National Geographic Reveals Evidence of Catastrophic Flood in 5,000 BC

WASHINGTON-A National Geographic expedition led by Explorer-in-Residence Robert Ballard has discovered remnants of human habitation more than 300 feet below the surface of the Black Sea, approximately 12 miles off the Turkish shore. Evidence suggests these people must have thrived in a coastal setting before a catastrophic flood inundated the area many thousands of years ago.

 

This cataclysmic flood was tentatively linked to the biblical story of Noah by geologists William Ryan and Walter Pitman of Columbia University in their 1997 book "Noah's Flood." Their theory of a great flood in the Black Sea was based on their discovery of a drowned landscape as seen in seismic profiles and sediment cores.

"This is an incredible find," an excited Ballard said in a telephone call from the expedition ship to Terry Garcia, executive vice president of Mission Programs for the National Geographic Society. "Artifacts at the site are clearly well preserved, with carved wooden beams, wooden branches and stone tools collapsed amongst the mud matrix of the structure."

The site is located 311 feet (95 meters) below sea level, and the extraordinary state of preservation of the wood and other organic materials of such great age is most likely due to the site's proximity to the Black Sea's deeper, oxygen-free waters.

"We discovered this structure very early into the expedition and we are now expanding our search into a larger area. We are going into the river valley in which we believe more people lived and we expect to make further discoveries.

"This is a work in progress. It is critical to know the exact era of the people who lived there, and to that end we hope to recover artifacts and wood for carbon dating so we can figure out what sort of people lived there and the nature of their tools," said Ballard.

Fredrik Hiebert, chief archaeologist for the project from the University of Pennsylvania, said from the ship, "This find represents the first concrete evidence for the occupation of the Black Sea coast prior to its flooding. This is a major discovery that will begin to rewrite the history of cultures in this key area between Europe, Asia and the ancient Middle East."

Turkey's General Directorate of Monuments and Museums is involved in the expedition and has a representative on board the research vessel. General Director of Monuments and Museums Dr. Alpay Pasinli says Turkey is open to continued cooperation in mapping the site, which is within that country's coastal waters.

Precise mapping and photodocumentation of the structure will continue during the five-week expedition.

Scientists theorize that the Black Sea was a freshwater lake until it was flooded by the Mediterranean Sea about 7,000 years ago. Ryan and Pitman's research showed that today's Black Sea was transformed when melting glaciers raised the level of the Mediterranean Sea, causing water to break its way through the strip of land separating the Mediterranean Sea from the smaller freshwater lake.

According to Ryan and Pitman, the resulting cascade, many times the height and volume of Niagara Falls, carved out of solid rock the narrow channel now known as the Bosporus, the strait that separates the Mediterranean Sea from the Black Sea.

The turbulent water pouring into the Black Sea would have widened the surface of the sea by as much as a mile a day, submerging the original shoreline and any settlements under hundreds of feet of salt water.

A team from National Geographic News is on the expedition vessel and will file regular updates. These will air on National Geographic EXPLORER on CNBC starting Sunday, Sept. 17, and on the National Geographic Channel outside the United States. Dispatches are being posted on the Web at nationalgeographic.com.

When the expedition is over, the complete story of the discovery will be told in a one-hour National Geographic SPECIAL on PBS and in 110 countries around the world on the National Geographic Channel. The "National Geographic Today" show will air in-depth reports and updates on the expedition and follow-up research when the Channel launches in the United States in January 2001. National Geographic magazine will publish a first-person account by Bob Ballard of the expedition. Ballard is also authoring a new Society book, "Adventures in Ocean Exploration," for release in April 2001.

Ballard, president of the Institute for Exploration in Mystic, Conn., has made many significant underwater discoveries in his career. He is best known for finding the Titanic in 1985, and has tracked down numerous other significant shipwrecks, including the German battleship Bismarck, the lost fleet of Guadalcanal, and the U.S. aircraft carrier Yorktown, sunk in the Battle of Midway. His most recent discoveries include finds of sunken remains of ships along ancient Mediterranean trade routes and of two ancient Phoenician ships off Israel, the oldest shipwrecks ever found in deep water.

In addition to the National Geographic Society, supporters of the Black Sea expedition include the U.S. Navy's Office of Naval Research, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the J.M. Kaplan Fund.

Expedition participants come from the Institute for Exploration, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Marr Vessel Management Ltd., Woods Hole Marine Systems Inc., the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the Institute of Nautical Archaeology.

"Faith and Geology" (The Wanderer, September 7, 2000)

Excerpt from article by Peter Wilders regarding new evidence discrediting evolutionary theory

...The case for evolution of the species rests, therefore, upon: (1) the sedimentary strata having been accurately dated (the strata are used to date the fossils); (2) the assumed generic relations between fossils of different species being correct; (3) confirmation by radiometric dating of fossils.

Sedimentary strata

Until recently, the principles governing the formation of strata had not been tested in the laboratory. The basic principles of superposition, continuity, and original horizontality were formulated by Nicholas Stenon in the 17 th century. They were subsequently used in the construction of the geological time scale. The key principle, that of superposition, because of its apparent simplicity, was never question. It stated that any strata was younger that the one underneath it and older than the one on top. How could anything so obvious be doubted?

When the illustrious pioneers of geology such as James Hutton and Charles Lyell examined stratified geological formations hundreds of meters high, there was no reason not to interpret the successive strata in terms of the principle of superposition. It seemed logical that strata, anywhere in the formation, should follow the principle of the lower being older than the higher. When the aforementioned basic principles were eventually put to the test in the 1990's (Guy Berthault, Geological dating Principles Questioned, Fusion, May/June 2000), the experimental results disagreed entirely with Nicholas Stenon's, Hutton's, and Lyell's interpretation.

The experiments showed that in the presence of a water current, none of the principles of stratigraphy, including superposition, applied. Geological interpretation stand or fall by the peer-viewed results of laboratory experiments. In this case, the interpretation of Stenon, passed on to succeeding generations of geologists, has fallen. The only criticism from a minority of geologists is that laboratory experiments cannot be extrapolated to explain natural geological formations in the field. The scientific response is that the laws of mechanics governing sediments and fluids are universal. They apply just as much in the laboratory flume as in the oceans and seas. The article in the scientific journal Fusion gives examples.

It should be explained that 95% or more of sedimentary rocks were originally formed under water. This fact is attested by the ubiquity of marine fossils in such rocks.

Stenon and his successors were, of course, quite aware of the mainly marine, or ocean, environment in which sediments were deposited, yet had overlooked the effect of water currents. Stenon's principle of superposition required completely current-free water. For it to apply, the particles of sediments concerned, such as sandstone, limestone, and clay, would have had to fall vertically, but gently (so as not to create a current) into the water from an unknown source above.

In reality, however, sediments are eroded, transported, and deposited by means of current. Stratification and lamination experiments, as published by the Geological Society (1993) and the Academy of Sciences (1986, 1988) in France, demonstrate how the action of water currents on sediments cause the constituent particles to segregate according to size. As a result, each stratum tends to be composed of the same type of sediment. In transgression conditions, whereby the sea water rises, sediments are eroded and transported by fast-flowing currents. As the veolocity of current slows, the large particles drop out, next, the less large ones, and finally, when the water level reaches its maximum, and the current speed is reduced to nil, the fine particles deposit.

The resultant bed of fine sediments contains particles which were carried by the current until the velocity was sufficiently slow for them to deposit. The larger sized particles in the bed below could have been eroded at the same time as the finer particles in the upper bed. Both beds, apparently successively deposited, have sediments of the same date of erosion.

It follows that the principle of superposition is invalidated because the lower bed cannot be said to be older than the upper bed. The term principle in the science of stratigraphy implies universal application in all normal conditions. This is clearly not the case for successive superposition of strata which does not take place in moving water. It cannot be said, therefore, that the sedimentary strata, and therefore the fossils in them, have been accurately dated.

Generic Relationships between Fossils

The Second condition necessary to validate evolutionary theory is that the assumption of generic relationships between fossils of different species is correct. Phylogenetic trees are constructed on the assumption that organisms in lower strata are ancestral to those higher up. The assumption of evolutionary links between fossils in lower and higher strata depends upon the validity of the principle of superposition of strata. This principle having been used to date both the strata and the fossils they contain, the fossils in lower strata were considered to be older than the fossils in higher strata. As explained above this principle has been experimentally refuted, and assumptions based upon it of generic relationships between fossils, therefore, have no value.

Radiometric Dating

Radiometric dating, long held as the means of confirming ages calculated by stratigraphy, is now being seriously questioned (ibid. Guy Berthault). It has been discovered that historically dated eruptions have been given ages of hundreds of thousands of years by radiometric dating. For example, the 1986 eruption of Mt. St. Helens, according to radioisotope dating, took place between 350,000 and 2,8000,000 years ago. There are many other similar discordant radiometric dates.

As with strata dating, radiometric dating is based upon a number of unproved assumptions. Take the potassium-argon method as an example. Radioactive potassium decays to the non-radioactive daughter product argon gas. The freshly erupted lava is assumed to contain radioactive potassium only. All the residual argon is thought to have been evacuated as the liquid lava cooled and transformed into crystal. The extraordinary great ages given for the very young lave from Mt. St. Helens is due to the simple fact that argon gas continued to exist in the lava after the lava had hardened. The false assumption led to lava less than 20 years old being given an age of millions of years. The final requirement of evolution theory, the reliability of radiometric dating, is also not fulfilled....

This essay is published in the book: Not By Bread Alone by Robert A. Sungenis (Queenship Publishing, PO Box 220, Goleta, CA 93116, 800-647-9882)

A Study on the Genealogies of Genesis

James Ussher (1581-1656), a Reformed theologian, was one of the first to propose a systematic chronological analysis of the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11. His proposed date for the creation of Adam was 4004 BC. Ussher's dating was based on the premise that the genealogical formula of "A begat B" is always a father-son relationship. This theory received wide notoriety, since it was eventually published in the margins of the King James Bible. Despite the severe distortions of other biblical texts, Ussher's became the prevailing view in the post-Reformation period. However, one of the most glaring distortions of Ussher's father-son chronology was the assigning of 230 years as Israel's time in Egypt, whereas Scripture is specific of a 430 year period, to the very day (Exodus 12:40; Galatians 3:17). Moreover, Ussher's chronology resulted in some of the antediluvian personages of Genesis 5, and many of the post-diluvians of Genesis 11, outliving their great-grandsons, some still existing during the time of Abraham, as well as some being present with Noah's family on the ark, in contradiction of Genesis 7:7 and 1 Peter 3:20.

Biblical chronologists have discovered that the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 are not meant to be understood as a continual line of father-son relationships. The formula "A begat B" very likely means that several generations are included between A and B. The first indication that such an understanding is expected is in the comparison of Luke 3:36 with Genesis 11:12-13. While Genesis 11 speaks as if Arphaxad comes immediately before Shelach, Luke's account places "Cainan" between Arphaxad and Shelach, proving that the genealogy of Genesis 11:12-13 is not a father-son relationship.(1) Rather, Arphaxad is the ancestor of Shelach. Since the remaining names of Genesis 11 follow the same pattern (that is, "A lived X years and begat B; after he begat B, he lived Y years, and begat other sons and daughters"), this leads us to postulate that all of them, with few exceptions, are ancestral relationships. The same, of course, would be true of the genealogy of Genesis 5. This would mean that "A begat B" refers to A begetting the ancestor of B, not begetting his immediate son. In the case of "Arphaxad begat Shelach," this would mean that Arphaxad begat the ancestor of Shelach, either his father, grandfather, great-grandfather, or some other ancestor. We can also surmise that the "begat" formula does not necessarily mean that Arphaxad was the father of Cainan. Since Luke's genealogy is not specific, Arphaxad may have been the ancestor of Cainan.

Another indication that biblical genealogies are not exclusively father-son relationships is the comparison of Matthew's genealogy with that of the Chronicler. First, Matthew 1:8-9 states, "and Jehoram begat Uzziah, Uzziah begat Jotham." However, 1 Chronicles 3:11-12 includes "Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah" between Jehoram and Jotham, showing that in Matthew's genealogy, Jehoram was not the immediate father of Jotham but an ancestor. (2) Second, Matthew 1:11 states "Josiah begat Jeconiah," but 1 Chronicles 3:16 includes "Jehoiakim" between Josiah and Jeconiah, thus we know that Josiah was not the immediate father of Jeconiah. (3) Third, Matthew skipped the names of Zerubbabel's sons, Meshullam or Hannaniah from 1 Chronicles 3:19 and went to the ancestor Abiud of either of the two sons (Matthew 1:13). This allowed Matthew to include only nine names between Zerubbabel and Joseph, names that do not appear in the Chronicler's genealogy or in accounts of Ezra-Nehemiah and thus may be the product of tradition.

Matthew could structure his genealogy in this way since the word "begat" does not necessarily refer to a father-son relationship. (4) In fact, Matthew intended to limit the genealogy to three sections of 14 names, amounting to 42 names. He did this not only by leaving out the aforementioned names from 1 Chronicles, but also by using Jeconiah's name twice (once in the first triplet of fourteen in verse 11; another in the second triplet of fourteen in verse 12). The number 42 is important to Matthew, since it corresponds to the use of 42 encampments of Israel through the desert (Numbers 33:5-49) and the 42 months or 1260 days of Revelation 11:2, 3; 12:6; 13:5, which symbolically refers to the New Covenant period from the cross to the second coming of Christ (Hebrews 9:28).

In the same genre as Matthew, Luke was not interested in a precise recounting of father-son relationships, but in arriving at precisely 77 names from "Jesus" in Luke 3:23 to "God" in Luke 3:38, since 7 is the number of perfection in biblical numerology, and more specifically, the number of the sabbath as well as the covenant. Jesus, the "Second Adam" (1 Corinthians 15:45) established the New Covenant, which replaced the Old Covenant of the First Adam (cf. Hosea 6:7) and provided the eschatological sabbath rest (Hebrews 4:3-11). Moreover, since Cainan's name does not appear in any other Hebrew genealogies (1 Chronicles 1:18-24), Luke must have included his name based on the tradition from the Septuagint. It is probably the same tradition from which Luke extracted the genealogical names from Heli (Luke 3:23) to Mattatha (Luke 3:31), since none of these 39 names appear in the genealogies of the Hebrew Chronicles. (5)

The genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 also eliminate names, but for a different reason than Matthew and Luke. The intent of Genesis is to give an accurate and literal calendar of history, which is why the accounting of the years between personages is so meticulous and formulaic. The only time we can be sure that Genesis 5 and 11 are referring to father-son relationships is when they specify such, usually by noting the father giving a name to his immediate son. (6) This phrase appears in Genesis 5:3 between Adam and Seth ("and he called his name Seth"); in Genesis 4:26 between Seth and Enosh ("And Seth also had a son, and he called his name Enosh"); and in Genesis 5:29 between Lamech and Noah ("and called his name Noah"). The only specific instance of a father/son relationship in which the father is not said to name the son is between Noah and Shem, yet we know that Shem was the immediate son of Noah since Shem entered the ark with him (Genesis 7:13). In all other instances where the word "begat" appears in Genesis 5 and 11, there is no proof that it is referring to father-son relationships. (7)

The Biblical Calendar of History

The ancestral calendar works as follows: As Genesis 11:12 states that "Arphaxad lived 35 years and begat Shelach," it means that when Arphaxad was 35, the ancestor of Shelach was born, not Shelach. The ancestor of Shelach is Arphaxad's son, but the son is not named since Arphaxad still serves as the calendar marker, and will serve so until his death. From Luke 3:36 we know Cainan is included somewhere in this ancestral line, although we cannot assume Luke used a father-son genealogy, and in fact, he probably did not. (8) In any case, Arphaxad is not the father of Shelach, though he is said to "beget" Shelach. Next, Genesis 11:13, states that Arphaxad lived 403 years after he begat Shelach. This means Arphaxad lived 430 years after he begat Shelach's ancestor, not Shelach himself.

In this way, Arphaxad serves as the calendar marker for his generation. It would be the same as when we reference our years as "Anno Domini" ("In the year of Our Lord" or "A.D."). When Arphaxad was alive, the calendar would have recorded: "In the years of Arphaxad," so that everyone could know where in the chronology of history they existed. (9) When Arphaxad died, the next calendar marker was chosen, in this case, Shelach. To perpetuate the calendar without confusion or distortion, the new calendar marker, who was born in the same year the previous calendar marker died, was chosen. Thus the year Shelach was born was the year Arphaxad died. The calendar then read "In the years of Shelach" for as long as Shelach lived. So that there was a sufficient pool of ancestors from which to choose the subsequent calendar marker, the text specifies that each marker "begat other sons and daughters." Similar to the begetting of the subsequent calendar marker, the "sons and daughters" included persons from his subsequent generations, such as grandsons, great-grandsons, and so on. A period of hundreds of years between calendar markers would produce a sufficient pool from which to choose an ancestor born in the year the previous calendar marker died. In this way, there would be no overlap in the calendar. (10)

The import of this ancestral calendar is that there is precisely 438 years (35 + 403 = 438) between Arphaxad and Shelach, not 35, as was assumed by Ussher. Such a calculation would extend the genealogical timetable of both Genesis 5 and Genesis 11 into many thousands of years. The genealogy of Genesis 5, which contains seven calendar markers that we assume were not father-son relationships (i.e., Enosh, Kenan, Mahalalel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech), results in approximately 4,700 years of time. If we add the years between Adam, Seth and Enosh; and between Lamech and Noah, there are approximately 6,000 years between the creation of Adam and the Flood.

The nine calendar markers in Genesis 11 (Shem, Arphaxad, Shelach, Eber, Peleg, Reu, Serug, Nahor, Terah), in addition to the years between Noah and Shem and the years between Terah and Abraham (whom we know are father-son relations; Genesis 5:32; 11:26), amounts to approximately 3,000 years. This means the Flood occurred around 5000 B.C., and creation about 11,000 B.C., since it is known that Abraham lived around the year 2,000 B.C. (11)

Endnotes:

1) The Nestle-Aland Greek text, Novum Testamentum Graece, 1898; The Greek New Testament, eds. Aland, Black, Martini, Metzger & Wikgren, 3rd ed, 1975, as well as other critical texts, report no textual variations in µ ("of Cainam"), except that the Novum Testamentum Graece notes that the Koine and Caesarean texts render it ("Cainan"), whereas a "probable" reading of papyrus 75 (P75) and codex Bazae Cantabrigiensis contain µ. The Septuagint contains the following for Genesis 11:11-13: "And Arphaxad lived 135 years and begot Cainan. And Arphaxad lived after he begot Cainan 400 years [Alexandrine text has 430 years], and he begot other sons and daughters. And Cainan lived 130 years and begot Sala [Shelach]; and Cainan lived 330 years after he begot Sala, and he begot other sons and daughters." The discrepancy between the Hebrew Masoretic text and the Greek Septuagint is also evident in Genesis 10:24. The Hebrew renders it: "And Arphaxad begot Shelach," while the LXX renders it: "And Arphaxad begot Cainan, and Cainan begot Sala." It is clear that Luke is following the LXX tradition. Although the LXX is not inspired, and therefore not inerrant, Luke 3:36, which adds Cainan, is inerrant. This means that the Hebrew text, which is also inspired and inerrant, cannot, under any circumstances, be regarding Arphaxad as the father of Shelach.

2) "Azariah" of 1 Chronicles 3:12 may be the Uzziah of Matthew 1:9 (cf., 2 Chronicles 27:2; Isaiah 7:1).

3) Some Bible versions, such as the NIV, have "Jehoiachin," which is a variant of Jeconiah.

4) We are using the word "begat" to feature the ambiguity of the Greek (the aorist, indicative of , which is the normal word for "begotten" or "born," e.g., Matthew 1:20; Acts 7:8; Hebrews 1:5) in place of the NIV's specific yet uncertain "father of."

5) The significance of Luke placing Cainan between Arphaxad and Shelach in Luke 3:36, as well as Matthew's elimination of genealogical names, becomes increasingly important for our study, since before their writing, no one could prove that any portion of the Genesis genealogies were ancestral relationships as opposed to father-son relationships. Various rabbis of Israel, without the benefit of the gospel's commentary, concluded that all the genealogies were father-son relationships, which resulted in placing Seth both on Noah's ark and assuming the identity of Melchizedek in the time of Abraham. Not only does the possibility of ancestral genealogies in Genesis curtail such placement of Seth's life, but 1 Peter 3:20 specifies that there were only eight persons on Noah's ark (cf., Genesis 7:7, 13; 8:16, 18: Noah, his wife, his three sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth, and their three wives, respectively), which obviously eliminates Seth as a possibility. Since the rabbis did not have the privilege of using the New Testament to interpret the Old Testament, erroneous chronologies persisted in Judaism.

6) The Hebrew is . ("and called his name").

7) The Hebrew of "begat" is ("yalad"), which, similar to the Greek , only refers to "bring forth," which may or may not include a father-son relationship. The only other possible exception is Genesis 10:25, which states: "Two sons were born to Eber; the name of one was Peleg, for in his days the earth was divided; and his brother's name was Joktan." However, "sons" (Hebrew: ) does not necessarily refer to an immediate son of a father, as is evident in such passages as Genesis 10:31. The fact that Eber is not said to "name" his sons Peleg and Joktan also suggests that he was not their immediate father.

8) Luke does not use the wording "Arphaxad was the father of Cainan," rather, each of Luke's genealogical entries uses the simple genitive of possession, e.g., "of Cainan, of Aphaxad" (Greek: µ ), showing only that Arphaxad and Cainan are related, but not necessarily father and son.

9) Notice, for example, how years of passage are referenced as coincident with the life span of Noah: Genesis 7:6: "Noah was 600 years old when the flood waters came on the earth." Notice in Genesis 7:11 the language of an identical calendar as we keep today: "In the 600th year of Noah's life, on the 17th day of the 2nd month." Genesis 8:13 follows: "By the 1st day of the 1st month of Noah's 601st year, the water had dried up from the earth." The meticulous chronological schedule is firm evidence of an existing calendar.

10) To help conceive of the large ancestral pool created by the passing of generations, Numbers 3:27-30 records "the families of the sons of Kohath" as resulting in a fifth generation of people from Kohath numbering 8,600. Thus, a sufficient ancestral pool would have been available to choose a child born in the year an ancestral calendar marker died. According to Exodus 6:16-20, Kohath is in the calendrical genealogical line of Levi (lived 130 years); Kohath (lived 133 years); Amram (lived 137 years); Aaron (who, according to Exodus 7:7, was 83 years old at the time of the Exodus). Adding these together gives 483 years. If we subtract 53 years of this total to account for Levi (the third son of Jacob) being with Jacob before their entrance into Egypt, the total is 430 years, which agrees with Exodus 12:40's 430 years as the total time Israel remained in Egypt. Thus, Kohath died 220 years before the Exodus (137 + 83 = 220), allowing for the accumulation of 8,600 descendants. I am indebted to Harold Camping for some of the ideas presented here.

11) This coincides with the recent proposition from U.S. geophysicists, William Ryan and Walter Pittman, who estimate that the Noachic Flood took place approximately 7,600 years ago, bringing the date to 5,600 B.C. Ryan's and Pittman's thesis, titled, "The Universal Deluge" was exhibited in 1999 in Trent's Museum of Natural History. Accordingly, an earth of approximately 10,000 to 15,000 years old agrees with much current scientific evidence on a number of fronts. Particularly significant is the amount of inorganic salts deposited in the oceans from land erosion, which according to the most recent calculations from seismic echoing, accounts for a very young earth. (Sources: Ewing, Maurice, "New Discoveries on the Mid-Atlantic Ridge," National Geographic Magazine, Nov. 1949; Ewing, John, "North Pacific Sediment Layers Measured by Seismic Profiling," in The Crust and Upper Mantle of the Pacific Area, 1968; Larson, Roger and Spiers, Fred, "East Pacific Rise Crest, a Near Bottom Geophysical Profile," in Science, Jan. 1969; Hurley, Patrick, "The Confirmation of Continental Drift," Scientific American, April 1968; Kuenen, H. "Geological Conditions of Sedimentation," Chemical Oceanography, 1965.

Robert Sungenis
Catholic Apologetics International
March 18, 2001