he described what he saw:

The apparent existence of numerous ancient straight trackways formed a network of intersecting straight lines stretching from one end of Britain to the other.

He called them “ley lines” because the names of many of the places crossed by them ended in “ley.” Watkins claimed the ley lines were aligned with the sun at the solstices and that gave them extra credibility and possible spiritual significance."

Scientists have sought to bdeunk the lines by appealing to other "coincidences" such as producing aligned maps of Woolworth stores. But if towns developed along roads, which developed along previous roads, which developed along established lines of pagan sites, then many stores can also be found to be aligned as well because they are in towns (which are aligned along modern roads, which are aligned along previous roads often, which are aligned along established lines of pagan sites).


----------



## lynnie

Hey Perg.

I've read about Ley lines a while ago and as I recall they were related to magnetic force lines. But I'll have to look it up.

Did you read "Secrets of the Lost Races"? Great book. The archaeology of ooparts- out of place tech in old strata layers, even in seams of coal. The ancients had airplanes, rockets, nuclear power (or bombs), and some sort of lost knowledge ability to lift huge blocks of stone. Noah had electric lights on the ark. 

It is a great pity that evolutionary theory has deluded the masses into thinking we've been slowly evolving technology, as opposed to enormous progress before the flood and then up until at least Babel. 

I also enjoyed Chris Dunn's book on Giza, Power Plant. He sure makes a good case on how the pyramid harnessed energy and used it. Burial tomb......LOL. 

Hope you are feeling better!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Logan

Oh, I read up on ley lines, I understand how they can seem compelling, but as an engineer who works with data and particularly stochastic (random) systems, I could generate you a random scatterplot and start connecting lines and lo and behold, with a course enough resolution, you'd start seeing patterns appear in the lines. 

It's just not compelling to me, particularly when they throw out the data that doesn't fit the line.


----------



## Tom Hart

lynnie said:


> The ancients had airplanes, rockets, nuclear power (or bombs), and some sort of lost knowledge ability to lift huge blocks of stone. Noah had electric lights on the ark.





lynnie said:


> [Chris Dunn] sure makes a good case on how the pyramid harnessed energy and used it. Burial tomb......LOL.



The tricky thing about these theories is lack of any evidence.


----------



## Pergamum

lynnie said:


> Hey Perg.
> 
> I've read about Ley lines a while ago and as I recall they were related to magnetic force lines. But I'll have to look it up.
> 
> Did you read "Secrets of the Lost Races"? Great book. The archaeology of ooparts- out of place tech in old strata layers, even in seams of coal. The ancients had airplanes, rockets, nuclear power (or bombs), and some sort of lost knowledge ability to lift huge blocks of stone. Noah had electric lights on the ark.
> 
> It is a great pity that evolutionary theory has deluded the masses into thinking we've been slowly evolving technology, as opposed to enormous progress before the flood and then up until at least Babel.
> 
> I also enjoyed Chris Dunn's book on Giza, Power Plant. He sure makes a good case on how the pyramid harnessed energy and used it. Burial tomb......LOL.
> 
> Hope you are feeling better!



I think some books take things too far.

But I do think the ancients were advanced.

As for moving huge blocks of stone, I have read those theories of soound-wave or magnetic help, or possibly just special sand as a lubricant to help them slide. 

There does seem to be the possibility of ancient lighting/electricity. I mean, many homeschooling kids have lit up bulbs with potatoes or lemons and wiring, right? 

I also believe Tesla might have produced a small earthquake with his experiments. 

I do not think there were ancient airplanes, but I do think there were very sea-worthy boats to make oceanic voyages (not necessarily big, but sturdy). I believe the Ancient Sea Kings were the sons and grandsons of Noah (they obviously has some knowledge of boat-building).

I believe in Atlantis.

The wisdom of the ancients primarily consisted of precise mathematics and knowledge of the globe that was only rediscovered later. They all knew the earth was round and the Pyramid was a scale model of a hemisphere of the earth. They knew the diameter of the earth even.

The lies we learned in school about Columbus have misled many, he sailed on a mistaken knowledge that the globe was smaller than the ancient accounts.

Jewish tradition says the fallen angels gave us some of this knowledge. And I think Noah schooled his sons and took the command to take dominion over the earth seriously and trained his children in these things.

I believe the Ancient Alien theory is false...but not silly. They are trying to reconcile some strange truths. Replace Alien with demon or super-smart son of Noah and and throw out all talk of aliens and starships and then we can move forward.

One example is the knowledge of the precession of the equinoxes which is extremely difficult to observe. If the path of a certain star moves exceedingly slow and almost imperceptibly through the sky over thousands of years, it is possible that humans derived this knowledge from divine or supernatural sources. The Sumerians believed this, of course.


----------



## Pergamum

Logan said:


> Oh, I read up on ley lines, I understand how they can seem compelling, but as an engineer who works with data and particularly stochastic (random) systems, I could generate you a random scatterplot and start connecting lines and lo and behold, with a course enough resolution, you'd start seeing patterns appear in the lines.
> 
> It's just not compelling to me, particularly when they throw out the data that doesn't fit the line.


Yes, there is a possibility of confirmation bias.

But the ancient druids maintained ley lines in their religion. Paths of the stars, sun, and moon were important to them and following these paths on key dates could have produced some of the very straight paths that migh have lined up with the sun, moon, or the star during annual religious pilgrimages of their faithful.


----------



## Tom Hart

Pergamum said:


> But the ancient druids maintained ley lines in their religion. Paths of the stars, sun, and moon were important to them and following these paths on key dates could have produced some of the very straight paths that migh have lined up with the sun, moon, or the star during annual religious pilgrimages of their faithful.



What is your source for this? I'm somewhat versed in the Celts and I have always understood that precious little is known about druidic religion.

Many cultures, though, even ones we might consider barbaric, have tracked the sun, moon and stars and aligned their buildings and practices to them.


----------



## Pergamum

Tom Hart said:


> What is your source for this? I'm somewhat versed in the Celts and I have always understood that precious little is known about druidic religion.
> 
> Many cultures, though, even ones we might consider barbaric, have tracked the sun, moon and stars and aligned their buildings and practices to them.



Julius Caesar wrote that the Druids, "hold long discussions about the heavenly bodies and their movements, the size of the universe and the Earth, and the physical constitution of the world, and the power and properties of the gods; and they instruct young men in all these subjects." 

Caesar continues, "The Celts all claim to be descended from the god of the underworld whom they call Father Dis. For this reason they measure time not by the day but by nights [and by Lunar months], and in celebrating birthdays, the first of the month and New Year's Day, they go on the principle that the day begins after the end of night."

It is common knowledge that the Druid's had Sun ceremonies and tracked the times, made monuments to be used in conjunction with their equinoxes and solstices. For example, "Stonehenge is carefully aligned on a sight-line that points to the winter solstice sunset." Such lines were important to the druids and sacred sites were built along them.


----------



## Tom Hart

In Post #75, you said,


Pergamum said:


> the ancient druids maintained ley lines in their religion.


In Post #77, you said,


Pergamum said:


> Such lines were important to the druids and sacred sites were built along them.



You have merely reasserted your assertion without a source. Caesar has nothing to say about ley lines.

And Stonehenge is Pre-Celtic.


----------



## Smeagol

Well @JimmyH , I thought we might get more manuscript discussion, but it looks like we have gotten a little of this:

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Pergamum

Here is the BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/gloucestershire/content/articles/2005/06/29/ley_lines_feature.shtml

"Ley lines, also known as "leys" and "dragon lines" are phenomena most people have heard of but few really understand. Indeed it would be fair to say that no-one understands them fully, as they remain largely unexplained.

Are there ley lines in Gloucestershire? If so, do they really 'pass through' allegedly haunted places?

From what we do know, a ley line seems to be a straight line that carries an altered form of the earth's magnetic field, however it is proving difficult to define that power even to this day.

It has been claimed that birds, fish and animals use them as 'compasses', helping them find direction back to breeding grounds and to warmer climates during winter months. They have also been said to be vast prehistoric trade routes.

An article in New Scientist magazine, published in 1987, suggested that species as diverse as pigeons, whales, bees and even bacteria can navigate using the earth's magnetic field.

It is thought that a tissue containing a substance called magnetite is responsible for this.

Magnetite enables living creatures to sense magnetic changes and has been found in human tissue linked to the ethmoid bone in the front of the skull."


The ancients took dominion over the earth by mapping it and placing sites at specific points, often for astronomical reasons. And most archeo-astronomy had a religious element, which is likely if it was pased deon from the very ancient onees who began to be perceived as God (Ham as Chronos and Japehth as Poseidon, etc).



Then there is this:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8461290/Sat-nav-Prehistoric-man-used-crude-sat-nav.html

"They were able to travel between settlements with pinpoint accuracy thanks to a complex network of hilltop monuments.

These covered much of southern England and Wales and included now famous landmarks such as Stonehenge and The Mount.

New research suggests that they were built on a connecting grid of isosceles triangles that 'point' to the next site.

Many are 100 miles or more away, but GPS co-ordinates show all are accurate to within 100 metres.

This provided a simple way for ancient Britons to navigate successfully from A to B without the need for maps.

According to historian and writer Tom Brooks, the findings show that Britain's Stone Age ancestors were ''sophisticated engineers'' and far from a barbaric race."

Also check out the Belinus Line which mapped Britain north and south.


----------



## Pergamum

Grant Jones said:


> Well @JimmyH , I thought we might get more manuscript discussion, but it looks like have gotten a little of this:
> 
> View attachment 5999


Where have aliens been mentioned here?


----------



## JimmyH

Grant Jones said:


> Well @JimmyH , I thought we might get more manuscript discussion, but it looks like have gotten a little of this:
> 
> View attachment 5999


I'm waiting for the haunted houses and ghosts to come into the conversation.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Smeagol

Pergamum said:


> Where have aliens been mentioned here?


Right here:
https://puritanboard.com/threads/the-flood-3000-bc-or-before.97261/page-3#post-1193734

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Tom Hart

Pergamum said:


> Here is the BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/gloucestershire/content/articles/2005/06/29/ley_lines_feature.shtml



See the end of the article:

"This article is user-generated content (ie. external contribution) expressing a personal opinion, not the views of BBC Gloucestershire."

So, just some guy with ideas of paranormal activity. Three people, actually, all "paranormal investigators" or something along those lines.



Pergamum said:


> Then there is this:
> 
> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8461290/Sat-nav-Prehistoric-man-used-crude-sat-nav.html



What does this have to do with ley lines, or with anything we've been discussing?

By the way, magnetic fields are real, and they are a plausible explanation for animal migrations. But they have nothing whatsoever to do with this topic.

Also, you are right in saying that archaeoastronomy involves a religious element. Indeed, astronomy/astrology has historically been inseparable from religion (until quite recently, actually). But, once again, that really has nothing to do with this business about ley lines. Or anything else.

What I'm seeing so far is that ley lines are very popular among enthusiasts of supposed paranormal activity. What I'm not seeing is any proof.


----------

