Mud Flood: Genesis as a timeline

Loagun

New member
Messages
4
Likes
23
#1
New member here that just found this forum within the last day. I have been researching ancient ruins, historical timelines, religious powers/monarchy, religious phrophecy, and comets in my spare time for a number of years. About a year ago I came across the topic of 'mudflood' which was one of the missing keys that was able to bring certain 'intuitions' of mine together.

I have seen the idea of the Biblical/Noah's Flood being the event responsible for the mudflood touched upon in the comments of some threads. Seeing mudflood photos helped to validate something that has always stood out to me from my teens which is that Genesis isn't being told the way most people understand it to be written. At least to me it doesn't seem to be...

In the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth. Next 'and the Earth was without form and void'. Logically the Earth and Heavens cannot be created, and then be without form and void. Unless of course the chapter is starting out by stating as a fact (according to the narrative) God made the Heaven and earth in the beginning. Then the narrative jumps into a future point in time where the Earth is now without form and void of anything (like a desolite, without vegetation, mudflooded out land???).

Skipping a few lines following the creation of man and woman God/the Elohim tell them to go 'replenish' the Earth.

Re-plen-ish : restore (a stock or supply of something) to the former level or condition.

Genesis tells the general story of how things happened, and parallel tells the recreation story. The black death, witch burning, small pox, etc (probably) never happened at the monstrous scale it is said to have happened. Death from famine, dirty water, cholera, and syphilis post deluge sure.

The old paintings from 300 years ago of stone palaces in ruin. Trees and long grass growing ontop it's broken walls. But most particular the people in the scenes just there, living life in the ruins almost as though the ruins were a tree branch or something. People just sweeping the dirt ground around the ruins even though a forest is grown up around them.

Asif they don't understand, but sweep and dust the sacred stones like it's always been done.

That's all for now. Here are 2 of my videos from my youtube channel with a collection of images and photos to make one wonder...

Mudflood: and there was no man to till the ground...


Mudflood: And the earth was without form, and void...


Logan
 

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
2,125
Likes
3,969
#2
Are you suggesting that the biblical Great Flood is the cause of the ruins in the 17th and 18th century “ruin” artists?
 
OP
OP
Loagun

Loagun

New member
Messages
4
Likes
23
#5
I believe that it is probable given the subject of the 'Comet'. The 1600 through to the late 1800s were extremely high in cosmic activity. People all over the world were deathly afraid of comets - which only happens for a reason I would guess. Henry III actual made it forbidden to even mention the idea of a possible comet impact with earth and also pulled all astrology out of publication to calm the public.

"In 1579, their effects in France were found so mischievous, from the pretended prophecies which they published, that an edict was promul. gated by Henry III, forbidding any predictions to be inserted in them" - 1830 Episcopal Watchman Volume 3, Rev. Palmer Dyer

This isn't even the best source by far, but it's a reference that can be searched further. The amount of fear that can be read about in countless pre-1900 publications concerning a comet-earth impact that can be found on Google Books is evidence enough to at minimum show they believed a comet could in fact collide with the Earth.

Plus the 63 Bible verses about burning stars/falling mountains especially in Revelation

Revelation 8:7-12 ESV
The first angel blew his trumpet, and there followed hail and fire, mixed with blood, and these were thrown upon the earth. And a third of the earth was burned up, and a third of the trees were burned up, and all green grass was burned up. The second angel blew his trumpet, and something like a great mountain, burning with fire, was thrown into the sea, and a third of the sea became blood. A third of the living creatures in the sea died, and a third of the ships were destroyed. The third angel blew his trumpet, and a great star fell from heaven, blazing like a torch, and it fell on a third of the rivers and on the springs of water. The name of the star is Wormwood. A third of the waters became wormwood, and many people died from the water, because it had been made bitter. ...

A great book I read years ago from the 1800s about a comet-earth impact which had previously taken place and being the cause for the 'drift'/gravel covering the earth's surface at various depths across the world.

Ragnarok
The Age of Fire and Gravel


Ignatius Donnelly
D. Appleton, 1883​

Ragnarok
So yes I believe the mudflood was the Deluge which occurred no earlier then the voyages of Columbus to the new world (if these dates are even true). The King James Bible was produced in the 1600s and the Bible as we know it did not exist prior so the event happened just prior or 200 yearsish afterwards and we are still waiting for the event to happen. Not that it can't be cyclical.... a Bible that never expires...
 

dreamtime

Well-known member
Messages
108
Likes
369
#6
How do you account for supposed pre-1300 sources like the Mappa Mundis depicting the Ark:

Hereford Mappa Mundi - Wikipedia

There are many cultural references in the bible that are not reflected by anything post-1600.

I am with you that things happened later than commonly accepted - The modern bible is a product from the 15-17th Century and seems to depict many things that happened during the centuries before.

If you have any more sources about comets and the fear pre 19th Century I look forward reading more about it. Until 1850 everyone in science believed in catastrophism, so it's an important topic.

the mudflood was the Deluge which occurred no earlier then the voyages of Columbus to the new world (if these dates are even true).
This cannot be ruled out, as the above maps I link to could have been produced post 1500 as a result of drastic earth changes, and people wanted to draw maps of the time before these earth changes. But why include an ark with the depiction "This is where the ark stood after the deluge"? There are hundreds of similar mappa mundis.
 
Last edited:

BStankman

Well-known member
Messages
163
Likes
446
#7
A great book I read years ago from the 1800s about a comet-earth impact which had previously taken place and being the cause for the 'drift'/gravel covering the earth's surface at various depths across the world.

Ragnarok
The Age of Fire and Gravel


Ignatius Donnelly
D. Appleton, 1883​

...
Yes, Donnelly.
Obviously he inspired Immanuel Velikovsky. He was my first thought about mudflood also.
Ragnarok has been out of print a long time. But definitely worth reading.

donnellt.jpg

This guy was a US Congressman, so he is pretty far up there as a member of the club. Hidden Hand gesture: what is its true meaning?
The "I am just a puppet for a hidden master."
He also died deeply in dept.

So I tend to think his works are more about the 1800's enlightenment deception.
 

Radal16

Member
Messages
19
Likes
58
#8
I've come to the belief that the Earth has been hit by many cataclysms that have destroyed life over and over, then something comes in (God?) and "replenishes" as you say. I don't think that the Bible flood is the most recent one that is discussed here since the buildings were not completely destroyed (or petrified) just half buried. There is plenty of evidence out there for a biblical level flood or two, check out Wise Up's google page: https://plus.google.com/116972454343109653563.
 
Messages
25
Likes
71
#9
In the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth. Next 'and the Earth was without form and void'. Logically the Earth and Heavens cannot be created, and then be without form and void. Unless of course the chapter is starting out by stating as a fact (according to the narrative) God made the Heaven and earth in the beginning. Then the narrative jumps into a future point in time where the Earth is now without form and void of anything (like a desolite, without vegetation, mudflooded out land???).
The literal beginning of the bible does not coincide with the begining of the story the bible presents. The bible is a collection of writings on the same thing/'storyline', but from different perspectives. The fact that it's tainted has to be like the understatement of the century. It begins with this to make you associate 'the world' with 'the physical'. (this is stricly the old testament version of things)

One of the most likely scenarios for me is that it's only part of the story, only a small percentage of the 'books' were kept, with a simmiliar tactic applied to probably all 'religions'. It's like the true scriptures were divided between 'warring' factions of religion just so that nobody takes into account all information available. What did trickle down through the bible is altered truth - a lot gets lost in translation, reinterpretations and the true meaning is warped. Whatever truth does remain in it is not at face value, it can be grasped by pure 'left-brain' thinking (purely analytical, rigid, linear thinking)

The word on the street is the 'Word'(as in the bible) has about 7 layers of meaning - meaning 7 ways to interpret the whole thing, encoded, embeded in the narrative. It's basically a system of correspondences I, for one, only found a correspondence to it(something simmilar) in alchemy. Enough wordplay. I'm just trying to explain and at the same time give an example of how dangerous it can be to cling too much to certain words, especially when interpreting them strictly from the lenses of our culture and time. The whole thing needs much more context to be properly, profoundly understood.

The true story of the beginning is in John. The bit with:
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was with God in the beginning.
3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.
5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.


In old greek, the language which they say the new testament was written in, the proverbial Word has a much richer scope in Logos.

See how it downplays the whole thing? This sort of a thing should be treated with caution and not taken literally after who knows how many translations and alterations.

Skipping a few lines following the creation of man and woman God/the Elohim tell them to go 'replenish' the Earth.
Some have devoted their entire lives to the analysis of the bible, trying to get to the truth of it. One pertinent point, in my opinion is that somewhere between 50 and 100 variations of terms in the original languages have been translated as simply 'god'. In the old testament more often than not it stands for some sort of authority or earthly ruler. 'Our Father' is the choice of words most commonly associated with the true creator, the grand architect of the universe.

It is not mere coincidence the most popular prayer in christianity begins with 'Our Father' and not 'Dear God' or what have you. It's a fundamental difference of perspective in how we relate to the divine, what kind of a relationship we are in. One is father-children, the other master-slave.

The hebrew god is the one with more 'humane' qualities (wrathful, vengeful, and so forth), while the old greek god is more in the lines of.. well.. truth. (with the 'Jesus' character being truth incarnate in a more profound interpretation)


The truth is implicitly belligerent, because it always has to fight the lies that are constantly trying to hide it.
The sword is associated with the tongue as it cuts both ways - you can speak the truth or you can lie. So by speaking the truth you 'sever' the lies.
There is nothing inherently wrong in standing up for what's right - it's just that all these terms have been given a bad reputation to muddy the waters. Obfuscating concepts in order to create chaos in the minds of people.
So all the b.s. with love and light and let's all come together is nothing more than new age propaganda designed to numb people out to what is really going on, just accept anything, it's all good. Nothing could be further from the truth of the true 'Word of God'.
 

anotherlayer

Well-known member
Messages
213
Likes
441
#10
The literal beginning of the bible does not coincide with the begining of the story the bible presents. The bible is a collection of writings on the same thing/'storyline', but from different perspectives. The fact that it's tainted has to be like the understatement of the century. It begins with this to make you associate 'the world' with 'the physical'. (this is stricly the old testament version of things)

One of the most likely scenarios for me is that it's only part of the story, only a small percentage of the 'books' were kept, with a simmiliar tactic applied to probably all 'religions'. It's like the true scriptures were divided between 'warring' factions of religion just so that nobody takes into account all information available. What did trickle down through the bible is altered truth - a lot gets lost in translation, reinterpretations and the true meaning is warped. Whatever truth does remain in it is not at face value, it can be grasped by pure 'left-brain' thinking (purely analytical, rigid, linear thinking)

The word on the street is the 'Word'(as in the bible) has about 7 layers of meaning - meaning 7 ways to interpret the whole thing, encoded, embeded in the narrative. It's basically a system of correspondences I, for one, only found a correspondence to it(something simmilar) in alchemy. Enough wordplay. I'm just trying to explain and at the same time give an example of how dangerous it can be to cling too much to certain words, especially when interpreting them strictly from the lenses of our culture and time. The whole thing needs much more context to be properly, profoundly understood.

The true story of the beginning is in John. The bit with:
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was with God in the beginning.
3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.
5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.


In old greek, the language which they say the new testament was written in, the proverbial Word has a much richer scope in Logos.


See how it downplays the whole thing? This sort of a thing should be treated with caution and not taken literally after who knows how many translations and alterations.



Some have devoted their entire lives to the analysis of the bible, trying to get to the truth of it. One pertinent point, in my opinion is that somewhere between 50 and 100 variations of terms in the original languages have been translated as simply 'god'. In the old testament more often than not it stands for some sort of authority or earthly ruler. 'Our Father' is the choice of words most commonly associated with the true creator, the grand architect of the universe.

It is not mere coincidence the most popular prayer in christianity begins with 'Our Father' and not 'Dear God' or what have you. It's a fundamental difference of perspective in how we relate to the divine, what kind of a relationship we are in. One is father-children, the other master-slave.

The hebrew god is the one with more 'humane' qualities (wrathful, vengeful, and so forth), while the old greek god is more in the lines of.. well.. truth. (with the 'Jesus' character being truth incarnate in a more profound interpretation)



The truth is implicitly belligerent, because it always has to fight the lies that are constantly trying to hide it.
The sword is associated with the tongue as it cuts both ways - you can speak the truth or you can lie. So by speaking the truth you 'sever' the lies.
There is nothing inherently wrong in standing up for what's right - it's just that all these terms have been given a bad reputation to muddy the waters. Obfuscating concepts in order to create chaos in the minds of people.
So all the b.s. with love and light and let's all come together is nothing more than new age propaganda designed to numb people out to what is really going on, just accept anything, it's all good. Nothing could be further from the truth of the true 'Word of God'.
great write up. and i just wanted to say that every day i become more of a believer that the Bible is nothing but an astrological explanation of us and the universe.
 
Messages
25
Likes
71
#11
great write up. and i just wanted to say that every day i become more of a believer that the Bible is nothing but an astrological explanation of us and the universe.
Thanks. If you want to look into that kind of a perspective you should check out this guy:
Free Book-access

Once again, it's not to say he should be taken literally - but he pretty much proves the point of the true narative woven into the bible.
There's like 8 books I think(audio book format too)- not very long, but the 1st and 2nd are essential. I think I stopped at 5-6. I got it.. it blew me away and I just moved on to something else.

Now that I think about it there's got to be some insightful information in his time-loop series. Especially thinking about possible recurring floods/cataclysms. I would not advise jumping straight into that. He has a style of writing in which he builds on his own ideas, so you probably won't realize what he's really talking about.

John V. Panella - The time-loop chronicles (It's lower on the link page)
 

anotherlayer

Well-known member
Messages
213
Likes
441
#12
Thanks. If you want to look into that kind of a perspective you should check out this guy:
Free Book-access

Once again, it's not to say he should be taken literally - but he pretty much proves the point of the true narative woven into the bible.
There's like 8 books I think(audio book format too)- not very long, but the 1st and 2nd are essential. I think I stopped at 5-6. I got it.. it blew me away and I just moved on to something else.

Now that I think about it there's got to be some insightful information in his time-loop series. Especially thinking about possible recurring floods/cataclysms. I would not advise jumping straight into that. He has a style of writing in which he builds on his own ideas, so you probably won't realize what he's really talking about.

John V. Panella - The time-loop chronicles (It's lower on the link page)
oh, i realize everything.
 

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
2,125
Likes
3,969
#13
Global population growth chart shows when people started procreating.

worldpopgr.gif


worldPopulationGraph_year0to2100_billionPopYears.gif

The chart does give this topic some merit, I think. At the same time we could have had a chart like this every 300 years.
 
Messages
25
Likes
71
#14
Global population growth chart shows when people started procreating.
The U.N. is many things, but a reliable source of information it is most definitely not. They are basically the same people that started pushing 'global warming' and then switched it to 'climate change' when they noticed it was actually getting colder and the numbers were getting harder and harder to fix. I wouldn't say they have the best track record as far as 'prospects' go.

The League of Nations (abbreviated as LN in English, La Société des Nations [la sɔsjete de nɑsjɔ̃] abbreviated as SDN or SdN in French) was an intergovernmental organisation founded on 10 January 1920 as a result of the Paris Peace Conference that ended the First World War. It was the first international organisation whose principal mission was to maintain world peace.

And since they did such a great job with that, they had to rebrand.

The United Nations (UN) is an intergovernmental organization tasked to promote international co-operation and to create and maintain international order. A replacement for the ineffective League of Nations, the organization was established on 24 October 1945 after World War II with the aim of preventing another such conflict.

And we haven't had a war since..

+ the 3 billion 33 years later is a straight give-away. They can't help themselves, it's like their signature. (mason, 33rd degree)

I think it's almost impossible to determine the real population of the world today, let alone predicting how it will change in the future.
I wonder what their basis is for approximating the population of earth in 7000 BC.. census data on broken pottery? I'm not even going to touch the 2-5 mil. years - I do not understand this concept. The mind boggles. The audacity......
 

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
2,125
Likes
3,969
#15
Well, this entire site was created to question the official narrative. To do so, we have to push off of the officially accepted standard, in the process proving that the narrative is not credible.

At the same time it is assumed that an alternate version would be suggested, and substantiated the best way possible. The overpopulation claim, as well as accusations of the deliberate overstatement of the world population numbers require a little more than just saying that those numbers are wrong. I was trying to add up official sources of the Chinese and Indian population. The numbers do look strange, but it would be a totally separate thread to discuss those. So let's not deviate too much from the OP topic.

What appears we do have at hand, is the official, though, most likely deliberately misrepresented chart of the world population growth. And unless proven otherwise, that official chart does support @Loagun's hypothesis.

That said, I do not think that the official chart reflects the most likely population growth rates.
 
Messages
25
Likes
71
#16
require a little more than just saying that those numbers are wrong
I'm not just saying they are wrong, I gave valid reasons for questioning the sourse - not to be confused with deviating from the subject.

The 2 graphs are not even consistent with each other. The (only) dent (on the black plague) in the first one is not even noticeable in the second one which is supposed to be focusing precisely on that period. I mean you can see it on a scale from 5mil to today but it's not noticeable when zooming in on precisely those 2000 years..
What are we talking about here? they are just pulling this out of thin air.

You can't possibly expect to find this out by searching online. The logistics alone are intimidating.
I think it's almost impossible to determine the real population of the world today, let alone predicting how it will change in the future.
Am I missing the point? Does the bible speculate as to how many millions of years old the earth is? As far as I know the creationists consider the earth pretty fresh.
 

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
2,125
Likes
3,969
#17
What are we talking about here? they are just pulling this out of thin air.
The graphs are consistent enough to get the general picture. The official science assigned this mankind a certain age, and this is the standard we have to overturn. If they say it is 2.5 million years, that's what we push off of.

I agree that the numbers are made up. Only I think that they are not pulling anything out of thin air. I think they are straight up and deliberately lying to us. Just my opinion that is.

This is why I attempted to put some basis under it. To be taken seriously, we probably need some sort of substantiating argument, to present against the official version.
 

whitewave

Well-known member
Messages
471
Likes
600
#18
Am I missing the point? Does the bible speculate as to how many millions of years old the earth is? As far as I know the creationists consider the earth pretty fresh.
Not all and not necessarily. Genesis 1:1 says, "In the beginning (doesn't state when the beginning was) God created the heavens and the earth."
Genesis 1:2 says, "And the earth was (translated 14 other times in the bible as BECAME) void and without form....."

Between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 there could be eons of time. And if you translate the verb "was" as "became" (both are correct translations; you basically just pick which one you want to use but usually based on understanding which our translators didn't always have) then not just mud floods could fit in that unknown timeframe but all the extinction level events our planet has apparently endured.
 
Messages
25
Likes
71
#19
I agree that the numbers are made up. Only I think that they are not pulling anything out of thin air. I think they are straight up and deliberately lying to us. Just my opinion that is.
I do not understand this..
You agree. Only you don't agree. You think you agree. And that's just your opinion.

Between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 there could be eons of time. And if you translate the verb "was" as "became" (both are correct translations; you basically just pick which one you want to use but usually based on understanding which our translators didn't always have) then not just mud floods could fit in that unknown timeframe but all the extinction level events our planet has apparently endured.
Well if you want to take that aproach you can read anything into it really. My point earlier was:

This sort of a thing should be treated with caution and not taken literally after who knows how many translations and alterations.
I'm just saying the bible doesn't mention 'aeons of time' or millions and billions of years.
It's you that's saying there could have been. What is your argument really based on?
 

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
2,125
Likes
3,969
#20
I do not understand this..
You agree. Only you don't agree. You think you agree. And that's just your opinion.
The difference is the intent. Making something up because you are lacking information, or you do not know, is pulling info out of thin air. Making something up because your goal is to hide the truth is lying. The end result is the same.

And everything I post different from the official narrative is just my opinion, fyi.
 
Top