-Are you a God?
- they asked the Buddha.
- No.
- Are you an angel, then?
- No.
- A saint?
- No.
- Then what are you?


"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure of
the universe"-Albert Einstein-

Om Mani Padme Hum

Matthew 25:40

And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

Matthew 7 1-6

1. Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
3. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4. Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5. Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
6. Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

Wednesday, June 16, 2010

Possible Antediluvian Cities posted by Henry in Mars Hill Symposium

I found this posted on the web and it's so interesting I'm forwarding it to my readers, thanks to Henry who posted it on Mars Hill Symposium.

Lee Murray

Posted by Henry under History , Ancient Civilizations , Ancient Egypt , Ancient Babylon , Predilluvian Civilization , The Early Development of the Ancient Civilizations

Possible Antediluvian Cities

In the ancient city of Nippur a tablet was excavated, which recounts the Sumerian version of the Great Deluge. This tablet contains a total of six columns of writing composed around the time of Hammurabi relying upon material, which is considerably older. In the first two columns of the tablet, there is a brief account of the founding of five cities, which they claim to have been also prediluvian cities, including Shurippak, which, according to the Sumerians, was the city, in which Utnapishtim (Noah) dwelt.
This Shurippak is presently known as Shuruppak, and is one of the oldest cities of the ancient people of southern Babylonia, some eighteen miles northwest of Uruk.
Here, in this tablet, there is an actual account of cities, which were in existence, when the world was one landmass, prior the Great Flood. All the inhabitants of the world were one race and all spoke the same language. These were the ancestors of all the different nations, which comprise our present world. But, they were not the ignorant cavemen, which evolutionists would have us believe. These were highly sophisticated men with elaborate cities and advanced engineering knowledge in the art of building.
These early Sumerians that inhabited the southern alluvial plain, which is created by the mighty Tigris and Euphrates Rivers were probably the first postdiluvian settlers to arrive in this area and these date as far back as the fourth Millennium BC.
“Their language was written on clay tablets in wedge-shaped (cuneiform) characters in a complicated system comprising signs for words, syllables and vowels. On linguistic grounds it cannot be linked to any other known language…the reconstruction and translation of Sumerian myths is fraught with difficulties. Tablets are often fragmentary, with crucial passages missing. Furthermore, linguistic knowledge of the language is still developing and there is yet no general consensus on the workings of Sumerian grammar. Hence all translations are at best provisional and many published older versions are unreliable and out of date. Similarly, interpretations as to the meaning function and even context of individual compositions are often subjective and quickly superseded.” (The Encyclopedia of World Mythology, by Arthur Cotterell, Barnes and Nobles, NY, 1999. pg.13)
The sparse amount of complete evidence, coupled with the difficulties in their ancient language has created a grave problem for us today in exactly understanding their religion at the beginning of their civilization. The more recent clay tablets clearly show that by the second millennia the Sumerians were steeped in polytheism, and it is about that time that the Amorites formed a new state, called Babylonia, and Sumerian ceased to be spoken as a language, except for in religious services, in which Sumerian was written for another 1,000 years. The Sumerians probably repopulated the same area that their ancestors had lived in before the Great Flood and possibly, therefore renamed their new cities with the same old names.
The name for their Supreme Sky-God was An (later El in Babylonian), whose son was Enki (Tammuz in Babylonian) and his mother was Nammu (Ishter in Babylonian), the goddess of water and creation. Inanna, who is associated with Venus and is the same as Nammu/Ishtar later became associated with warfare and aggression, taking on the role of motherhood and sexuality in her corrupted form. It seems to me that Inanna is simply a corrupted version of Nammu, who adopted the many satanic characteristics in the long and incessant process of corruption that has existed in every culture. I strongly suspect that the young warrior and dragon-slayer Ninurta is probably also a corrupted version of Enki.
Nevertheless, here we have a civilization dating back to the very time of the Great Flood so ancient that they named five of their cities after cities that pre-existed in that area before the Great Flood.
“The Sumerian text is from a fragment- the lower third- of what was once a six-column tablet. And while it is clear that it belongs to a very ancient and widely dispersed family of flood traditions, it nevertheless remains- in itself- a ‘unique and unduplicated’ document…
What a rare and precious thing this little slab of baked mud is! And what a tale it has to tell. When I first read it I was instantly intrigued, because it contains explicit references to the existence of five antediluvian cities, which we are informed, were swallowed up by the waters of the flood. If such cities ever existed, then where should we expect to find their ruins today?
The first thirty-seven lines of the Sumerian tablet are missing, so we do not know how the story begins, but at the point where we enter it the flood is still far in the future. We hear about the creation of human beings, animals and plants. Then another break of thrity-seven lines occurs after which we find that we have jumped forward in time to an epoch of high civilization. We learn that in this epoch, before the flood, ‘kingship was lowered from heaven’, a phrase that is eerily reminiscent of similar sky-ground symbolism contained in ancient Egyptian scriptures such as the Pyramid Texts (c.2300B.C.), the Book of what is in the Duat (c.1400B.C.)… then comes the reference to the foundation of Sumer’s antediluvian cities by an unnamed ruler or a god:
After the lofty crown and the throne of kingship had been lowered from heaven, He perfected the rites and the exalted divine laws… Founded the five cities… in pure places, Called their names, apportioned them as cult centers.
The first of these cities, Eridu…
The second Badtibira…
The third Larak…
The fourth Sipppar…
The fifth Shurrupak…”
(Underworld, The Mysterious Origins of Civilizations, by Graham Hancock, Three Rivers Press, New York, pg16, 17- citing from Samuel Noah Kramer, History begins at Sumer, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1991, pg. 149-151)
We are told by this ancient narrative that a great flood would destroy these ancient cities because of the wickedness of man. But soon after their reestablishment of the postdiluvian civilization, during the First Dynasty of Kish the Sumerians rebuilt the five cities and today we have excavated these ancient ruins positively documenting that they had in fact existed. Whether or not all of them were rebuilt upon the same site where the previous prediluvian cities existed is not known. However, some of the sites show evidence of heavy silt deposits associated with a great flood and may therefore have been rebuilt upon the very same site the prediluvian cities had previously existed. Of course, classical evolutionary archaeology discounts the idea of prediluvian cities as mythological and any lists of cities or kings purported to have ruled prior to the Great Deluge are automatically rejected as mythological.
It is amazing to me how archaeologists are able to simply ignore or deny any historical claim that might assert the historicity of the Great Deluge. Cities and lists of kings, which are placed prior to the Great Deluge, are automatically considered mythological, while in the very same document the lists of kings and cities that are reported to be after the Great Flood are considered factual and in fact the archaeological evidence has corroborated their historicity. Examples of this schizophrenic behavior by evolutionary archaeologists abound and the lists of prediluvian kings documented in the ancient civilizations of Egypt, Sumer, India and other parts of the world serve to prove my point.
The fact that these stories are embellished and quite polytheistic in nature should not be a surprise to us since, there are no records dating back to the fourth millennia. The oldest records we have are of the turn of the second millennia and some fragments, even 700 years before that. This means that 2,000 years separated the early postdiluvian civilization from the actual written records, which are now extant. Much could have been changed in that time and oral tradition is prone to such embellishments through the passage of time. Remember that we are speaking of a period of time equivalent to that, which spans between us and the time that Christ walked upon the earth. But, to categorically deny any factual content in these accounts is illogical and the obvious dubious evolutionary agenda is quite clearly their underlying motivation to completely disregard them as wholly mythological.
Naturally, if we attempt to go beyond that early period of the postdiluvian civilization to the prediluvian times there is yet less evidence to draw upon. There is not much, which has remained from that ancient age before the flood, the hydraulics involved in a catastrophe of that magnitude surely decimated most everything in its path. Most of the ancient cities were probably utterly destroyed and washed away by large tidal waves and massive volcanic eruptions. Some like Shuruppak, and the others mentioned in the Sumerian tablet, were later rebuilt by the survivors, but it would require a long time before man could once again rival the magnificent buildings that might have existed in the antediluvian civilization now only known to us in the mythological framework of the Lost Continent of Atlantis and other ancient tales found in most cultures of an advanced civilization swallowed up by a global flood.

Monuments of Great Antiquity and Technology

There are some ancient temples, however, which were made with gargantuan boulders that quite possibly, may have been the product of the technology immediately passed over from the Great Flood. There is some evidence that seems to suggest that the Sphinx may have been constructed much prior to the dates assigned by modern archaeologists, but I shall delve into this later when discussing Egypt, for now I want to consider the associated Temples in the Necropolis, which bear the distinct characteristics of being constructed in that same era that Tiahuanaco and the Osirieon were constructed for they resemble in their archaeological style and the massive monoliths used to construct them.
There are a handful of monuments or buildings, worldwide, which exhibit a similar engineering, and architectural style, which in my opinion, may have been constructed by our ancestors immediately after the Great Flood and are rivaled in antiquity only by the Sphinx.

The Temples of the Sphinx

There are three Temples in the Necropolis of Gizeh. Two of the Temples are associated with the Sphinx and are clearly older than the third Temple, which is associated with the Great Pyramid and probably built at the same time as the pyramid. The Sphinx Temple is directly in front of the Sphinx, while the Valley Temple is located to its southern side. It is my opinion that the Valley Temple is probably a Temple, which corresponds to the constellation of Osiris, which was directly south of the Sphinx. That is to say, that from the point of view of the Sphinx as he would look to his right (or southern horizon), he would see the Valley Temple, in line with the constellation of Orion in the sky.
The Sphinx Temple located in front of the Sphinx was probably constructed to be associated with the constellation of Leo in front of the Sphinx. That is to say, from the point of view of the Sphinx, as he gazed in front of him toward the eastern horizon, he would see the Sphinx Temple and over it, rising over the horizon, the constellation of Leo. The “so called” Mortuary Temple, or third Temple is directly behind the Sphinx and in front of the Great Pyramid, with a causeway connecting it to the Valley Temple. If the causeway was built by the designers to declare their symbolic unity, then it all makes sense. The Valley Temple is connected with Orion or Osiris and we may also note that the Great Pyramid is also associated with Osiris, since, the star shaft of the King’s Chamber is pointed to the star Al Nitak (at the belt of Orion/Osiris) and the internal symbolism is in essence the story of Osiris and His relation to humanity in the Egyptian pantheon.
Geologists assure us that the gargantuan blocks used to build the Valley Temple and the Sphinx Temple were both quarried from the same site, where they carved out the Sphinx. It is therefore logical, that we assume the two Temples and the Sphinx were constructed at the same time. It would be illogical to assume that as the Sphinx was being carved, the builders would neatly pile up giant 200-ton boulders to be later used by others thousands of years later to build Temples. If they did not intend to build with these giant stones, they would not have taken the time and effort to make them so large and in that rectangular fashion. The rock would have been easier to chip away in more manageable size chunks for removal, of no specific shape.
There are some unique details displayed by both these Temples, which clearly require an advanced knowledge of engineering that is staggering. Now, it is incredible enough that these individuals were able to lift 200-ton boulders in constructing these Temples, but to place them together in a ‘jig saw’ type pattern seems to be an almost impossible task. They designed these boulders, such that, they would fit together in a sort of “jig saw” pattern to create a much more secure construction, which helped to ensure from slippage in earthquakes. The even more amazing thing is that these joints were individually engineered for each boulder to fit into the last one in such a way that the joints were perfectly clean and smooth; each of the boulders were of differing sizes the smallest of which weighed 50 tons. In other words, this was not an assembly line process where every rock was the same size and shape, each boulder was hewn out with a specific measurement in mind and then stacked upon the previous ones to build the Temple. The technology required to manhandle every one of these gargantuan stones individually and to then accurately join them together, at the moment, is unknown to us.
“The problems are manifold but stem mainly from the extreme size of the blocks- which can be envisaged in terms of their dimensions and weight as a series of diesel locomotive engines stacked one on top of the other. The typical tower and hydraulic cranes that we are familiar with from building sites in our cities simply cannot hoist such loads. These cranes, which are pieces of advanced technology, can generally pick a maximum load of 20 tons. At what is called minimum span… the longer the span the smaller the load and at maximum span the limit is around 5 tons.
Loads exceeding 50 tons require special cranes. Furthermore, there are few cranes in the world today that are capable of picking 200-ton blocks of quarried limestone. … In the United States there are presently only two land-based cranes of the ‘counterweight and boom’ type able to handle loads in the 200-ton range. Recently one was brought in to a Long Island construction site to lift a 200-ton boiler into a factory. The crane has a boom of 220 feet long (at the end of, which is a 160-ton concrete counterweight, which keeps it from tipping over). A crew of 20 men had to work for 6 weeks to prepare the ground before the boiler could be lifted. ..Not surprisingly, when the crane engineer responsible for lifting the 200 ton boiler on long Island was shown photographs and given technical details concerning the blocks of the Valley Temple- and asked whether he thought he could hoist similar blocks into place with this crane- he replied:
‘I’m looking at what you’re showing me here, and looking at the distances involved. I don’t know if we would be able to pick the 200-ton blocks from the position that I see available to us. .. I have no idea how they did this job. It’s a mystery and it’ll probably be a mystery to me, and maybe to everybody.’” (The Message of the Sphinx, Graham Hancock and Robert Bauval, Three Rivers Press, NY, 1996,pg.28, 29)
Originally, these monuments were approximately 40 feet high, the trusses of the ceiling have long ago rotted, and all that remains are the walls. But, it is quite significant in the determination of their antiquity, that these megaliths, which comprise the walls, are presently showing a considerable amount of erosion, much more so than buildings, which are reputed to be of the same time period by the Egyptologists. As a matter of fact, this erosion was extreme even way back at the time of Khafre’s reign. We know this because when he undertook the task of restoring the Sphinx and the Temples, he had outer casings of granite fashioned to fit over the megaliths of the Temples. These followed the contour of the already badly eroded megaliths, thus preserving for us the level of erosion at that time. Again, there is no possible way to explain this highly eroded condition, at that time, unless these megaliths were several thousand years old already at the time which Khafre undertook his restoration effort. Unfortunately, most of the casings of the Sphinx Temple have since been pirated by locals, leaving it in a much more dilapidated form. Thus, the heavy erosion visible in both the Sphinx and the associated Temples conclusively indicate that they are much older than the Great Pyramid.
These buildings of perhaps even possible antediluvian origin, all have in common several characteristics. First, they are built with giant megaliths, whose size and weight offer a sizable challenge even to our modern engineers equipped with the latest advancements of technology. Secondly, they are not filled with hieroglyphics and bas-relief drawings as the more recent buildings of the early dynasties of Egypt. And thirdly, they have the characteristic “jig saw” pattern in their structures, which give them a remarkable stability and which consequently, is the reason they have stood the inexorable test of time, possibly even the hydraulics of the Great Flood. If in fact they were created after the Great Flood, they must have been created at a time very near to the arrival of the very first descendents of Noah that populated that area.

The Osirieon

There is yet another building in Egypt, which may have also been constructed around the same time. I am speaking of the Osirieon, which is often referred to as Strabo’s Well.
The Greek geographer Strabo, having visited Egypt in the First Century BC wrote much of their history and culture, providing us with a wealth of information. In his writings, he described having visited a unique building made of giant monoliths containing a fresh water spring at a great depth below the surface. For years this building remained buried under the relentless shifting sands of Egypt, until the archaeologist Flinders Petrie and Margaret Murray discovered in 1903 parts of a hall and passageway about 200 feet southwest of the Seti I building in Abydos.
They were convinced that Strabo’s Well lay buried there somewhere, but sadly, they were unable to finance the excavation. Sometime later in 1912 excavations under the direction of Professor Naville of the Egyptian Exploration Fund, uncovered a transverse chamber at the end of which giant granite and sandstone monoliths formed a stone gateway.
“What we discovered is a gigantic construction of about 100 feet in length and sixty in width, built with the most enormous stones that may be seen in Egypt. In the four sides of the enclosure walls are cells, 17 in number, of the height of a man and without ornamentation of any kind. The building itself is divided in into three naves the middle one being wider than those of the sides; the division is made by two colonnades made of huge granite monoliths supporting architraves of equal size” (The London Times, March 17, 1914, as quoted by Hancock in pg. 400 of Fingerprints of the Gods)
The 100 feet long building, which has been associated with Osiris from the earliest records, was found to be some 50 feet below the level of Seti I’s building.
Further digging confirmed that below this great gateway there was no floor. As the sand was removed water was found and an elaborately constructed plinth composed of enormous paving blocks was completely surrounded by water. In it’s interior were two pools that had been cut out of the plinth. One of these pools was rectangular in shape and was exactly in the center of the plinth. The other pool was square in shape and was located toward the rear of the plinth. Running along the lengthwise edge of the plinth on each side there were five rose-colored granite monoliths about 8 Feet Square and 12 feet high weighing some 100 tons each. These serve as pillars, which support spans of huge granite lintels that form the roof.
In essence the plinth is an island of stone marvelously engineered to stay only several inches above the water level. There is a moat around this stone island 10 feet in width. Around the moat there is an immense wall some 20 feet thick made of huge monoliths of sandstone which are constructed together in the familiar “jig saw” pattern of the Sphinx Temples.
Some of these stones are as much as 25 feet long, making the engineering problem of laying this “jig saw” pattern a veritable nightmare.
No doubt, the fact that this 100 feet by 60 feet building remained interred under the Egyptian sands for much of its time, assisted in allowing it to survive the ravages of time, and possibly even the hydraulic forces of the Great Flood.
The moat around the plinth had no floor; even the entrance, the great gateway, had no floor and was probably traversed by means of a small boat, since it was filled with water. It seems to me by the design of the complex that the ancient Egyptians were trying to duplicate the course of Osiris around the circuit of the Duat and the Tuat. In most of the Egyptian paintings Osiris is pictured riding on a bark across the sky and the reenactment of this may have been part of the rituals performed in this plinth.
There is, that same simplicity of style characteristic of the Sphinx and Valley Temples, and conspicuous by their absence are the numerous decorations and inscriptions, which so characterize Egyptian works. The Osirieon was estimated by Naville to be the most ancient building in Egypt:
“In a debate which had many connections with that surrounding the Sphinx and the Valley Temple at Giza, eminent archaeologists had initially argued that the Osirieon was a building of truly immense antiquity, a view expressed by Professor Naville in the London Times of 17 March 1914:
‘This monument raises several important questions. As to its date, its great similarity with the Temple of the Sphinx [as the Valley Temple was then known] shows it to be of the same epoch when building was made with enormous stones without any ornament. This is characteristic of the oldest architecture in Egypt. I should even say that we may call it the most ancient atone building in Egypt.’
Describing himself as overawed by the ‘grandeur and stern simplicity’ of the monument’s central hall, with it’s remarkable granite monoliths, and by ‘the power of the ancients who could bring from a distance and move such gigantic rocks’…”(Fingerprints of the Gods, Graham Hancock Three Rivers Press, NY, 1995, pg. 404)
This created a problem for evolutionists, which were not very thrilled at having to explain that level of engineering skill, at such an early date. Some twenty years later a young Egyptologist named Henry Frankfort changed the prevailing view. Citing five findings as definite proof that Seti I was the builder and the rest of the evolutionary minded archaeologists conveniently jumped to the new conclusion. The evidence was thus:
“1- A granite dovetail in position at the top of the southern side of the main entrance to the center hall, which was inscribed with the cartouche of Seti I.
2- A similar dovetail in position inside the eastern wall of the central hall.
3-Astronomical scenes and inscriptions by Seti I carved in relief on the ceiling of the northern transverse chamber.
4- The remains of similar scenes in the southern transverse chamber.
5- An ostracon (piece of broken potsherd) found in the entrance passage and bearing the legend ‘Seti is serviceable to Osiris’.” …”(Fingerprints of the Gods, Graham Hancock Three Rivers Press, NY, 1995, pg. 404, 405)
Given these facts one might be inclined to agree with Professor Frankfort at first sight. However, any archaeologist will tell you that one of the most common trademarks of Egyptian Pharaohs was to take over monuments built by other previous Kings and claim them for themselves by simply changing the inscriptions. There are several reasons why I am not convinced that this Osirieon is quite what the evolutionists would like us to accept.
1- First, the very inscription found in the ostracon (Seti is serviceable to Osiris) sounds to me like a statement made by a King which is acknowledging he is attempting to service or repair the Osirieon. It is not the type of statement that would be made by the creator of the monument itself.
2- Secondly, if the monument was built at the time of Seti I, then why are there no other similarly constructed buildings. The very building 50 feet higher, which is unquestionably made by Seti I is quite different in construction and bears no resemblance to the architectural style of the Osirieon. If the building was meant to be a continuum of the lower building, then why is it not built in the same style and design?
3- Thirdly, except for the relatively meager inscriptions previously annotated, the building is quite barren. This seems to indicate that these inscriptions were later added by Seti during his restoration and were not part of the design of the original architects.
4- In addition, the building is composed of three chambers, only the middle one is enclosed by the twenty-foot thick wall of giant boulders typical of the antediluvian architecture. It is therefore, quite possible that the front transverse chamber and the rear transverse chamber were added by Seti I during his renovation and were not part of the original building.
5- Both Naville and Margaret Murray remained convinced that the Osirieon was not built by Seti I:
“The south and north transverse chambers which contain Seti I’s detailed decorations and inscriptions, lie outside the twenty foot thick enclosure wall which so adamantly defines the huge undecorated megalith core of the building. This had raised the reasonable suspicion in Naville’s mind (though Frankfort chose to ignore it) that the two chambers concerned were ‘not contemporaneous with the rest of the building’ but, had been added much later during the reign of Seti I, ‘probably when he built his own temple’.” (Fingerprints of the Gods, Graham Hancock Three Rivers Press, NY, 1995, pg. 406)
“Likewise, until the end of her life, Margaret Murray remained convinced that the Osirieon was not a cenotaph at all (least of all Seti’s). She said, ‘It was for the celebration of the mysteries of Osiris, and so far is unique among all the surviving buildings of Egypt. It is clearly early, for the great blocks of which it is built are of the style of the Old Kingdom; the simplicity of the actual building also points to it being of that early date. The decoration was added by Seti I, who in that way laid claim to the building, but seeing how often a Pharaoh claimed the work of his predecessors by putting his name on it, this fact does not carry much weight. It is the style of the building, the type of masonry, the tooling of the stone, and not the name of a king, which date a building in Egypt’.” (Fingerprints of the Gods, Graham Hancock Three Rivers Press, NY, 1995, pg. 406) (Emphasis mine)
At any rate, to dogmatically claim that Seti I definitively built this on this scanty and contradictory evidence is not only unscientific, but also intentionally deceptive. We may never know for sure, and we cannot dogmatically claim either way, but when compared with other buildings in the world that bear the same uncanny simplistic resemblance, there is definite reason to suspect that either our antediluvian ancestors made these buildings or they were constructed by the very first settlers into that region that carried over from the antediluvian world a style of architecture that was very distinct.

The Port of Tiahuanaco

Let us leave Ancient Egypt momentarily, in order to consider yet one more site which might very well have been built by our very ancient ancestors near the inception of the Second Earth. Clear across the Atlantic Ocean in South America, we find the ruins of Tiahuanaco near the shores of Lake Titicaca in modern day Bolivia. As previously stated, high in the Andes Mountains, Lake Titicaca holds the distinction of being the highest lake on the earth. Here on the ancient shores of this lake we find the same enormous stones used in construction with that familiar “jig-saw” pattern of the Sphinx Temples and the same simplistic architectural style.
The site where its principle harbor was located, known as Puma Punku (The Puma Gate), reveals a magnificent structure of two artificially dredged docks on either side of an enormous pier, where hundreds of ships could simultaneously take on and unload their wares.
The huge stones, which were quarried to construct this marvelous pier, were no less impressive then the stones used in Egypt to build the Osirieon and the related Sphinx Temples. Incredibly, one of these giant monoliths used in the construction of this pier was estimated to weigh around 440 tons. Stones of 100 to 150 tons were joined together by ‘I’ shaped metal clamps. These curious ‘I’ shaped clamps are not found anywhere else in South America; yet, oddly enough these same impressions were found in Egypt in the Island of Elephantine.
Professor Arthur Posnasky (a German-Bolivian scholar) whose investigations of the ruins spanned some fifty years was thoroughly convinced that this great civilization responsible for the construction of Tiahuanaco could not possibly have existed in the recent periods that modern archaeologists insist. Most archaeologists, armed with their evolutionary presupposition, insist that this civilization must have existed as recently as 500 AD. They simply could not fit into their evolutionary timeline, a civilization, which is that advanced in the ancient past, as Posnasky was proposing.
The evidence that Posnasky presents is in three parts:
1- First, by aligning certain monuments that were obvious solar observatories, which presently seemed to be somewhat off- kilter, he was able to extrapolate backward in time until the sky properly aligned with the monument. The date later confirmed by others was computed to be 15,000 BC.
2- Secondly, the geological and archaeological evidence is indisputable that the destructive force, which annihilated this civilization, was a deluge. It is hard to imagine such a deluge at the altitude, which Tiahuanaco had in the Andes in the recent date of 500 AD. If, however, we accept the biblical model of mountain formation, then the shores of Lake Titicaca could have been near the sea level before and immediately after the Great Flood. This present height is a factor of the continental drift pushing South America westward and wrinkling the topography into the Andes Mountains, thusly elevating it to its present altitude.
Posnasky proposed that seismic forces were at work in this catastrophe, including volcanic upheavals, which could have possibly drained lakes that were situated in a higher plane and thusly created the flood, which annihilated Tiahuanaco. This however, does not explain why the survivors of a local flood would not have rebuilt the city that at its point of destruction was flourishing with such success, unless the elevation of the land made it less conducive to the growing of food.
The marine animals that were found mixed in with the human remains evidence the fact that a flood was responsible for its destruction:
“In addition, fragments of human and animal skeletons had been found lying ‘in chaotic disorder among wrought stones, utensils, tools and an endless variety of other things. All of this has been moved, broken and accumulated in a confused heap. Anyone who would dig a trench here two meters deep could not deny that the destructive force of water, in combination with brusque movements of the earth, must have accumulated those different kinds of bones, mixing them with pottery, jewels, tools and utensils… Layers of alluvium cover the whole field of the ruins and lacustrine sand mixed with shells from Titicaca, decomposed feldspar and volcanic ashes have accumulated in the places surrounded by walls…’” (Fingerprints of the Gods, Graham Hancock Three Rivers Press, NY, 1995, pg. 89)
3- Thirdly, the climactic conditions in that area have changed so dramatically that it is impossible to grow the crops, which had flourished so abundantly during the height of this civilization. Such a drastic climactic change is impossible to explain in the short time period of their proposed 500 AD date. It is more likely that two factors interconnected were the direct and indirect result of this climactic change. First, the loss of the water vapor canopy greatly reduced the tropical climate of that region. Secondly, the uplift of the mountains to the present elevation has resulted in furthering this climactic change. This is a process that creationists believe has taken some 6,000 years to reach its present height.
There is a definite shoreline visible in the strata of the mountains in that area that extends some 300 miles around that region. This undulating shoreline was once a straight line and has been bent by the tectonic forces at work, which have created the mountains.
Posnasky’s date of 17,000 BC as stated previously was derived by the alignment of the solar monuments with the sky. The fact that the tectonic forces has warped the landscape however in my opinion render this assumption to be null and void, since it cannot possibly take into account exactly how the monuments were positioned before the topography was warped.
Nevertheless, the rest of his argument stands on its own and there is good reason to suspect that this city might have been built by very early descendents of the survivors of the Great Flood. But, the discovery of fauna, which evolutionists’ claim has been extinct for 12,000 years, mixed in with the human remains point to a time very near the flood as the time of the destruction of this city. In my opinion, the 12,000 year date given by the evolutionists is suspect and more likely the real time span is more like 6,000 years, since this is the time period that the Great Flood changed our First Earth so dramatically and brought us into the Second Earth.
The Akapana Pyramid built, where the shores of Lake Titicaca once lapped has proved to be more complex than a mere simple step pyramid for sacrificial events, as once supposed by archaeologists. This giant cousin of the pyramids of Gizeh measures some 690 feet on each side with an elaborate and:
“ complex network of zig-zagging stone channels lined with fine ashlars. These had been meticulously angled and jointed (to a tolerance of one fiftieth of an inch) and had served to sleuce water down from a large reservoir at the top of the structure, through a series of descending levels, to a moat that encircled the entire site, washing against the pyramids face on its southern side.” (Fingerprints of the Gods, Graham Hancock Three Rivers Press, NY, 1995, pg. 76)
Again we find a civilization with the technology to move large stones as far as forty miles to the building site from where they were quarried, and which could then manhandle them into precise joints with such accuracy that it boggles the mind.
There is yet one more curiosity, which I find quite revealing in all these ancient civilizations; the symbol of the cross is here also prevalent as in the Mayans and the Egyptians.
“Equally thought provoking was the appearance of the symbol of the cross on many of these ancient blocks. Recurring again and again, particularly at the northern approach to the Puma Punku, this symbol always took the same form: a double crucifix with pure clean lines, perfectly balanced and harmonious, deeply recessed into the hard gray stone. Even according to orthodox historical chronology (evolutionary chronology) these crosses were not less than 1500 years old. In other words, they had been carved there by a people with absolutely no knowledge of Christianity, a full millennium before the arrival of the first Spanish missionaries on the Altiplano.” (Parenthesis mine) (Fingerprints of the Gods, Graham Hancock Three Rivers Press, NY, 1995, pg. 88)
It is an amazing coincident that most of the cultures around the planet have revered the cross in one form or another! Or is it?

No comments:

Post a Comment