Thursday, June 6, 2013

The Bible's history of the earth claims it's growing?! Is it right? Part 15

Could plate tectonics be an out dated theory? I believe it is, and that soon progressive schools will be teaching the real cause of the supposed crustal shifting. I'm not just saying this because I have invested interest. I simply looked at both sides, and came out on what I believe was the side of the most evidence. . .no matter if a religious text agreed with me or not. If you have not been following me in my blog, I am not into defending the Bible because I am a Christian. . .I have much against the Bible, and am an Agnostic Atheist.

 That said, when it has historical or science based truth, (as I believe all of the ancient texts have some) then I don't want to discount it. Of course, most Christians would disown the concept of a growing earth, and deny that the Bible would support it. . .so, maybe first I'll enlighten the Christians in the crowd about the support for it in their own book, the Bible. (Something according to religious stats, Atheists know more about then any brand of Christian anyways.)

The expanding earth theory is, I believe, connected to the Biblical flood. (As I discussed in my last post : Making sense of the world and how it works. Part 14) So if you like the Bible, and believe in the global flood, you might want to consider this theory, especially because the Bible supports both.

Many people have numerous arguments against a worldwide flood, but every one are based on some basic presumptions. Let's discuss one of the things used to discount the flood, that being that "the animals couldn't have come to Noah, (or been collected by him) to be put on the ark, because the animals couldn't have gone over oceans to get there." 

 While fossil evidence proves that many of the same animals were on the mainland as the now separated islands/continents like Australia. . .there are also some that seemed to have evolved more from one area or island then another. If the earth was all one solid connected mass at one time before the flood though, that argument would be null and void.

 Furthermore, if the flood caused the earth to be  more then split a crack with the "fountains of the deep" bringing up water from the pressured hollow earth, (as I previously discussed in: Making sense of the world and how it works. Part 14) then the migration of the animals wouldn't have been able to happen on any but one continent when Noah landed with the animals.

Unless the other world flood myths were also true, and there were survivors on numerous parts of the globe. . . as I mentioned in my post: The origins of God, man, and the Garden of Eden. Part 13. Then this separation at the right timing would explain the development of the different flood myths. No worries though, the Bible tells us all about when this splitting happened, and it fits perfectly with the evidence.

Five or six generations after Noah, we can read in Genesis 10:25 that in the days of Peleg (which means "division") that "the earth was divided." This would explain why the animal migration happened as it did. If the land prior to the Flood was one big continent, this would indeed have facilitated the migration of animals to (or collection of them from) Noah's location, as the Bible claims. Of course, many have disputed this as impossible with the continental shifts happening before the flood time. The "crustal shift" happening after the Flood though would have provided a way for the animals unique to say, Australia, to get there.

That answers a few questions about the flood, but what about the much mocked statement in the Bible that the flood covered the highest mountain? Just because water came from "the fountains of the deep" and it rained for 40 days, that would never cover a mountain range like the Himalayans!

That is a logical assumption, but based on another one. . .
In Psalm 104:5-9 it gives mention to the flood with the mountains growing and the valleys sinking. . .(sounds suspiciously like a growing earth.)

  "You who laid the foundations of the earth, so that it should not be moved forever, You covered it with the deep as with a garment; the waters stood above the mountains. At Your rebuke they fled; at the voice of Your thunder they hastened away. The mountains rose; the valleys sank down to the place which You did establish for them. You have set a boundary that they may not pass over, that they may not return to cover the earth."

So if according to the Bible, the mountains hardly existed before the flood, and the valleys weren't deep, (and filled with water now known to be oceans) the statement in the Bible that the flood "covered the highest mountain" suddenly becomes plausible. 
What we see in the fossil record on the top of mountains is enough evidence of this truth, even without the core samples proving that they were once low land, and the oldest land as well. Between them both though, it would be an obvious conclusion to expect to see evidence of those so called "Gods" (by the future generations) living on the mountain tops. This legend tells us with Noah landing on what was later known as Mt. Ararat.

Artifacts from the early Bronze Age, and very likely the ark, as well as remains of human bodies have been found at Mt. Ararat, further confirming the belief. In Armenian mythology Mt. Ararat is not just where Noah landed the ark, but it is considered the home of the Gods, much like Mt. Olympus is in Greek Mythology.

 As a matter of fact, mountain residences were mentioned in many different legends. In the Bible the mountain(s) of "God" is spoken of in many places. The "high places" are often spoken of in reference to even the "false gods" in the Bible. . .(many of which were simply one and the same, as I spoke in depth of in my post: Do you know God's names, and where they came from. . .? Part 10)   In many parts of the world temples still exist on the top of mountains to worship the gods.

Do we have additional proof of just how high the flood rose in order to measure these mountains? I believe we do.
 I showed this picture in my post: Origins of "God", man, and the location of the original Garden of Eden? Part 13 and it was confusing to some, but let me explain: I believe the Gaza pyramids are a key element to not only proof of the flood, but of the "gods". . .and where they went.
Of course, there would be little connection if they were as young as previously thought. . .but there is much evidence that they aren't. "Were these Pyramids constructed only 4,300 years ago, or—like the Sphinx—is there evidence they could be far older, dating instead to perhaps 12,000 years ago?" The old dating "stands in sharp contrast to most other Egyptian, Hebrew, Greek, Roman, Hermetic, Coptic and medieval Arabic scholarly sources which agree that the Great Pyramid was not constructed during the time frame of Pharaoh Khufu or Dynastic Egypt, but was the product of the "Age of the Gods" thousands of years earlier."

It is associated with the Pharaoh Khufu, but in reality he was not the builder, only the repairer. A recently discovered Stele describes how Pharaoh Khufu, "gave to her (Isis) an offering anew, and he built again (to restore, renovate, reconstruct) her temple of stone."


"When we look at mythic history for the story of the origins of the Great Pyramid, we discover that the monument was not attributed to any Pharaoh, but was the product of the genius and higher learning of the Gods of Old. Time and time again, from the Roman Marcellinus to the Coptic Al Masudi and the Arab Ibn Abd Alhokim, the recounters of the ancient legends tell how the Pyramid was built to preserve the knowledge of a magnificent civilization from destruction by a Flood, and that it was this Flood which brought the Age of the Gods to its tragic end. "

"The various Chronologies of Legendary Rulers place a minimum date for the Age of the Gods as circa 10,000 B.C. This is the time frame Plato, in his Timaeus and Critias, ascribed to the destruction of Atlantis. [the "upper" Eden] And it is also this date, as can be proven in modern scientific studies, which was highlighted by major climatic, geologic and geomagnetic disturbances, accompanied by massive paleo-biological extinctions in the planet." (i.e. the flood?)

Some of the key evidence I have read of for the age of the Sphinx and the Gaza pyramids was the major water damage as if it were submerged in turbulent water. . .which is why the snorkel thing on the Sphinx. Remember, the pyramids are in a desert. . .

 "Geologists are hard pressed to explain why there existed a fourteen-foot layer of silt sediment around the base of the Pyramid, a layer which also contained many seashells, and the fossil of a sea cow, all of which were dated by radiocarbon methods to 11,600 B.P. (Before Present) plus or minus 300 years."

"The traces of the water of the Deluge and the effects of the waves are still visible on these pyramids halfway up, above which the water did not rise." Add to this the observation made when the Pyramid was first opened, that incrustations of salt an inch thick were found inside. Most of this salt is natural exudation from the chambered rock wall, but chemical analysis also shows some of the salt has a mineral content consistent with salt from the sea. Thus, during the prehistoric Flood, when waters surrounded the Great Pyramid, the known and unknown entrances leaked, allowing seawater into the interior, which later evaporated and left the salts behind. The locations where the salts are found are consistent with the monument having been submerged half-way up its height." 

"If the floodings of 10,000 B.C. were the last major catastrophic water events in Egypt, and the Pyramid exhibits signs of having been subjected to them, it means the Pyramid must date from a period before the flooding occurred."

As the great pyramid was about 480 feet tall, and the water marks were about half way up, that would have made the water level to be about 240 feet high. The water was also said to have raised 23-25 feet above the highest mountain, according to the Bible) so if the Biblical account was right, I would conclude that the highest "mountain" would have been only about 215 feet higher then the rest of the land. .  .as there was no sea level then with no sea.

Some points of interest about the Sphinx and the three pyramids:

"First, only the Great Pyramid and (from what is known from legend and esoteric literature) the other two Giza Pyramids have chambers in their upper interior—all the rest possess only a lower chamber or chambers near the foundation. These are copies of the pit chambers in the Giza Pyramids. The Dynastic Egyptians, not knowing of the secret chambers higher up, had no precedent for including these in their own pyramids."

"Second, only the Giza Three are accurately aligned to true north, which is indicative of a very sophisticated science of Earth measurement and construction—elements exhibited in no other pyramid."

"Third, only the Giza monuments were built with a high degree of accuracy—this precision, coupled with the apparent mastery of large, multi-ton stone construction, is what allowed the Giza Pyramids to reach their gigantic size, the largest in Egypt. In the Second and Third Pyramids the construction blocks are often not as massive or as finely positioned as they are seen in the Great Pyramid, but they are precise enough to place them in an entirely different category from all other structures along the Nile."

"Fourth, the Giza monuments were built using construction designs totally alien to any other pyramid form. As William R. Fix, in Pyramid Odyssey observed: "Because the other pyramids consist of much smaller blocks, they were built as a series of shells with multiple internal retaining walls to give cohesiveness. The three large Giza Pyramids do not have these internal casings. The very size of the blocks produces the necessary stability. This characteristic reveals a general excellence of workmanship and also imply a much higher technological capability than that employed anywhere else.."

"And fifth, unlike any pyramid supposedly built either before or after the Giza Three, none of the Giza monuments contain religious symbols or pictures in any of their inner chambers."

"We may well ask, if the Giza Pyramids, in all their excellence, were supposedly built in the Fourth Dynasty, what happened to the advanced knowledge seen in their design and construction—why was it never used again, in not a single later pyramid?"

As was briefly mentioned up above, when looked at from the sky, all three Giza pyramids perfectly point to the north pole. . .perhaps the flood, which sunk Atlantis, (the "upper" Eden, as I discussed earlier in:  The reality of Heaven and Hell in history part 9, and Origins of "God", man, and the location of the original Garden of Eden? Part 13) didn't really bring "the Age of the Gods to its tragic end" as was mentioned above? Maybe they were simply leaving a message to all who would follow, as to where they went, or were soon to go. . . All the world's flood myths said they had knowledge of the impending doom, and even warned their favorites. . . Whatever the case, it is certainly ironic that the message on the pyramids points to the North pole, which is where there is said to be an opening to the hollow earth, where the god's are said to live even now. . .
That might be more conspiracy theory then you want, so let's get back to the science of the expanding earth: To show how the earth is growing, and how all the continents fit perfectly together on all sides once when you remove the oceans, you need to watch this video 

Neal Adams’ reconstructions of the expanding earth (based on the geological evidence from mostly the core samples) are popular, but the Australian geologist Dr James Maxlow’s reconstructions have the added advantage that the geological evidence behind the reconstructions are explained in detail within his book, Terra Non Firma Earth. The raw data for the age of the ocean floor can be obtained from institutions like the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). NOAA is presenting the raw data of the age of the ocean floor and is not supporting the Expanding Earth theory in any way, so they are an unbiased source.

The probability of the pieces of the Earth forming by chance to all fit, as we can see they do, (even after half of the area was supposedly changed by subduction) is so low it seems impossible. It is similar to arguing that a jigsaw puzzle fits together by chance rather than for any logical reason. Whereas, without the water, and on a smaller earth, the pieces fitting on every edge only seems logical when you admit to the earth expanding. 

A few questions that may be connected with the expanding earth theory are:
  • Why is the earth's rotation slowing down if it is not growing? Or more specifically, why is it taking longer for the earth to make the same rotation around the Sun, that it did thousands of years ago? 
  • If the earth use to be smaller, wouldn't it's gravitational pull also be less. . .as smaller planets have less gravity then larger ones?
A Reduced Gravity Earth would have larger plants and animals in the past, and not surprisingly, this we see from the fossil record.

" This larger scale of life during the dinosaurs’ time can be explained by a reduced gravity on the ancient Earth. 
Using the concept of a gravity that increased since the dinosaurs’ time also reveals a fascinating new world where the gigantic animals of the past evolved smaller sizes as gravity increased to its present value. This size reduction of life has definitely occurred."
Check out this video for more evidence:

  • And if gravity has changed because of the earths mass changing, wouldn't time also be somewhat warped, creating longer living people and animals? 

If the earth is getting more mass, (as it seems it is) and it is also hollow, (as it also seems it is) the real question is:
  •   "Where is the mass coming from?" 
Some claim the world is gaining mass simply because of dust from space. May I suggest that the inner sun's gases, (which was theorized to have originally created the rest of the planet) are still creating mass? What could it be creating? I would say hydrogen seems likely, and when I hear about the massive plants and greenhouse effect in the hollow earth, it seems that oxygen is another by-product of the inner earth. What element could be produced as both gases seep through the ground because of centrifugal force causing it to come up through the thinnest part of the crust? H2O.

 As evidence for this, first we have the explosion of water from the "fountains of the deep" in the flood, that seemed to have started the cracks that split the earths crust and started the "continental drift" which was actually the crust expanding. After that, the pressure seems to have subsided, and the inner earth's water being drained, hollowed out a spot for habitation of the gods who had likely taken to their ships in the sky for refuge. (Which I will get into next.)

 We don't see the production of water stopping completely though, even today we see the oceans growing as the land cracks and the mountains rise, to make room for it. The sea level has risen 6 to 8 inches (15 to 20 cm) in the last 100 years alone! And the cause is not the melting of the poles from global warming, as you might have been told. . ."This higher temperature may be causing some floating icebergs to melt, but this will not make the oceans rise. Icebergs are large floating chunks of ice. In order to float, the iceberg displaces a volume of water that has a weight equal to that of the iceberg."

So any icebergs floating in water would make little to no difference to the sea level, whereas any glaciers that break off of land and melt into the ocean would make a significant difference. "The main ice covered landmass is Antarctica at the South Pole, with about 90 percent of the world's ice.  . .Antarctica is covered with ice an average of 7,000 feet thick. If all of the Antarctic ice melted, sea levels around the world would rise about 200 feet. But the average temperature in Antarctica is -37°C, so the ice there is in no danger of melting. In fact in most parts of the continent it never gets above freezing."

If my hypothesis is right, and water is the only thing being presently made by the inner earth's atmosphere, eventually the land will open up to the hollow earth, and the water may drain down again. . . but as the crust is still many hundreds of miles thick in most places of the world, it's not a worry I will dwell on. In the mean time, why not watch a real geologist explain the evidence for the expanding earth theory with me.

No comments:

Post a Comment