Why I think Noah's "erets" flood occurred around 9,000 - 12,000 B.C. and ended in Turkey.

Trust the Bible DOT com ^ | 2002 | Wayne McKellips

[vannrox]

Why I think Noah's "erets" flood occurred around 9,000 - 12,000 B.C. and ended in Turkey.

Intro: For a long time I thought the flood waters destroyed all air breathing life on earth, except for those in the ark. That view has problems. I now believe the flood, at the minimum, filled the land of Turkey up with water. As 1st Samuel 30:16 shows sometimes "the whole earth" or "all the earth" can refer to a country or land area. The word translated land or earth in 1st Samuel 30:16 is the main one of the two words used in Genesis when talking about the extent of Noah's flood. Either Hebrew word "erets" or "adamah" can refer to a country, land, or earth. In the New Testament "world" from "cosmos" can refer to world in a narrow or in a broad way. John 12:19 is an example where it was meant in a narrow sense. I also don't think the flood was caused by an overflowing river or why build an ark? Why not just move yourself and the animals to higher land? I think the flood covered the tops of the mountains Noah was able to observe.
By the way, by Wayne Mckellips. Last updated 16 Apr 2002. Please copy and share but don't sell.
Note: Various mountains and other visible parts of the earth were covered by water in the past. However, they were not all covered by water at the same time! Different areas of the earth were covered by water at different times.
(1) Why were many caves with drawings and movable art made by man, blocked around 10,000 B.C. to 12,000 B.C. "Images of the Ice Age" by Paul G Bahn. Page 56. Third paragraph down. I think many of the caves became blocked due to the flexing of the earth's crust as Mars caused crustal tides in the earth, around Spain & Turkey, etc.
(2) Did Noah's "erets" flood cover the whole Earth or the whole land? "Erets" and "adamah" the Hebrew words normally translated Earth in our English Bibles when talking about the flood can also be translated "country" or "land." I believe "erets" and "adamah" are better translated land when talking about the area the flood covered. But I also believe the flood probably affected the whole Earth.
(3) How much of the Earth was covered by flood waters when Noah's flood occurred? I see two possibilities.
A) Primarily Turkey, and of course the area on the opposite side of the Earth. I think this idea is correct if Mars made about 2 and 1/4 very elliptical geostationary orbits around the Earth before Mars was pulled close enough to the Earth that it reached escape velocity. The Bible tells us the ark landed in the mountains of Ararat. The mountains of Ararat refer to an area, not necessarily Mount Ararat. At that time, Mars was not over Turkey. Mars was over the part of the Earth that was bulging out. Turkey was part of the Earth that was sunk in some. However, the waters of the oceans, particular the Mediterranean Sea flooded over the mountains of Turkey as the waters sought to level out. Then, after Mars reached escape velocity it proceeded on, leaving the Earth. The waters from the oceans returned back to the oceans, except for the flood waters that were trapped in Turkey which is surrounded on all sides by Mountains. Eventually, Noah found himself in the ark inside a big slowly leaking bowl we call Turkey. He proceeded to record his captain's log from inside the ark in Turkey. He noted that it rained for 40 days and nights.
B) A great deal of the Earth, if Mars made between 40 and 150 very elliptical geostationary orbits around the Earth before Mars was pulled close enough to the Earth so it reached escape velocity. Genesis 7:11 says the fountains of the great deep (the oceans) and the windows of heaven (the sky) were opened on the 17th of the 2nd month. Genesis 7:12 says it rained for 40 days and nights. Genesis 7:17 says the flood was on the earth for 40 days. Genesis 7:24 says the waters prevailed for 150 days on the earth. Genesis 8:1 says God made a wind go over the earth and the waters subsided. Genesis 8:2 says the fountains of the deep (the oceans) and the windows of heaven (the sky) were stopped. Genesis 8:3 says after 150 days the waters were abated or decreased. Genesis 8:4 says the ark rested (probably moored via anchor according to David Fasold in "The Ark of Noah") on the 17th of the 7th month. That was 150 days after the start of the flood. I believe we know the approximately landing point of the ark but where was the launching point of the ark? Was the ark launched from Turkey, Spain, or perhaps Tiahuanaco in Bolovia in South America? I first heard of the idea the ark's lifting off point may have been Tiahuanaco in Bolovia in David Fasold's book, "The Ark of Noah." I think Mars made between 40 and 150 orbits around the Earth before the gravity of probably Jupiter, in this case, finally pulled Mars close enough to the Earth that Mars reached escape velocity. According to this idea, the orbit of Mars around the Earth wasn't exactly geostationary. Thus the flood waters and the ark gradually moved Eastward or Westward from the ark's launching point to it's resting (mooring) site in Turkey. Gilbert de Jong presents evidence from Plato and other sources that Bolovia and a series of Islands between Asia and South America were destroyed in 9600 BC. You can read what Plato wrote about Atlantis by clicking on page 2 of Timaeus. Tablet eleven of Gilgamesh by John Gardner and John Maier describes the flood Utnapishtim survived by using a reed-wall house to construct an ark. Utnapishtim's flood story includes a dove, a swallow, a crow, and a plant eaten to make the old young again. Atlantis has more interesting evidence about the possible location of Atlantis in Bolivia in South America. Tiahuanaco and the Deluge contains information about a preflood(?) settlement under the lake near Tiahuanaco, a 290 day preflood calendar, etc.
(3) Why is the oldest know town dated around 6500 B.C. in Turkey? (First paragraph under History.)
(4) Why are the oldest farming communities in Europe dated by radiocarbon as around 6200 B.C. and younger? "European Prehistory" by Sarunas Milisauskas C 1978 by Academic Press, Inc. Page 47.
(5) Why can't we date the flood using the Genesis genealogies? Because the Bible shows us there are gaps in the Biblical genealogies.
(6) It's interesting that Professor Alexander Tollmann, a geologist, also thinks the flood was around 12,000 years ago. However, he thinks a large comet hit the earth. He points to two discoveries to back up his claim. Like Patten, he thinks part of the ozone layer was destroyed at the time of Noah's flood. As Patten points out in his book "The Biblical Flood and the Ice Epoch", and his video "Cataclycism From Space 2800 B.C." Ozone in earth's upper atmosphere shields life on earth's surface from the destructive short wave radiation coming from the sun. However, any ozone in our breathable environment is very toxic and causes extreme loss of longevity.
Before the flood men lived about 900 years. After the flood men only lived about 70 years. The longevity of the patriarchs before the flood many have been caused by a plant. How so? The ends of our chromosomes are capped by telomeres. Normal cells cannot divide unless their telomeres are long enough. Normal aging reduces the length of a chromosome's telomeres. Eventually, the telomeres become too short for the cell to recognize them. Then the cell dies without being replaced. The enzyme telomerase, when coded for by the cell, helps keep and restore telomeres to their proper length. Before Noah's "erets" flood this special plant many have supplied or activated the enzyme telomerase. It could also be there was a plant that supplied compounds like CoQ10, Alpha Lipoic Acid, etc. After the flood, this plant may have become more scarce and thus less eaten, until the use of it finally stopped.
It seems it is also possible for a severe enough impact to change summer to winter as well as cause an ice age. This info was at http://www.access.digex.net~medved/ice9 (I can't find it now.) As Charles Ginenthal pointed out in the above link there are craters in the North Sea, the Aegean, the Gulf of Mexica, the Bering Sea, the South China Sea, the Baltic, etc.
You can read more about Professor Tollmann's evidences and idea at http://www.nando.net/newsroom/ntn/health/042296/health11_25615.html.
There is an article by Flavio Barbiero which presents some evidence that 11,600 years ago some astronomical catastrophy happen that caused our last recent ice age and the Magnetic Poles of the earth to shift. "The FLOOD" Appendix B and "The Curse" Appendix A have more scientific evidences supporting the idea that Noah's Flood occurred around 10,000 years ago.
(7) Why did many animals especially in North America but also in Europe, South America, Africa and Asia become extinct around 9,000 B.C. Did many of these larger animals, including mammoths and sabor toothed tigers, die off as the result of a sudden ice age which occurred around 10,000 B.C.? Maybe so, maybe not. There is a good article at Talk Origins on "Ice Core Dating" by Matt Brinkman. Concerning the Antarctica, Paul Heinrich has written about the Oronteus Finaeus Map of 1532 and the Phillip Buache Map of 1737.
(8) Glenn Morton reveals the entire geologic column is found in proper order at 24 different locations. Glenn, a Bible believing Christian, examines this evidence, and shows Noah's flood covered the whole "erets," land or country, but not the whole earth. However, Glenn doesn't think the flood was in Turkey. You can read where and when Glenn Morton believes Noah's flood occurred. That informations about 3/4 of the way down the article.
(9) According to the Hebrew text Noah's ark may have been covered with "gopher ets" reed stalks which were evidently covered primarily with magma or lava which probably had pumice, and natrons or salt compounds in it. This evidently resulted in a cement like covering which was very strong, light, and waterproof. The VHS video "The Ark of Noah" shows a section of this covering which was found near where some think the remains of Noah's ark are 17 miles south of Mt Ararat at the base of Al Judi. This section looks like it has the ribs of stalks inside it. Since the reed stalks were once living I suggest these reeds be dated by a radiometric dating method like carbon-14. It should be easy to determine if this is a hoax or if it might actually be a section of siding that covered Noah's ark. The radiometric date of the reeds if not a hoax should help us to determine when Noah's flood actually occurred. Would someone who is an expert in this arrange to have the reeds inside one of these sections dated by carbon-14? The "Ark of Noah" by David Fasold covers exactly how the ark was probably built with the bundles of reed stalks in great detail. Dr Thor Heyerdahl oversaw the construction of two reed boats in 1969-1970. In his first reed boat he and his crew sailed almost 3000 miles while his second reed boat sailed over 3000 miles. Lake Titicaca in Bolovia has floating totora reeds which some use to make reed boats.
In closing this article I would like to direct you to "The Flood Is Found" by D. Laing at Mysteries of the Bible. D. Laing believes geological evidence for Noah's "erets" flood has been found in the Black Sea Basin, which dates the flood at around 5,500 B.C. "The Flood Is Found" is a very informative and thought provoking article. However, I currently think the flood was around 9,000 - 12,000 B.C. It may also be possible that Noah's flood occurred around 10,000 B.C. and another flood occurred later around 5,500 B.C. Also, Glenn Morton has an article titled, "Why the Black Sea is not the Site of Noah's Flood." Remember you can read where and when Glenn Morton believes Noah's flood occurred. I'm linking to these articles because we are after the truth of when and where Noah's "erets" flood occurred.

Back to the start of "Reasons You Can Trust The Bible" at www.trustthebible.com

[RightWhale]

Mars shows evidence of such tidal attraction. The rest is way over on the speculation side of the scale.

[TomT in NJ]

Is this Wayne McKellips guy on CRACK? I do believe that a Great Flood occurred sometime in the past. There is credible archeological evidence in the Black Sea area. But to claim that Mars caused the flood??? There is no way that Mars was ever in Earth orbit or anywhere near the Earth during the solar system's 4 to 5 billion year history, especially this recently. Just imagine how bright it would be in the night sky. And it would cause more than tidal floods.

[T. P. Pole]

My general response to the "whole earth vs just the neighborhood" flood question is, if it was just the neighborhood, why didn't God just tell Noah to move?

After glancing at the rest, I have to say that I don't quite follow his point.

[billybudd]

God did tell Noah to move - on an Ark. Remember, they didn't have planes in those days, so they couldn't get very far.

[E=MC²]

...why didn't God just tell Noah to move?

LOL...that sure was a lot of work building the ark and loading all those animals if the flood was really only a lake!

[billybudd]

Wow, never seen such a steaming pile of BS. This guy should try doing the math before posting his theory. But that would disprove his wacked-out ideas...too bad. I love it when these wackos attempt to prove their theory, not by just showing us the simple proof for it, but by listing a whole lotta "facts", most of which are completely irrelevant, in the hope that we'll be so overwhelmed by his intellectual fortitude that we'll buy into his theory.

[mcsparkie]

It is easier for God to flood the whole earth, just like He said, than it would be for Him to lie about what He did. Nothing is impossible to God, except to lie to His people.

[RightWhale]

Nothing is impossible to God, except to lie to His people

When did the All-knowing, All-powerful, Limitless and Illimitable God become unable to do something that even His creations do every day?

[bzrd]

There is the theory of planet X, which is probably [if it exists] a brown-dwarf companion of the sun, which would make ours a binary system. As the theory goes, this brown dwarf has a very elliptical orbit around the sun, with a period of about 3600 yrs. At one of the close encounters with the solar system is supposedly collided with the alleged parent planet of Mars, which if the theory is true, was at one time a moon and not a planet.

The collision produced what is known currently as the astroid belt between the orbits of earth and Mars. Interestingly, recently it has been found that Mars had ice only on one side of it, such as one might expect if it were in a lunar-type orbit around the parent planet, always presenting the same "face" towards the mother planet.

At any rate, it is thought by some, that Mars was thrown into a very close proximity orbit to earth, perhaps even being trapped in the earth's gravitational field, thus causing periodic catastrophic tidal effects.

It all seems quite plausible, especially considering that Mars was known in ancient times as the planet [or god] of war.

Is this true? Who knows.

Brian.

[cake_crumb]

Oooooooooo....you are gonna get FLAMED for this!!!!

If it'll make you feel any better, I've always been a proponent of a localized (to that region), massive, catastrophic flood which caused unthinkable devastation to the local inhabitants' known world.

The known world was extremely small then.

There are two theories that I personally lean toward: either a massive, post Ice Age "flush" as happened in North America, most likely combined with a catastrophic vulcanic eruption.

Of course, my reasoning is flawed for believing in Ice Ages to begin with. <G>

[cake_crumb]

"At any rate, it is thought by some, that Mars was thrown into a very close proximity orbit to earth, perhaps even being trapped in the earth's gravitational field, thus causing periodic catastrophic tidal effects."

I guess I should have read the entir article before posting my first reply. I should've guessed that it wouldn't be what I'd hoped.

That said, if Mars ever wound up trapped in Earth's gravitational field, how in the heck did it escape? Gravity wells aside, Mars is not in Earth's gravitational feild now, and I find it hard to believe that even if Mars is in the gravity well occupied by the earth, it would've caused massive tidal disruption before and would not continue to do so now.

[TONEMAN]

If I have the story straight, four guys cut down thousands of trees, milled the lumber, and built a ship the size of an ocean liner, all by hand. Although there is no indication that they were kings or rich merchants, they were also able to come up with enough fodder to stock a 40 day voyage for two of every kind of animal in the world. These animals in their tens of thousands somehow managed to arrive at the ship, across oceans and continents full of predators. It then rained for 40 days and 40 nights, and hard enough to raise the sea level almost 30,000 feet above where it is now. Then all this water "subsided" somewhere and the animals went home. Is that about right?

[general_re]

When did the All-knowing, All-powerful, Limitless and Illimitable God become unable to do something that even His creations do every day?

Sort of belies that whole "omnipotence" thing, doesn't it?

[Lessismore]

Is that about right?

No -- The tank for the freshwater fish was the hard part.

[vannrox]

While Velikovsky based his theories on periodic celestial events, contemporary catastrophical thought centers around small body impacts. Certainly the end of the cretaceous was due to a small body impact. In the 1980's the debate between gradualist vrs catastrophist paleontology was settled. Further the jupiter impact of the Shoemaker-Levy 9 comet in 1994 answered the question of the conservation of momentium that you had raised.


One does not have to search for iridium anomalies for evidence to substantiate the hypothesis of periodic global extinctions. For instance, the evidence of the rapid global extinctions of the Permian period ( prior to the start of the Triassic ) is without question caused by an impact of exterrestial origin. The familial diversity patterns of the corals, bivalves, and trilobites is clearly indicated by the sudden geologic evidence.


I believe that you are not really understanding what contemporary catastrophical thought is all about. There is no question that the mechanics of rapid global change can be due to periodic exterrestial impacts. It is now embraced by the scientific community. There is also no question that global flora and fauna variations occur periodicly and are usually associated with small body impacts. This is also embraced by most students of the sciences.


I suspect that you are concerned with planetary realignments due to small body impacts. I take it that you disagree that ANY impact can alter the orbit and rotational behavior of a planetary body. Even using basic dynamics you can show that this is indeed possible. I think that the crux of your argument is that you are not convinced that this happenned in the earth past.


The kinds of impacts that I am concerned about and what most catastrophical studies are centered around is the effects of minor and small-scale impacts during the period and at the time of human existance. If you have a pond in your garden, and you chip a golf ball in it, the water within the pond will be affected. The creatures in the pond will experience a change in the laminar flow and the thermocline, and would, for a period of time, experience turbulent flow, and perhaps affect the food intate of the fishes. This is all that modern catastrophical thought is all about.


The article again is related to "discontinuities in human history". Ther is no question that there has been discontinuities in human history. There is also no question that they are inexplicitly sudden in nature. Thus, the article argues that the sudden appearance of discontinuities in the human record is a function of catastrophical rather than gradualist theory.


Now, the actual studies of the dynamics of catastrophical thought is more than just simple dynamics. I pull out my Marks Handbook, and I can clearly see that the basic equations for the dynamics of particles. But you must remember that these formula are derived and related to the motion of a body under the action of a constant unbalanced force. But, we know that in reality with a small body (compared to that of the Earth), that the atmosphere alters the force and even the mass of the body, thus creating a much more complex formula. An planetary impact on an airless planet is different than one with an atmosphere.


I think that you are really concerned with the conservation of impulse and momentum. In the case of small body impacts, the impacts are always oblique. Your concern that the law of the conservation of momentum states that the linear momentum of a system of bodies is unchanged ONLY if there is no resultant external force on the system. You havew to take into account the variations in a variable mass. So that F=m(dv/dt) + u(dm/dt). This affects everything and becomes much more pronounced when one looks at how it affects gyroscopic motion.


That is whay, when you discuss planetary impacts, that you use derived equations that include the (formerly ignored) variables of varing mass, gyroscopic motion, temperature, pressure, and velocity over time. The article is a bit esoteric but it is exactly the calculations needed to derive that resultant conclusion.


In summary, the Kepler description of motion did not require the rigid evaluation as required in impact studies. So, I am not defending the wandering Venus theory. That can pass. I am instead supporting the view of small (in comparison to the Earth) planetary impacts that has been of sufficient impact energy to alter or modify the human existence.

[crystalk]

I knew this was mostly hokum when I saw "Bolovia" [sic] spelled that way consistently --time after time-- throughout this article.

[SunkenCiv]

Just adding this to the GGG catalog, not sending a general distribution.

Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on, off, or alter the "Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list --
Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
The GGG Digest -- Gods, Graves, Glyphs (alpha order)