ANCIENT APOCALYPSE / Graham Hancock

[temporal1]

i don’t have Netflix, no plans to get it.
This might be interesting, esp from a scriptural view (that Walsh and Marshall provide).
My view is, intended or not, science proves God, over+over+over.

i’ll be watching for it.

Graham Hancock is not a Christian.

2022 / Matt Walsh / Catholic / Why Does The Left Consider This Documentary So Dangerous? / 9min

Description:
The left is enraged by a new and very popular Netflix documentary about archaeology. Why?

2022 / Dr Taylor Marshall / Catholic / Ancient Apocalypse: Did Graham Hancock Rediscover Bible Truths? / -10min

Description:
I recently watched the Ancient Apocalypse documentary Netflix series and I'll share my thoughts on it from a Christian point of view. Did Graham Hancock's new series shed new light on old biblical truths? Or is it just another pseudohistory-filled conspiracy theory? Tune in to find out!

Graham Hancock
ANCIENT APOCALYPSE Series
Journalist Graham Hancock travels the globe hunting for evidence of mysterious, lost civilizations dating back to the last Ice Age.
https://grahamhancock.com/

i’m wondering if others have thoughts?

[Ken]

Graham Hancock's thesis in a nutshell is that there was an ancient highly advanced civilization called Atlantis that sank into the sea or was otherwise destroyed at the end of the last ice age about 12,000 years ago. And that the descendants of this lost civilization of Atlantis escaped and seeded primitive stone-age civilizations around the planet from the ancient Maya to the ancient Chinese and Egyptians. He doesn't aways call it "Atlantis" but that is what he is referencing.

All the ancient references to Atlantis originate with Plato's allegories https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantis and Plato is clearly writing a fictional allegory on the hubris of nations like Thomas Moore's Utopia or Gulliver's Travels. No legitimate scholar thinks that Plato was writing actual history of a real place called Atlantis as there is no trace of any such Atlantis story prior to Plato inventing it. And no other writers from Plato's time or the later Romans treated the story as anything but a fictional allegory.

In any event, what Graham Hancock is doing with Ancient Apocalypse is "pseudoarchaeology" and "pseudohistory." His stock in trade is cherry-picking random factoids or oblique ancient historical references and blowing them into completely fictional accounts of how ancient Atlantans seeded primitive stone-age cultures to create the modern world. He goes to some place like the Mayan ruins at Palenque and finds some random factoid he thinks is out of context or unexplained and says "oh look, signs of Atlantis". It makes for entertaining TV and has made Graham Hancock into a rich man. But no legitimate archaeologist or ancient historian takes any of it seriously. Because it isn't actual archaeology or history. It is made-for-TV science fiction.

And no, "the Left" doesn't consider Graham Hancock's so-called science fiction "documentaries" to be dangerous any more than "the Left" considers Winnie the Poo to be dangerous. They are both just just entertaining made up stories. In fact, there is no organized "Left" that has any consensus on anything really. Just random people who have various opinions that range from left to right. Just because some random person justifiably criticizes Graham Hancock's nonsense doesn't mean "the Left" is saying anything. And to make such a sweeping claim as Matt Walsh tries to do is as specious as what Graham Hancock is doing.

[ohio jones]

i don’t have Netflix, no plans to get it.

Translation: Within 24 hours, t1 will be binging on Netflix movies and posting about them.

[temporal1]

i don’t have Netflix, no plans to get it.

Translation: Within 24 hours, t1 will be binging on Netflix movies and posting about them.

i think you’ll lose that bet.

As i said in the OP, my main interest (in everything) is how it relates to scriptures.
Which both Walsh and Marshall point out.

History is repleat with observations+theories being flatly rejected, if not worse, then, over time, found correct.
“What people say” often is found incorrect.

When i was very young, my father would talk about “nothing new under the sun”, and, “scriptures cover everything”.
Because so much is labeled “new”, and being young, so much is new (to the young) it’s been kind of a lifelong pursuit to find scriptural reference to everything .. i have not been disappointed.

In more recent years, i’ve thought, by definition, science MUST follow behind God the Creator, science can only try to understand what exists, what has been created, science doesn’t create.

Science runs behind God, never in front of Him.

[Ken]

i don’t have Netflix, no plans to get it.

Translation: Within 24 hours, t1 will be binging on Netflix movies and posting about them.

i think you’ll lose that bet.

As i said in the OP, my main interest (in everything) is how it relates to scriptures.
Which both Walsh and Marshall point out.

Walsh's only mention of scripture is to point out that Graham Hancock's Atlantis story of an ancient ice age civilization destroyed by flood paralleled in Genesis with Noah's flood and also similar flood narratives in other ancient texts. One can find ancient flood narratives in dozens of ancient texts from Gilgamesh to ancient Greek, Chinese, and Indian writings.

But that does not mean the Bible talks about an advanced ice age civilization that survives a flood and that the survivors then go around the planet seeding advanced technology into stone age cultures. There is nothing of that sort in the Bible. In fact, if you believe the literal flood narrative in Genesis then there would be no other surviving ancient stone age civilizations for the survivors of the flood to then go around and seed with advanced technology. Because according to the Bible they were all wiped out except for Noah and his family. So Graham Hancock's narrative is actually anti-Biblical.

In fact, there is nothing in Graham Hancock that is remotely Biblical or Christian. And Hancock makes no claims that it is. In fact he says the opposite. Marshall in the second video is just piggybacking onto Hancock's series and layering on his own Christian narrative that doesn't exist in the actual series and is the opposite of what Hancock is proposing.

[ken_sylvania]

Translation: Within 24 hours, t1 will be binging on Netflix movies and posting about them.

i think you’ll lose that bet.

As i said in the OP, my main interest (in everything) is how it relates to scriptures.
Which both Walsh and Marshall point out.

Walsh's only mention of scripture is to point out that Graham Hancock's Atlantis story of an ancient ice age civilization destroyed by flood paralleled in Genesis with Noah's flood and also similar flood narratives in other ancient texts. One can find ancient flood narratives in dozens of ancient texts from Gilgamesh to ancient Greek, Chinese, and Indian writings.

But that does not mean the Bible talks about an advanced ice age civilization that survives a flood and that the survivors then go around the planet seeding advanced technology into stone age cultures. There is nothing of that sort in the Bible. In fact, if you believe the literal flood narrative in Genesis then there would be no other surviving ancient stone age civilizations for the survivors of the flood to then go around and seed with advanced technology. Because according to the Bible they were all wiped out except for Noah and his family. So Graham Hancock's narrative is actually anti-Biblical.

In fact, there is nothing in Graham Hancock that is remotely Biblical or Christian. And Hancock makes no claims that it is. In fact he says the opposite. Marshall in the second video is just piggybacking onto Hancock's series and layering on his own Christian narrative that doesn't exist in the actual series and is the opposite of what Hancock is proposing.

I careful reading of T1's comment might lead one to the conclusion that she thinks Walsh and Marshall are the ones who mention scripture, not that Hancock does.

[Ken]

i think you’ll lose that bet.

As i said in the OP, my main interest (in everything) is how it relates to scriptures.
Which both Walsh and Marshall point out.

Walsh's only mention of scripture is to point out that Graham Hancock's Atlantis story of an ancient ice age civilization destroyed by flood paralleled in Genesis with Noah's flood and also similar flood narratives in other ancient texts. One can find ancient flood narratives in dozens of ancient texts from Gilgamesh to ancient Greek, Chinese, and Indian writings.

But that does not mean the Bible talks about an advanced ice age civilization that survives a flood and that the survivors then go around the planet seeding advanced technology into stone age cultures. There is nothing of that sort in the Bible. In fact, if you believe the literal flood narrative in Genesis then there would be no other surviving ancient stone age civilizations for the survivors of the flood to then go around and seed with advanced technology. Because according to the Bible they were all wiped out except for Noah and his family. So Graham Hancock's narrative is actually anti-Biblical.

In fact, there is nothing in Graham Hancock that is remotely Biblical or Christian. And Hancock makes no claims that it is. In fact he says the opposite. Marshall in the second video is just piggybacking onto Hancock's series and layering on his own Christian narrative that doesn't exist in the actual series and is the opposite of what Hancock is proposing.

I careful reading of T1's comment might lead one to the conclusion that she thinks Walsh and Marshall are the ones who mention scripture, not that Hancock does.

Exactly.

Except, Walsh's only mention of scripture is to reference Noah's flood which as I point out doesn't remotely match Hancock's narrative.

And Marshall tries to make the claim that there is scriptural basis for Hancock's narrative even though Hancock himself makes clear that there isn't. Marshall is weirdly trying to appropriate what is clearly a non-Biblical narrative and make the claim that it has a Christian basis. It is incredibly forced and unconvincing and rather pointless. It is kind of like taking some other random work of fiction like say The Lord of the Rings and trying to find some Christian narrative within it. You probably can if you try because the Bible contains so many essentially human themes. But then? What have you proven? That the Lord of the Rings is Biblically-inspired? No one believes that. It is just a work of fiction like Hancock's.