Was the Great Pyramid Built Before Noah's Flood?

[Andrewn]

Exodus 20:11
For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

I'm a creationist (as every Christian must be) and have read some of Creation Ministries books and magazines. I think these give great evidence about the wonderful creation of God and the supreme intelligence He showed in designing every detail in every creature. I highly recommend their publications but I cannot believe in a 6000 year old earth. From my understanding, objections to Evolution are as follows:

1) The world could not have started on its own. I agree and believe God created the universe. Why couldn't He have created the universe 14 billion years ago?

2) Life could not have evolved on its own and progressed from one species to another. I agree and believe that God created different kinds of life. Amoeba did not progress to humans. Horses were created as horses, cows as cows, kangaroos were created as kangaroos, apes as apes, and humans as humans, etc.

3) The 24 hour periods mentioned in Genesis. They cannot be 24 hour periods because the 6th day in which animal and human life is created and in which we still live has been going on for at least 6000 years so far, according to the Bible.

4) The problem of death before Adam's Fall. This is a relatively big theological issue but I think some saints like Thomas Aquinas believed there was animal death in the Garden. So, it doesn't have to be a deal breaker.

5) Adding up ages of Adam's descendants. There are conceivably huge gaps between one generation and the next.

So, why do Bible believers have to believe in a 6000 or 15,000 year earth? I'm posting this in 2 threads. You may choose to respond in the thread you think is most appropriate.

 

[Job 33:6]

Basic problem.
The pyramid is built from sedimentary rock and upon sedimentary rock that was laid down by the global flood.
So unless you believe the eruptions had a time machine they built the pyramid after the flood.

Meaning there is a problem with secular dating and of biblical understanding.

This is a problem that can never be resolved by young earthers.

Oh there's a mass unconformity at the end of the precambrian? Must be the timing of the flood. Oh there are unconformities in the mid Paleozoic? Must be the timing of a world wide flood. Oh there's a mass extinctions and world-wide iridium layer at the K-T boundary? Must be the timing of the world wide flood. Oh there are layers below the pyramid? The layers must be from a world wide global flood. Oh there is an erosional mark toward the top of a pyramid? That must be the timing of the worldwide global flood.


And they can't ever agree on a single answer, else they'd subject themselves to critique. Thus they endlessly move the goal posts ad infinitum.

Then some say, well everything was made by the flood, but then you find animal trackways throughout every major period of the geologic column, then they say "well maybe there were islands of places not covered in water. Well was the whole world not covered in water then?

And round and round the chase goes until they disappear.

 

[miamited]

How do we know that the Great Pyramid was built around 2500 BC? That figure is backed by a great deal of history. Egypt went through 28 dynasties of pharaohs before it became a Roman province. We have writing and inscriptions from ancient Egypt.

One method of dating uses the stars, which were used to align the pyramids to true north. Dr. Kate Spence, University of Cambridge, says that they used the stars Mizar and Kochab. To align a structure, hang a string with a substantial weight.

"You'd then wait until these two stars were vertically aligned exactly with your hanging string. Then a line from you, to the hanging string, would point due north to the horizon."

"If you use that method before 2467 BC, you'd be slightly to the west of True North and after that date you'd be to the east of True North. And when Dr. Spence looked at the Pyramids of Giza, she found exactly this relationship - the earlier ones were lined up slightly to the west, and the later ones slightly to the east."

Dr. Spence's figure of 2467 BC from the stars is very close to what is known from history.


Link
Dating the pyramids › Dr Karl's Great Moments In Science (ABC Science)

Hi dale,

I'm not sure what the 'due north' has to do with the construction of the pyramids. There is another reasonable explanation for why three of the largest pyramids all face a similar direction. The first was built and the other two were aligned to the first. That the first happened to be 'due north' could be coincidence or reasonably accurate setting established merely by the rising of the sun on the eastern horizon.

What we have in this idea of the alignment of the pyramids is based on at least a couple of assumptions. First, that they were intentionally aligned. There are over 100 pyramids in Egypt. Only three are considered to be so closely aligned. So, our first assumption is that there was a method and purpose of such alignment. Second, that the alignment is based on the stars. As pointed out, the first of the three pyramids could have been built with a reasonable north facing alignment, and the other two were drafted to match the first.

I think it is generally accepted that the Egyptians were mathematically learned people with what were likely the first 'engineers' among them. However, even the author of your article concludes: "It could be that this is just a coincidence - after all, she was looking at only half a dozen pyramids. That's a very small sample size. But if her method is correct, it means that we can calculate the dates when the pyramids were built to within five years or so - which is much better than the currently accepted hundred-year error." So, while it makes interesting reading, it is just a theory that 'could' explain the alignment of a very few of the pyramids.

It could also be that the first stone was set based on the first explanation of the rising of the sun. This would mean that any pyramid could have been started at any time, rather than the builders having to wait for a certain day of the year to begin their building. While the author notes some difficulties that we see today in doing this, there is no guarantee that such difficulties were quite so problematic in the day that the pyramids were built. There was a lot less pollution in the air that causes some of the early morning horizon haze that we have today. That the horizon couldn't be seen from where the pyramids were built seems a fairly ludicrous 'fact' on which to support such a theory. There is always a horizon. Even in a valley there is a point where the earth meets the sky and the sun will cut across that sky in the same direction that it cuts through the sky all over the earth on any given day. As flat as we know Egypt to be today, I'm really not sure why there would be a problem establishing a horizon and determining 'due east', and thus 'due north' by establishing a direction 45 degrees from the line of the rising sun.

This author seems to want to hang his hat on the research that he's proposing, not so much because it might really be the answer to the alignment, but that it now gives us an ability to more closely date the pyramids. Such dating would then be based on the 'assumption' that the stated research is correct, which he himself allows could be wrong. I honestly can't understand how he figures that we can narrow down the current dating method to one hundred years. All such dating of ancient history rests on a lot of assumptive work. After all, it's not like they're finding written evidence that is dated, 'May 5th 3004 B.C. There is some research that shows that we may have been wrong for several centuries in dating the 'Egyptian timeline'.

Radiocarbon Dating Timeline Ancient Egypt

Egyptian kingdoms dated

I think it important to note that the first article states that over the period of the last couple of centuries, there has been a variance of some 3500 years. Surely some 'proven method of precision' would have long established a more stable date. So, I think it worthwhile, in all of these debates on dating, that we understand that it's all a fairly unstable science. Keep in mind that if all we consider to be 'truth' are scientific findings...then Jesus didn't rise up out of that tomb, either.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[Tolworth John]

This is a problem that can never be resolved by young earthers.

Oh there's a mass unconformity at the end of the precambrian? Must be the timing of the flood. Oh there are unconformities in the mid Paleozoic? Must be the timing of a world wide flood. Oh there's a mass extinctions and world-wide iridium layer at the K-T boundary? Must be the timing of the world wide flood. Oh there are layers below the pyramid? The layers must be from a world wide global flood. Oh there is an erosional mark toward the top of a pyramid? That must be the timing of the worldwide global flood.


And they can't ever agree on a single answer, else they'd subject themselves to critique. Thus they endlessly move the goal posts ad infinitum.

Then some say, well everything was made by the flood, but then you find animal trackways throughout every major period of the geologic column, then they say "well maybe there were islands of places not covered in water. Well was the whole world not covered in water then?

And round and round the chase goes until they disappear.

Yes it is very easy to laugh and poke fun at the Bible and those who believe the Bible.

But in dismissing a global flood you, as you are well aware cause far more problems than you dismiss.

How do you work around the fact that in believing that Jesus, as a man did not know the truth about creation and the flood, that Jesus as God and knowing the truth about these things, lied about them.

How is it possible for Jesus to pay for anyone's sins if he is not sinless.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

It is generally agreed that Abraham lived around 2,000 BC (or about 4,000 years ago). Archaeologists and historians tell us that the Great Pyramid of Egypt was built around 2,500 BC (or 4,500 years ago). So the Great Pyramid was about five hundred years old when Abraham came out of the city of Ur.

Creationists, or at least those who claim that the world is only six thousand years old, say that there are only 400 years between Noah's Flood and Abraham -- or even less, as we shall see. This is unworkable.

For instance, one website gives the following dates.*

Creation 4004 BC

Flood 2348 BC

Tower of Babel 2234 BC Only 114 years after the Flood????

Abraham 1996 BC Only 352 years after the Flood????



As you can see, this creationist date of 1996 BC for Abraham is very close to the generally accepted figure of around 2000 BC. Yet they claim that the Tower of Babel, an immense project requiring tens of thousands of workers, happened only a trifle over a hundred years after the Flood. These workers would have to be supported by millions of farmers or herders. Keep in mind that after the Flood, Genesis says there were only eight people in the world.

There is solid evidence that the Great Pyramid and others nearby were built around 2500 BC, about 500 years before Abraham. Creationist reckoning seems to put the Great Pyramid before the Flood.



*www.biblehistory.com/timeline

We tend to ignore the giants in those days. They were there before and after the flood. They are largely ignored in Christian circles as contributors to monolithic sites because of their conspiratorial leanings. I do believe they can be attributed to many of our unanswered questions pertaining to this subject matter. Be blessed and stay healthy!

 

[Andrewn]

There is some research that shows that we may have been wrong for several centuries in dating the 'Egyptian timeline'.

Radiocarbon Dating Timeline Ancient Egypt

This is what science says:

Egypt’s unifier Menes (aka Narmer)—the first “official” pharaoh—acceded to the throne, the investigators concluded, around 3100 BC.

The Great Pyramid of Giza was built for the Fourth Dynasty Pharaoh Khufu (or Cheops), and was completed around 2560 BCE.

This is what the article says:

The Flood occurred about 2348 BC and the dispersion from the Tower of Babel sometime in the centuries soon after.

While the settlement of the region we know as Egypt would have likely occurred soon after the dispersion from Babel, we cannot be sure exactly when.

Some suspect that Mizraim, Menes, and Narmer were the same person, but the dates are still uncertain.


BTW, according to the Bible, Abraham lived around 2000 BC. And at his time, the country of Egypt was well-established.

 

[James A]

3) The 24 hour periods mentioned in Genesis. They cannot be 24 hour periods because the 6th day in which animal and human life is created and in which we still live has been going on for at least 6000 years so far, according to the Bible.

God, consisting of no matter or form, is pure act - "day" in Genesis means "action". Creation is instantaneous so, there should not be any duration attached to it. I also believe there were gaps probably in the order of millions of years between the actions.

 

[James A]

I believe the flood at Noah's time was a local one. It appeared "universal" to Noah and the animals entered to the Ark were his domestic animals.

All descendants of Adam lived in the same region until Babel tower so, a local flood killed "all" humans.

 

[Andrewn]

God, consisting of no matter or form, is pure act - "day" in Genesis means "action". Creation is instantaneous so, there should not be any duration attached to it. I also believe there were gaps probably in the order of millions of years between the actions.

Interesting you'd say this because in previous centuries the objection to Genesis was really why did God take as much time as a whole week to create the world? Now Genesis is criticized for showing that God took only 6 days .

BTW, I love your avatar. Welcome to the Forums.

 

[Job 33:6]

Yes it is very easy to laugh and poke fun at the Bible and those who believe the Bible.

But in dismissing a global flood you, as you are well aware cause far more problems than you dismiss.

How do you work around the fact that in believing that Jesus, as a man did not know the truth about creation and the flood, that Jesus as God and knowing the truth about these things, lied about them.

How is it possible for Jesus to pay for anyone's sins if he is not sinless.

I don't view my critique as laughing or poking fun at anything.

And it's never a "problem" nor are problems ever introduced by recognizing reality. Like when doing a math equation, it's never a problem when you recognize that you have a wrong answer, rather it is a step toward a solution. So when you say that rejecting a global flood causes problems, I view it not as causing problems, but rather exposing flawed original perceptions. It is a step in the right direction.

And sometimes hard questions need to be asked to move forward. Nobody ever just assumes a wrong answer whenever an equation is difficult. You have to accept what the math says and work it out the best you can. And likewise, a global flood shouldn't simply be assumed, just because alternative ideas are challenging.

In math class you dont pick and choose answers based on what feels good, you follow the numbers wherever they lead you.

 

[DamianWarS]

it wasn't intended to imply the date of creation, but rather to provide the line of Abraham from Adam. To show that God didn't just choose some random pagan man named Abram in Ur to make covenant with Him.

Can not any man draw a straight line from himself to Adam?

 

[Andrewn]

So when you say that rejecting a global flood causes problems, I view it not as causing problems, but rather exposing flawed original perceptions. It is a step in the right direction.

I agree with you. But is it possible that a global flood took place at the end of one of the ice ages in the past 300,000 years, perhaps 11,700 years ago?

"Quaternary ice age (2.6 mya-present). Approximately a dozen major glaciations have occurred over the past 1 million years, the largest of which peaked 650,000 years ago and lasted for 50,000 years. The most recent glaciation period, often known simply as the “Ice Age,” reached peak conditions some 18,000 years ago before giving way to the interglacial Holocene epoch 11,700 years ago.

"At the height of the recent glaciation, the ice grew to more than 12,000 feet thick as sheets spread across Canada, Scandinavia, Russia and South America. Corresponding sea levels plunged more than 400 feet, while global temperatures dipped around 10 degrees Fahrenheit on average and up to 40 degrees in some areas. In North America, the region of the Gulf Coast states was dotted with the pine forests and prairie grasses that are today associated with the northern states and Canada."

https://www.history.com/topics/pre-history/ice-age

 

[Job 33:6]

I agree with you. But is it possible that a global flood took place at the end of one of the ice ages in the past 300,000 years, perhaps 11,700 years ago?

"Quaternary ice age (2.6 mya-present). Approximately a dozen major glaciations have occurred over the past 1 million years, the largest of which peaked 650,000 years ago and lasted for 50,000 years. The most recent glaciation period, often known simply as the “Ice Age,” reached peak conditions some 18,000 years ago before giving way to the interglacial Holocene epoch 11,700 years ago.

"At the height of the recent glaciation, the ice grew to more than 12,000 feet thick as sheets spread across Canada, Scandinavia, Russia and South America. Corresponding sea levels plunged more than 400 feet, while global temperatures dipped around 10 degrees Fahrenheit on average and up to 40 degrees in some areas. In North America, the region of the Gulf Coast states was dotted with the pine forests and prairie grasses that are today associated with the northern states and Canada."

https://www.history.com/topics/pre-history/ice-age

Well, this idea kind of goes hand-in-hand with what I was pointing out earlier.

The moment we begin actually critiquing the idea, then proponents of a global flood shift and say "well maybe it was over here or there".

Well, after the pyramids doesn't work, let's just say it was after the pleistocene.

Rather than just coming to terms with the situation, we are constantly playing this game of wack-a-mole.

And someone could hypothetically ask about a million scenarios. What about between these layers? How about between those layers? What about those features? How about this fossil bed? Ad infinitum.

Maybe rather than starting with a conclusion (a global flood occured), we should start with a question (what do we see and what does the world tell us on its own, without our input)?

 

[Andrewn]

Maybe rather than starting with a conclusion (a global flood occured), we should start with a question (what do we see and what does the world tell us on its own, without our input)?

Here is some of what we know from science:

"When the last ice age began to teeter 14,700 years ago, meltwater began to pour into the oceans, raising levels by up to half a metre per decade. The sea moved inland like a slow tsunami."

The 'pre-Holocene' climate is returning – and it won't be fun

"The sea level rise and temporary land depression allowed temporary marine incursions into areas that are now far from the sea. Holocene marine fossils are known, for example, from Vermont and Michigan. Other than higher-latitude temporary marine incursions associated with glacial depression, Holocene fossils are found primarily in lakebed, floodplain, and cave deposits. Holocene marine deposits along low-latitude coastlines are rare because the rise in sea levels during the period exceeds any likely tectonic uplift of non-glacial origin.[citation needed]

"Post-glacial rebound in the Scandinavia region resulted in the formation of the Baltic Sea. Earthquakes are a leading cause of sediment deformation, leading to the creation and destruction of bodies of water.[25] The region continues to rise, still causing weak earthquakes across Northern Europe. The equivalent event in North America was the rebound of Hudson Bay, as it shrank from its larger, immediate post-glacial Tyrrell Sea phase, to near its present boundaries.[26]"

Holocene - Wikipedia

 

[Job 33:6]

Here is some of what we know from science:

"When the last ice age began to teeter 14,700 years ago, meltwater began to pour into the oceans, raising levels by up to half a metre per decade. The sea moved inland like a slow tsunami."

The 'pre-Holocene' climate is returning – and it won't be fun

"The sea level rise and temporary land depression allowed temporary marine incursions into areas that are now far from the sea. Holocene marine fossils are known, for example, from Vermont and Michigan. Other than higher-latitude temporary marine incursions associated with glacial depression, Holocene fossils are found primarily in lakebed, floodplain, and cave deposits. Holocene marine deposits along low-latitude coastlines are rare because the rise in sea levels during the period exceeds any likely tectonic uplift of non-glacial origin.[citation needed]

"Post-glacial rebound in the Scandinavia region resulted in the formation of the Baltic Sea. Earthquakes are a leading cause of sediment deformation, leading to the creation and destruction of bodies of water.[25] The region continues to rise, still causing weak earthquakes across Northern Europe. The equivalent event in North America was the rebound of Hudson Bay, as it shrank from its larger, immediate post-glacial Tyrrell Sea phase, to near its present boundaries.[26]"

Holocene - Wikipedia

This sounds like a fair assessment. It suggests that at the end of the last ice age, sea level had risen as glaciers melted back.

Though this isn't exactly a global flood. Sounds like a better case for a local flood. It wouldn't have been experienced by those living away from coastlines.

But this scenario is something that, if we looked at earth sciences, we could justify in many ways.

 

[Andrewn]

This sounds like a fair assessment. It suggests that at the end of the last ice age, sea level had risen as glaciers melted back.

Though this isn't exactly a global flood. Sounds like a better case for a local flood. It wouldn't have been experienced by those living away from coastlines.

Water levels in the Great Lakes has been rising more than 5 cm per year. If people back then lived 40 years then they would have seen a rise of 2 meters. Of course, 300 years of continuous rise in sea level would produce terrible effects.

 

[coffee4u]

3) The 24 hour periods mentioned in Genesis. They cannot be 24 hour periods because the 6th day in which animal and human life is created and in which we still live has been going on for at least 6000 years so far, according to the Bible.

"According to the Bible" Really? Where? You can't make a statement like that and not back it up with scripture.
So scripture, please.

They very much can be literal 24 hour days.
1) Genesis was written by the author (most likely Moses) with the intention to be literal. It is not written the way Hebrew poetry or parable is written.
Yom followed by "evening and morning," only ever means a literal day. It is also modified by numbers (first, second, etc.), again something limited in Hebrew to that of a literal day.
Taking this as anything other than a literal day is not due to how the text is written.

2)We then have other scriptures confirming the 6 days.
Exodus 20:11
For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.

Exodus 31:17
It is a sign between Me and the sons of Israel forever; for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, but on the seventh day He ceased from labor, and was refreshed.”

3) Jesus tells us to believe in the writings of Moses
If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me.

4) Adam was created on day 6.
26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.

But he dies 930 years later.
5 Altogether, Adam lived a total of 930 years, and then he died.
If this day was still going he would still be alive.
6 literal days makes complete sense when only the Bible is read, when no outside sources cloud the issue.

 

[James A]

They very much can be literal 24 hour days.
1) Genesis was written by the author (most likely Moses) with the intention to be literal. It is not written the way Hebrew poetry or parable is written.

Are we saying that God actually "rested" (and that was due to ..) ? And that a physical fruit corrupted the human nature so bad that God Himself had to intervener to restore it?

God transcends time and Creation is an instantaneous process so, there is no duration. (post #47)

Primary audience of Genesis were the people who lived 3000 - 4000 years ago so, I would expect it to use metaphors. Additionally, Creation is not something that can be explained in human language - no matter how much progress Science makes, it will never be able to explain how something came into existence out of nothing.

 

[fwGod]

Can not any man draw a straight line from himself to Adam?

Generally yes, specifically no.

 

[Dale]

Basic problem.
The pyramid is built from sedimentary rock and upon sedimentary rock that was laid down by the global flood.
So unless you believe the eruptions had a time machine they built the pyramid after the flood.

Meaning there is a problem with secular dating and of biblical understanding.

John, limestone takes many thousands of years to form. It is impossible for all of the limestone in the world to be formed in a single year. Caverns in limestone also take tens of thousands of years to form and they are abundant in many places.

Most limestone is formed from the shells and other remains of marine animals, like the sea shells you can pick up at the beach. It takes millions of generations of these animals and plants to form thick layers of limestone. The limestone used in ancient Egypt at Giza came from a formation geologists have named the Mokkatam Formation and is known to have formed in salt water.

Was it raining salt water during Noah's Deluge?

From an article, The Geology Behind the Sphinx

"In geological Eocene times, some 50 million years ago, most of present-day Egypt was submerged under the sea. Sedimentation and decomposing remains of marine organisms formed a carbonated mud. As the sea receded, mud petrified into a consolidated and hardened sedimentary rock, forming banks of limestone from which the pyramid builders quarried limestone blocks and from which they carved the Sphinx.
Natural limestone of the Giza Plateau in which lowest layers the Sphinx is carved is known as the Mokkatam Formation. "


Link
geopiedra: Geology behind the Sphinx