Why weren't they destroyed or buried by sediment by the Flood?

The Great Pyramids were built around 2750 B.C, before the flood in 2348 B.C.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/...k/2006/0630.asp

"Using God’s Word as authoritative, we know the pyramids of Egypt couldn’t have been built prior to creation. Also, they would not have been built prior to the Flood as they would have been destroyed. So they would have had to come afterwards."

isn't that sort of circular reasoning?

NO, its not circular. If you take a certain Biblical Timeline as the truth, then that's the way it is.

Terry

well, they pushed forward the date of the construction of the pyramids just because it conflicted with their timeline, and that was the only reason given

The flood did not happen the same way all over the world. What I mean by this is that some areas did not have the sediments like other areas had. It's the same reason polystrate fossilized trees cannot be explained by the old earth theory.

How does a tree fossilize before it can rot?

If the flood covered all the high mountains as it says in the bible then the pyramids would be under thousands of feet of water and whether there were large silt deposits, there would be damage from the water and pressure.

Check out Spirit Lake, Washington. Trees that were thrown into the lake by the Mt St Helens eruption a quarter century ago have fossilized. Some are standing on the bottom of the lake and slowly being covered by silt each year. They are future polystrate fossils.

Pressure damage only occurs when the pressure in one area is much higher than another. Such as in a submarine. The pressure inside is less than outside. Did this exist in the pyramids? Can you prove that the pyramids were made water tight so that the pressures could not equalize?



You are not getting it. In the geologic column, how many years is it claimed that each layer is? Also, how long was it claimed that fossilization takes? And where is it put in any science paper or science website that science was wrong about what was originally claimed about fossilization? It's not anywhere because science hates to admit when they are wrong.



Even when they know it is wrong to promote this, they still will try and do this only because they need all the foundational pillars they can conjure up to support evolution.

Well okay, lets say there were 20,000 (it took about 20,000 workers to build the pyramids) people living in Egypt when the pyramids were built. Then the flood comes and kills everyone but leaves the pyramids unharmed and leaves no sediment whatsoever. But why isn't there a huge hole in Egyptian history where the flood was supposed to occur?

when the pyramids were discovered by british explorers they had to actually unseal the tombs and they couldnt go in there becuase the air had gone stagnant and foul. if the tombs were airtight then they would be watertight as well just like a submarine

the egyptians probably built them around the same time the tower of babel was built and they probalby made out that they were older than they were because all the prople at that time wanted to have the biggest or the oldest or the most expensive monuments

I guess that's enough....

terry

see, they were airtight/watertight

How big is the tomb compared to the Pyramid itself? If a sub had a structure as big as a Pyramid around it for protection. I very seriously doubt they would ever have to worry about being crushed.

so you are saying that the Egyptians built the pyramids, and then the flood happened without any damage or burial of the pyramids at all? Despite there being no huge interruption in Egyptian history? Because everyone in Egypt would have been killed.

Actually the Egyptian chronology that is based on the Sothic theory (ST) is facing problems and many are rejecting it.

Damien Mackey has an article, found at the site given below, entitled “Fall of the Sothic theory: Egyptian chronology revisited.” The ST is based on calculations by Dr. Eduard Meyer who based the ST on a 1,460 year cycle and using Manetho’s list of Egyptian dynasties. Major Egyptologists are rejecting ST and are looking to construct a new time line. One of the problems of the ST is Meyer made the assumption that the Egyptians civil year, that is based on 365 days with no leap year making it one day late every four years, was “artificial.” Mackey’s article touches on some of the general problems presenting the facts that back his claims.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i3/sothic_theory.asp

James Jordan’s article, found at the site given below, entitled “The Egyptian Problem” gives a little more detail as to why the ST and Manetho dynasties have the problems they do. One of the problems he mentions is “the assumption of consecutiveness” that makes it necessary to make adjustments. It list early kings ruling simultaneously with later kings when in actually the kings were ruling at the same time just in different regions of Egypt. In the article Jordan explores the concept that was prevalent in ancient times that of the claiming “the greatest antiquity and histories were produced to show that each was the oldest” in order to “establish imperial claims.” This would explain the mysterious unidentified kings in Manetho’s list. Jordan quotes W.G. Waddel as saying:

“But there were many errors in Manetho’s work from the very beginning: all are not due to the perversions of scribes and revisers. Many of the lengths of reigns have been found impossible: in some cases the names and sequences of kings as given by Manetho have proved untenable in the light of monumental evidence.”

Jordan also points out that the ST does not allow, because of Meyer’s assumption, that the Egyptians did not recalibrate their civil calendar by inserting one day every four years. Meyer had no evidence to support that assumption.

http://freebokks.entreweave.com/freeboks/docs/22f6_43.htm

David Down writes in his article, found at the site given below, entitled “Searching for Moses” that a number of scholars want the current chronology to be “reduced by centuries” because of the “gross error” found in it. Down points to the fact if this is done a number of archaeological finds would line up exactly with the Bible. These finds include the “toppled walls” of Jericho, a possible mention of Moses as an “enigmatic character” named Amenemhet IV, evidence of Semitic slaves in Egypt that were used to build the pyramids, a record of the plagues, and more.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/moses.asp

Bob Barclay

Ehr, that is not an explanation.



The same way as all other fossils. In fact, that is sort of the characteristic of a fossil: It was fossilized before it rotted (or was estroyed in other ways). It mostly happens by being buried in sediment.

Hans

I don't think they would have been crushed. The chambers would have been filled with water. Now, we have burial chambers from ancient Egypt that were in fact filled with water (rain drainage water). The traces are distict and unmistakeable. So we can safely conclude that other chambers were not water filled.

I think the discussion is moot, however. Either the Bibilical timeline is true, in which case we must reposition the pyramids till after the flood, or else the archaeological timeline is true, in which case, well, if the flood happened, it happened at some other time.




That certainly depends on what kind of sediments we are talking about. Volcanic sediments can have centuries between layers, river sediments can have months (but are usually annual).




Again that depends on the type of fossilization. Mumification can take weeks, flint replacement takes centuries. Most fossils have gone through several kinds of processes. The usual sequence is: Preservation due to exclusion of oxygen; mummification, petrification.



Please! Scientists admit they are wrong all the time. They have to. There is hardly any scientific theory more than a decade old that hasn't been at least amended.


Hans

If as the Bible describes "the fountains of the great deep burst open" That would not be water gently rising from the deep but quickly and with force. That kind of force would have caused the sediment on the ocean floor to be mixed with the flood water. The ark moving from its construction site to its resting place in the mountains of Ararat also means there is a current.

You have made an unsubstantiated assumption that there would have been locations with little sediment. Now I could be wrong and you could be right but since I have seen localized floods and there was not one area of the flood that didn't leave sediment, I will wait for your reply with perhaps some information to more solidly cement your statement.