Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon Post #75
There was no such flood. The deluge is a myth. See http://www.skepticreport.com/sr/?p=475
Bob Riggins does not say there was no flood of the type we are talking about.
He is just saying that the boat with all the animals is a little hard to swallow.
And that the oceans rising 29k feet he is not buying.
Bob was just talking Creationism vs Evolution.
We are all way beyond that point and agree with Bob.
I have found that reading some of the older Noah stories do make sense.
Just saw the remake of the “Clash of the Titans”
One statement struck me. It is when Hades explains to Zeus (his brother) that “mortal man has a soul and an afterlife, but Gods do not have a soul and once a god is dead, there is nothing left of that god”.
This IMO was a profound statement, which clearly implies that gods are man made and once man does no longer believe in his god, that god dies altogether and irrevocably.
Of course it is a contradictory statement, as man’s soul is only present when there is belief in a god. Thus when that god dies, man’s soul also disappears.
The dictionary has the definition “deicide" 1. a person who kills a god.
You would have to think that at sometime in history somebody was killing gods to have had the reason to come up with a name for it.
You picked a time when all gods had wives and children. The first recording of the Holy Spirit was when the Upper Gods killed a Lower God, I can’t remember his name. But he was the head god in a labor strike, so the Upper Gods killed him, but they burnt his bones so his spirit could rise and he would be remembered.
The dictionary has the definition “deicide" 1. a person who kills a god. You would have to think that at sometime in history somebody was killing gods to have had the reason to come up with a name for it. You picked a time when all gods had wives and children. The first recording of the Holy Spirit was when the Upper Gods killed a Lower God, I can't remember his name. But he was the head god in a labor strike, so the Upper Gods killed him, but they burnt his bones so his spirit could rise and he would be remembered.Please define "Holy Spirit", is that a god or is it greater than a god?
Write4U
I am no expert; this is just what I have picked up while reading.
The “Holy Spirit" is the soul of the God.
In the Gnostic thinking, everyone has a spirit, all the spirits combined make up the “Holy Spirit".
Gnostic was before Christian thinking.
Christianity started out as Gnostic then change the meanings and went Catholic.
The Rule of Faith used by Irenaeus (180 CE) and Tertullian (200 - 210) was a summary of the redemptive process as they saw it. “Irenaeus declares that the whole Church believes 'in one God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth and the seas and all that is therein, and in one Christ Jesus the Son of God, who was made flesh for our salvation, and in the Holy Spirit who through the prophets preached the dispensations and the comings and the virgin birth and the passion, and the rising from the dead and the assumption into heaven in his flesh of our beloved Lord Jesus Christ, and his coming from heaven in the glory of the Father…to raise up all flesh.”(66)
In her recently published book, Minna Heimola links a threefold sacramental progression in the Gospel of Philip 61,27–35 with different types or, I would add, degrees of religious experience (Heimola 2011,33–4): “You have seen things there and have become those things, you have seen the Spirit and have become Spirit, you have seen Christ and have become Christ, you have seen the [Father] and will become Father. [Here] in the world you see everything but do not [see] yourself, but there in that realm you see yourself, and you will [become] what you see.“ This passage likely fits into a Christian Trinitarian baptismal formula, though it could also, as Heimola indicates, reflect depths of teachings.
Have you ever seen the pictures of Jesus standing in a cloud with a halo, hand outreached looking towards the heavens.
Well my understanding is that the cloud is the Spirit.
So let’s take a look at the thought above.
“You have seen things there and have become those things, you have seen the Spirit and have become Spirit, you have seen Christ and have become Christ, you have seen the [Father] and will become Father. [Here] in the world you see everything but do not [see] yourself, but there in that realm you see yourself, and you will [become] what you see.”
Try and change it to some form of Gnostic.
“You have seen things there and have become those things, you have seen the knowledge and have become knowledge, you have seen the Teacher (son of God) and have become Teacher (son of God), you have seen the God and will become God. In the world you see everything but do not [see] yourself, but there in that realm you see yourself and you will become what you see.
There is a lot of translation missing and the paragraph is not a good one to translate.
One guesses a better translation.
And there is the last sentence that could read;
In the world you learn everything but do not understand yourself, but there in that realm you understand yourself and you will become the knowledge.
Going back to the first Spirit at Ur, they knew back then that everything was made from matter. Now they wanted to explain thought and knowledge. Or what is in your brain. And that knowledge became known as light, and light was known as knowledge.
You can get parts of it in the bible, the “Luminous Cloud".
Upon burning the bones the smoke that rose was your spirit and your knowledge.
Jesus burial kept the bones in bone boxes to save your spirit.
The Jews did not.
Hope this helps, if it was simple the church could explain it in a form that people could understand.
Mike, The “Holy Spirit" is the soul of the God. In the Gnostic thinking, everyone has a spirit, all the spirits combined make up the “Holy Spirit".ok,
Bing Dictonary, Definition of holy (adj) 1.consecrated: dedicated or set apart for religious purposes 2.saintly: devoted to the service of God, a god, or a goddess 3.sacred: relating to, belonging to, or coming from a divine being or powerWhy is the spirit "holy"? Let me translate your missive in scientific terms. Potential is the fundamental property of the Universe. Everyone (everything) has potential and all the combined potentials make up the Universal Potential. Divinity is unnecessary. Potential is demonstrably real an unambiguous.
Very good.
That covers today’s thought of what the Holy Spirit meant to the people back at the beginning.
Very good. That covers today's thought of what the Holy Spirit meant to the people back at the beginning.Actually it does. At the beginning the gods were created to identify inherent potentials in observable but unidentifiable phenomena. God of rain, god of thunder, god of fire, god of the clouds, god of the sea. Everything associated with the expression these potentials were assigned a name of a god. IOW, mythology identifies the potentials inherent in the Laws of Nature.
Put to simple Math
Potential Theory of Mankind - Why man has always needed God
P = Answered Questions known by Man
G = Unanswered Questions are known by God
U = Full understanding of all Questions by Man
P = Knowledge
G = God - belief that God knows all
G = U is True
G + P = U is True
P = U is False
G require belief
P requires full understanding with no belief
Result - With God all answers are known
Put to simple Math Potential Theory of Mankind - Why man has always needed God P = Answered Questions known by Man G = Unanswered Questions are known by God U = Full understanding of all Questions by Man P = Knowledge G = God - belief that God knows all G = U is True G + P = U is True P = U is False G require belief P requires full understanding with no belief Result - With God all answers are knownThat logic sounds soooo wrong to me that I won't even try to answer that. I'll leave that to more experienced logical thinkers. Anyone? Please? One last thought before I close my argument and just observe. Definition of Potential, "That which may become reality". Can God do better? I'll leave it at that.
That logic sounds soooo wrong to me that I won’t even try to answer that. I’ll leave that to more experienced logical thinkers. Anyone? Please?It's 11,574 characters used to say absolutely nothing.
Mike,
The concept of ‘spirit’ was a logical derivation of the literal air we breathe that they communicated and understood in terms of what it’s properties appeared as. Obviously, air is apparently invisible but yet seems to have significance to life and nature. To the ancients, knowing that the dead lacked a capability of breathing, and the fact that you can cause death by keeping us from breathing this invisible entity, justified its importance.
“Spirit” referred to anything that had the property of being true but yet not being able to denote it directly. Upon learning how things like fire being able to be so destructive, its nature to appear to reach for the sky, was referred to as a “bad” or toxic spirit that had to be contained wisely. Personifying these natural qualities only became more religious and separated from its original material meanings later on. I would imagine though, that most people understood references to spirits as the literal physical concepts. Things like alcohol had spirits: the potent scents. They noticed that when something burns, it contributes to the spirit (the air) some parts of itself and changes what remains to charcoal. The fact that such smoke and smells from decay represent variations of the air, all contributed to things like presuming that people and animals return to the air, akin to a nothingness that we came from in the first place.
Genesis 1 New International Version (NIV) The Beginning 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.Originally, the "of God" was not likely there. The reference is clearly trying to explain how the Earth, the oceans, the air (spirit) and the blue sky (waters above), came to be. But even with "Spirit of God", in context, it would just mean that magical air that provides life which came from God, not the actual essence of God himself.
Re: Is it egotistical to think that a God would die for you?
The modern interpretation of Jesus’ Salvation is insincere to the original: the original idea is that Jesus’ Salvation represented the recreation of paradise that was lost to the sin of mankind to want to have the knowledge of the gods (curiosity and wisdom apparent to humanity and civilization over other animals.) In reference to this original meaning, Jesus was understood to be the literal messiah from the earlier Old Testament who was to come at the end of times and re-incarnate the dead. Obviously, the end of time did not occur and to make sense of it to their followers, they ad hocked the idea that really, the end was there but Jesus had to die so that he could create and manage heaven, with God. He ‘saved’ mankind from eternal death. He only ‘died’ as a man. His sacrifice was only understood with the assumption that if he was God’s messiah, how is it possible that he was capable of even being put to death by mere humans? Therefore, his death must have been destined by God the way it has for some uncertain reason. So it was presumed that he, Jesus, must have known of his impending death and the physical suffering and apparent misunderstanding of his dying to himself was symbolically meant to demonstrate the true nature of his sacrifice. He was, to them, absorbing the sin that man caused in the story of Adam and Eve…not ordinary everyday sins by individuals. He released the curse of death.
Sacrifice to many people today is just giving up something that you have of value to someone else. This is insincere as a marker for sacrifice even though it gets a lot of attention. “Donald Trump donates $10,000 to …” some charity. A real sacrifice, by comparison would be a poor woman who gives her last $10 to a Donald Trump for a cause she finds more important than her own need to eat for the next day or so. Sacrifice is also the proof of one’s love for each other. It’s a warning sign in a relationship if one does not naturally demonstrate a means to sacrifice something so valuable of themselves that they themselves cannot go without suffering.
That was the point of Abraham and Isaac. The willingness to sacrifice one’s first son represented the highest possible risk one can imagine at the time. Obviously, Abraham’s God was only testing whether he had absolute loyalty, trust, and love for God. The story was a means to demonstrate to the Jews that he is not as vain to necessitate one to go through with an extreme sacrifice that may have been more common in those days. It could be symbolic. You can ‘sacrifice’ a cow, but there is no need to burn it to charcoal. You can just do an initial symbolic sacrifice, then cook it, and eat it too.
Scott, you have said it the best I have ever heard. I like the part, “the sin of mankind to want to have the knowledge of the Gods". Great! Knowledge is Power.
But I am not sure about the reason of Jesus’ work. I have read where the soil needed to be purified before the planting of a new seed. I think Jesus was sent to do that and get Israel ready for Gnostic teachings. He had to get rid of the inherited sin.
Missing from the bible is the main body of Jews in Egypt. And the fact during the destruction of the Temple after the death of Jesus, Jews from Egypt were part of the force against Israel.
Scott, you have said it the best I have ever heard. I like the part, “the sin of mankind to want to have the knowledge of the Gods". Great! Knowledge is Power. But I am not sure about the reason of Jesus’ work. I have read where the soil needed to be purified before the planting of a new seed. I think Jesus was sent to do that and get Israel ready for Gnostic teachings. He had to get rid of the inherited sin. Missing from the bible is the main body of Jews in Egypt. And the fact during the destruction of the Temple after the death of Jesus, Jews from Egypt were part of the force against Israel.The Gnostic concepts were already there in Egypt before Christianity. The Christians there adapted to the local standards by creating or recreating a version acceptable to the locals. Religious Gnosticism is just the fallout from the birth of writing that helped form Hinduism, for example. But it transitional areas where many people travel through to go somewhere else, as Egypt was, had a multicultural exposure in population. Because of this, I'd imagine the common denominator to businesses back then was to be accepting the differences of belief. So if you wanted to encourage interest and appeal, the best strategy would have been to create mystery to a secret truth that can only be revealed by yourself!! Some of these people may have been the source of the original Gypsies. And if you've been fooled by one, you've been "gypped". Anything written was held of significant meaning. The original transients would have collected them, have them parsed to be universal to any beliefs, and eventually used them as proof to the crowds of substantial truth. Some of these texts were Christian related and served to represent "a secret knowledge that requires your continued investment to discover." Perhaps these stories (The New Testament) were developed for the original audiences of Egyptian tourists and tradesmen. And the Pauline versions were later adapted by a salesman who'd just come from their and wants to create business up north.? It seems reasonable. [Oh...I just left a second ago to take a trip in my time machine. Yeah...it's true!] Jesus wasn't likely real. We know him as, "Jesus Christ." But that was a title, not a name. It was likely that the original Greek did have meaning contrary to what some say. The function of words was extremely important and a meaningless name would not sell. The fairest interpretation has to provide meaning. The closest one that seems relevant is that Jesus was adopted from Je Zeus literally, The Zeus meaning generally, "The God" or "I am God". With "Christos" meaning one who is anointed or crowned, which implied that he was a Caesar or King of man. So Jesus Christ = "God's King to mankind" which is the same as claiming that he is the savior or messiah. It fits with the meaning of the Hebrew, Joshua as well. During these early days, the Jews were being dispersed by the Romans from Israel due to the upheaval and wars. The destruction of the Temple was the means to crush them for good. But it lived on in the diaspora. Locally, in hostile territories, some Jews found it tactical to survive by recreating their religion to be more adaptable to the locations they were in. It was likely a literal blow-back conspiracy by a group of real men and women who used their own fake testimonies to foster a favoritism for the Jewish beliefs and customs. The original conspirators would probably be surprised at its success. One interesting thing that I do find rather suspicious is the lack of criticism to Christianity by religious Jews even today. It makes me wonder if they have written acknowledgement of such a plan within Israel hidden somewhere safe? (I assure you, I'm not anti-Semitic! I do question the State of Israel, however.)
Hi Scott,
Reading “Jerusalem" by Simon Sebag Montefiore 2011, 652 pages.
Half way through the book. Jerusalem gets attacked again and again. Each time it is about the money in the treasury. The book only says that a couple times, but it is obvious. The temple tax builds up a vast treasury and then Jerusalem is attacked.
What I was surprised to learn was that the Jewish Warlords were as hard on the Jewish population as most foreign powers. I can not believe any Jews living in Egypt would want to move back to Israel.
As far as criticism of Christianity by the Jews. I think both sides have enough old unpublished text to bury each other, Mexican standoff.
Wanting to find out if the Jewish populations in Egypt were as male dominance in religious thoughts as in Israel. This book will not help on Egypt, but it so far has shown a total male hierarchy in Israel.
I have read several times that the Jews in Egypt married with locals. This would not be allowed for the Jews in Israel.
Looking for traces of the Orange Trees being grown in Israel.
In the reading right now Islam has been the best friend the Jews have seen in a long time.
In closing, good take on religion.
Hello Cap’t Jack RE: Post #74 In the last year many history timelines have been changed. Some by over a hundred thousand years. I do not trust any of them at this time. It will take a few years before we have a really good timeline. Which is good, because the different fields of science are becoming more inline with each other now. This is what I use in my research.I'm still not clear on what you mean here. are you in reference to the chronology of human civilization, or evolutionary characteristics that led to the existence and migration of Homo Sapiens? So far, paleontologists have found the fossil remains of what appear to be the earliest form of Homo Sapiens dating to 195,000 ya in Africa yet still having some archaic traits. And which fields of science were at odds with paleontology? 71,000 BC was a human bottleneck and a six year nuclear winter. This is easy, Mount Toba. This leaves us with a population of 10,000 breeding humans, or 26,000 humans on earth. Use this as the datum point. Its ash went around the world and is used as a timeline. This datum point puts the humans in a small band of land or what the scientist say are islands of populations. As the earths temperature warmed the populations expanded. These islands of man and animals expanded. The next big point is that India had to be one of the main islands of mankind. The Mount Toba eruption produced a "volcanic" winter, and they're not certain of the number of years effected by the eruption nor the exact number of survivors ( Stringer puts it as small as 5,000). Why then would paleontologists use this event as a world wide timeline for human development when no humans even existed in the Western Hemisphere at that time? What evidence exists that support the hypothesis of small pockets of human "Islands" anywhere after the eruption except in small hunter gatherer bands who followed the herds of indigenous animals and competed with our other hominin cousins during the remainder ofthe Pleistocene era? Until plant domestication in the Fertile Crescent, the Nile and Indus Valleys there was no pressure to form a concentration of humans. The next big point is that India had to be one of the main islands of mankind. Domesticated animals and selectively farmed grains plus fruits and vegetables came from India. I disagree with your contention here. Essentially, domesticated fruits and vegetables originated in the Mesopotamian area and most archeologists agree on this point. Actually, besides the two cities I mentioned previously I've never even heard of an Indian origin for domesticated plants or animals. See here: http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/hort_306/reading/reading 4-3.pdf I should note, that the chicken came out of India at this time and was used though out Europe, but no large egg or chicken farms have been found until the Hyksos went to Egypt around 1700 BC. The technology need for hatcheries came much latter in time with the Asians. No problem with your info on the chicken except that they were originally bred in India for fighting. It did spread by cultural diffusion but where is the proof that the Hyksos had anything to do with it's intro to Egypt? Just asking here. Next look at the money system and the language the people used – Asian. Money in the form of coin was invented by the Greek City State of aegina in the 6th Century BCE. And to what language are you referring? Aryian perhaps? Linguists are currently seeking words of similar sound and meaning from an Indo-European parent language but the search is ongoing. Cap’t Jack you bring up a very good subject in the “The Epic of Gilgamesh", almost every top scholar on the subject agrees that the religions of Ur and Sumer comes from an older religions and beliefs that have not been fully explained why they are not recorded or what changed to make them appear to have the need to built a new religion upon an older ones. Once again, not sure what you mean. ALL religions are initially built on folk stories that explained human origins and the natural World surrounding them. Of course there are deeper origins for the epic stories later written on the tablets, e.g. The Enuma Elish tablets representing the creation stories. And they weren't recorded because they predate cuneiform writing. On the Hyksos in Egypt, there is no evidence that the Hyksos were driven out. The Hyksos left after two hundred years and Moses did not leave until four hundred years latter. Most agree that the Hyksos left because of leprosy. On the contrary, there is ample evidence to prove that they were driven out by Ahmose I who came to power in 1555 BCE, e.g. A stele commemorating him).mThe Egyptians considered them as foreigners. After besieging the city you mentioned earlier they were in effect driven out and the 18th Dynasty was formed, creating the New Kingom Era in Egypt setting the stage for the Pharoah who extended Egyptian authority into the Middle East, Rameses II. We may have to change our thinking a little bit. You’re looking for big stone building, like in Egypt and places. Egypt itself did not start building in stone until after the flood. This reference really threw me! Do you mean the "biblical" flood? Temples and pyramids like the one in Saqqara were built during the old kingdom as early as 2,630 BCE. The evidence is undeniable and clearly written in the hieroglyphics used at that time. There a even detailed depictions clearly showing how they accomplished the feat, much to the chagrin of Ufologists. And the whole concept of a flood came from the Gilgamesh Epic. The flood, every civilization that had recording in that time period, including Mexico, South America and if I remember right about thirty civilizations total had recorded a major event that started on May 10th, 2807 BC. Check out this website. http://www.lawrencehallofscience.org/gss/uptodate/10acc/index.html Flood stories abound wherever civilization crops up and as you mention not just in Mesopotamia. EVERY civilization was located on a water source so flooding would have (and still is) a common occurrence. I'll research the website later though and respond with evidence to the contrary. Cap't Jack
I add to the Cap’t’s input by pointing out that the likelihood for flood myths was based on the observation of sea fossils in higher lands. To them, they rationalized this to mean that all land may have originally been under water at some point. It was intelligent thinking for its time without further understanding of geology. Myths were not always necessarily meant to convey literal interpretation. Rather, they were mnemonic devices to pass on knowledge of any sort.
I get the impression from you, Mike, that you propose some theory that India has some significant impact to social history. I agree that they had input. But the input to social influences came equally from all over.
Something that I’d like to add as my own contribution to the spread of humanity over the globe. It is usually assumed that humanity spread out in a simple linear fashion across the globe. I think that it was likely done in waves that moved back and forth as it moved forward. While warmer climate ages encouraged movement away from the equator, cooler Earth ages would tend to make gradual shifting back towards the equator. Southern Asian settlements would have occurred when the Middle East become more climate friendly encouraging some of our African ancestors to shift there first. Then, as the climate shifted back towards the equator, the first settlements in India would appear. At more recent states, with the harsher climate of Afghanistan acting as a barrier to the North and the Indian Ocean as one to the South, India was more isolated and would have had lessor impact on Middle East and European influence. This doesn’t imply that India had no impact on World history. It would suggest, however, that they had a smaller impact than what you seem to be implying.
Scott,
I do think that India had a major impact and was the Garden of Eden for mankind. Then had a couple major down falls. I think one was the flood and then a couple plagues like Mexico and South America had.
The impact of Asia was not the people as much as their accomplishments. The fruits, vegetables, nuts, animals and the grains. The lists are long, and the time and skill it takes is outstanding. There was no place on earth that even came close. Egypt in 10K years was not even close to having the skills of the Asian farmers. The closest was South America with the potato. People give credit to Egypt for cotton. But it turns out that cotton came from Asia and was cultivated from the wild weed into cotton in Asia.
Read the other day where the Chicken made it from Asia to Easter Island but never made it to South America. Sooo Close.
Thevillageatheist Post #96
Item one. Got to start somewhere and the bottleneck is in agreement with all groups. And the agreement that man’s population was anywhere from 2,000 to 10,000. Just about extinct. What I said was that I use the date as a datum point. Archeologically use the ash as a timeline.
Item two. Your data site, on page three says they were domesticated in Central and East Asia and reached the West in antiquity.
Although precise origins are obscure, the first archaeological evidence for a developed agriculture is found in Mesopotamia and shortly after in the Nile and Indus Valleys.
Evidence suggests a later development in China, Central America, East and West Africa and, perhaps, New Guinea (Diamond 1997, 2002)
I must note the data is old and shows no DNA testing. Today we know almost all the items we are talking about came out of India.
On page 4. Information on the ancient origins of fruit culture comes from archaeological remains of fruit, and from pictorial and literary evidence. The high culture of Mesopotamia and Egypt produced a rich art in which fruit is a common motif.
My Note; What they say today is that after Hyksos arrived from Asia in 1700 BC the fruits and vegetables seeds are use as a timeline in archaeological digs.
On page 6, they say the fruit was in Mesopotamia but they did not say where it came from.
You just need more up to date data. What I find helps when searching is to use site:edu and set the time for within the last year.
Item Three.
I have never read that the chickens in India were used for fighting. News to me. The chickens came from India a long time before the Hyksos came to Egypt. But the first signs of large egg production and meat production farms along with big hatcheries came with the Hyksos.
Item four,
Money system. Before coins there was Cowry Shells from India.
Language system. It is known yet today as Semitic. Semitic means Asia-African.
Item five, The point I was trying to make was that the scholars say that they think the religion was put together from other religions. As opposed to evolving at that location.
Item six, Welcome to Egyptian history. It is also carved in stone that Ramesses beat the Hittites in battle. Until they found the contract that Ramesses was beaten and had to sue for peace. Lot of stories that don’t match.
The new theory is that the Hyksos took over Egypt without a war. And I agree with it.
We know the Hyksos ruled from 1700 to the 1300 so how did Ahmose I kick them out in 1555?
According to the Four Hundred Years Stela of Ramesses II, Avaris was settled by the Hyksos as a solid center of power by 1720 BC (Dynasties, 6)
I know you have found the information on the internet, but look at Memphis and what the city was all about, who built it and when it was built.
The websites that tell you Ahmose I had battles with the Hyksos and drove them out of Egypt use the battle site of Tel Habuwa and they say the bones show battle scares.
But you have to ask yourself, if they have the bones, then why don’t they know who the Hyksos were? If they really have this stuff what is keeping them from doing the DNA tests?
Most of this timeline history has been rewritten in the last couple of years. People for years have been saying that they looked at the statues of Pharaohs and could see they were not Egyptian. Just look at Amennotep III and see if you don’t agree.
Item seven,
I do not understand why you are having trouble with the pyramids. You agree they were started as early as 2,630 and the flood was 2,807. I said after the flood you started seeing building in stone.
Item eight. The flood, I check out the site, good site. Got this from the site.
Bruce Masse, an environmental archaeologist at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico …thinks he can say precisely when the comet fell: on the morning of May 10, 2807 B.C. Dr. Masse analyzed 175 flood myths from around the world, and tried to relate them to known and accurately dated natural events like solar eclipses and volcanic eruptions. …14 flood myths specifically mention a full solar eclipse, which could have been the one that occurred in May 2807 B.C. Half the myths talk of a torrential downpour, Dr. Masse said. A third talk of a tsunami. Worldwide they describe hurricane force winds and darkness during the storm. All of these could come from a mega-tsunami. Of course, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, Dr. Masse said, “and we’re not there yet.”