In the Beginning/Ancient History

[Arrianna]

As some of you know I love studying history and the scriptures both. When studying scriptures the main key to understanding is context; culture, history, beliefs, and just who is actually being addressed. So to increase my understanding I have been trying to learn more about the world at the time of Abraham via migrations, religious beliefs, and other such interactions but have found myself frustrated by the incomplete image I keep finding. It is like grasping at shadows to see what they reflect.

Evidently my search was not giving me what I wanted so I went back further, to the beginning, and the results have been fascinating. Now I know that some others here enjoy learning about this stuff as much as I do, and with so many thoughts running through my head I have to write them down somewhere, so I thought I would start a thread on the things I am finding and anyone who wishes to may discuss it as well. I'll start with the land previous to the flood and work my way sequentially as much as possible. Please feel free to comment.



The physical Earth previous to the flood:

The histories of the earth before the flood create a completely different picture then we have today. These histories were discarded by geologists in the 1800's who imagined a world of slow gradual change and tectonic plates that move mere inches in decades. Now we know that changes are not gradual but sudden and often drastic. There are also serious issues with the plate tectonic theories having to do with measured pressures at depths where supposed movement and induction or even the working of magma to the surface are involved. Two separate deep drills in two completely different parts of the world attempted to drill below the crust and found the same thing, not pools of magma but crushed rock and water with twice the salt as the oceans. At one time it was believed that once we got to Venus our understanding of our own geology would be increased immeasurably but when science looked upon it they found a world where tectonic activity occurred vertically not horizontally as the tectonic theory states and Venus was thrown out of the equation completely, but should they have?

Ancient texts paint a clear picture, a large unified land, a single continent, Pangaea, with not large oceans but a single sea in the east. It was also a land of rolling hills and great plains without what we would consider mountains. The flood story is quite specific that once the ark lifted from the ground, where ever it may have been, the waters only had to increase 15 cubits to cover the tops of the mountains. A cubit is the length of a forearm between 18 and 22 inches so we are speaking of 22.5' to 27.5'.

This reminds me of the A&E version of Pride and Prejudice where they shot on location the "wild untamed beauty of the peaks" and I nearly died laughing. It is hard to imagine, coming from the Rockies, that anyone would call that a mountain when in our view it is barely a hill but it is all perspective and if that is all you know...

It is also a land that does not have rain, instead a mist forms upon the land in the morning and waters it with the dew. We are speaking of an extremely high water table across the entire planet. A water table that would result not in large rivers (without the large contours of the earth where would it go) but instead smaller streams, multiple springs, and ponds and as anyone who has farmed in the great plains can tell you a high water table requires no rain or irrigation for farming; the earth itself is moist enough that if you plant it it will grow. That same moisture would cause a low lying fog upon the earth at times when the temperature of the earth was warmer then that of the air... times such as early morning. The earth itself is described as being quite different from our view of crust, mantle, et cetera, but instead the earths surface/upper crust is described as being held up by columns or pillars of stone that separate large underwater expanses/oceans from a lower level of earth/lower crust, the great depths. All this is supposed to have remained unchanged for app 1500 years with one exception. A large cataclysmic event (waters flooding, earth quakes, "mountains" moving) that resulted in a peninsula appearing in the center of the east sea. A bulge in the earth so to speak. Imagine if you will the kind of pressures involved in it's formation.

So when did this all change? If we accept a vertical plate theory rather then a horizontal one then the Atlantic trench is actually a place where the upper crust rent and slide away from itself thus releasing the water in the great depths. Imagine if you will the pressure involved as "the same day were all fountains of the great deep broken up", the pillars of the world were broken (remember the broken stone and water found in the drills), and the waters gushed forth from the rent in the upper crust at high pressure and velocity.

I believe this happened in the middle of the east sea where a previous event had already weakened the upper crust. What was the the sea east of? Eden. This would mean that if the Atlantic ocean was the location of the previous east sea Pangaea included the entirety of what we know of as the pacific ocean as livable land, but more of that later.

The pressures involved would have been enough to form limestone as the water gushed forth, the upper crust sliding against the lower creating enough heat to melt rock itself and trap in within as the upper crust deformed sliding to the opposite side of the world (the Pacific trenches being directly opposite the Atlantic ridge). The water shooting from the fissure with enough force to achieve an altitude that would then come down not just as rain and muck (dirt taken along for the ride) but ice and even dry ice (carbon in the water would also freeze at these temperatures) as the temperatures lowered across the entire world. This deluge continued for a hundred and fifty days. It took app a year from beginning to end before the water had abated enough for the survivors to leave their ark and that was upon a mountain top, a real mountain top now formed by the compression of the upper crust. So what happened to the water? It abated, or drained back to the place from which it came, or did it? Surely the East Sea would now be much larger then before and the chambers that remain under the upper crust would refill to some degree now that the pressure had been abated but what of the rest of it? Before with the large expanses of water underground the entire earth would have been of a constant semitropical temperature. Now without those the earth has temperate zones and on top of that the temperature in the north and south have just plummeted.

How much of the ice that rained down upon the earth would not have melted in those places and how far did it extend? In the north entire herds of cattle and schools of fish have been found frozen in ice in the very motion of swimming, their flesh so quickly frozen they are still edible to this day. Mammoths (who could not survive cold weather in spite of early theories) were found with buttercups in their mouths in the very motion of chewing. Ice seems to have been the way of things for a large percentage of the earth, or should I say an ice age. Interesting then that Mt Ararat is found in such a temperate area now days yet all the settlements that occurred once they left it for a significant amount of time was to the south toward the equator. Nor did they know where they were, the land had changed so drastically that they were completely lost. Places were named after ones they had once known, just as we do now, but they were not the same just as Eden had 4 rivers running from it yet the rivers named for them number only two. Slowly the ice would have melted, the glaciers receded, and more land would become livable yet unexplored outside of hunting. This melted ice would be trapped in the basins they were formed in for sometime, until the time of Peleg specifically, "for in his days was the earth divided".

That is all the Bible really says about the division of Pangaea but other writings speak more on the subject. In fact they say that the lands were divided when the water broke forth from the north and flooded an area that had sunken. Continued movement of the upper crust and an natural forces caused by the core itself being unbalanced by the cataclysm would have created a vacuum that would have pulled the land where the pacific is down. Just as the opening of the Mediterranean to the ocean was once a solid bridge of land there was supposed to be such a bridge in the north that gave way and the waters rushed in, in this case the location of the Bering Strait. Thus the transformation from the land in the beginning to that we have now is completed. Rain is a common occurrence, we have great saline oceans that still do not achieve the saltiness of that trapped still inside the earth, great mountains have been thrust up, trapped pools of magma formed by friction of the upper and lower crust occasionally break through and form volcanoes, and the upper crust still has not ceased movement in it's search for equilibrium causing earthquakes, tsunamis, and eruptions. What a difference between before and now. By comparison the ancient world must have seemed to be a paradise.

As one final note I will just answer a question I am sure will be asked, what about the eras of the earth? The prehistoric Jurassic etc. Well once again, just as with other theories formed in the 1800's, there are problems with this view and time line namely that numerous evidence in the form of remains found out of order or mixed up with things that were not supposed to exist in the same times have now been found, and in some cases still living in our oceans. The only thing they do all agree on that has not changed was that some type of cataclysmic event wiped them out. A vertical plate theory and actually taking written history seriously about the the cataclysm we know of removes all these issues and the artificially created eras at one time. An experiment in settling during the ebb and flow of a wave cycle discovered that not only did the soil separate into strata but that the bodies of amphibian, reptile, mammal, and bird did so as well from lowest to highest. Given a world wide flood all the animals killed by the catastrophe would have separated themselves out into varies strata mistaken for eras by their very nature. Thus all the conflict with the evidence is removed and we have but one catastrophe instead of multiple ones the cause for a massive extinction over the entire earth and what a catastrophe it was. A massive rending of the earth's upper crust causing earthquakes followed by rain and floods and ending with an ice age and eventually the flooding of a great plain all of which changed the face of the entire world.

[Zyta]

This, to me, poses a really interesting question: Is it possible that humans and dinosaurs have, at some point, lived together?

Lizards never stop aging throughout their entire lives. Let's take a look how long humans lived before the Great Flood. Seven Hundreds, Eight Hundreds, some even Nine hundred years old. But as soon as the flood ended, human lifespans have shrunk to what we see them as today. What if all life on Earth aged a long time before the flood, hence the dinosaurs.

My theory of why time suddenly sped up, feel free to critizice me if you wish, is in relation to the moon and its effects on water on Earth. We know through scientific fact and just fact in general if you live around water that a full moon pulls the water more up shore than with the midday sun. Once the flood hit, or even before then, perhaps the moon was doing its thing with water levels, which wuold in turn break the large continent of Pangea up over a course of decades/centuries/maybe meven millenia, depending on many variables like how much water there was at the time, how soft or hard the terrain was, how long night lasted and so on.

Quntum Physics have proven that time is relative to how fast an object moves. We know that the moon is traveling further from Earth each year, that must mean that when the Earth was first formed, the moon either being a chunk of Earth being blown off as in some theories or some other planetary device I do not know, but the moon would have to have been really close to Earth at some point in time. Man, how I would love to see such a sight...

With the moon to close in Earth's orbit, its hold over water would have been substantially greater, another variable that might have led to Pandgea's demise. I believe that when the moon was closer to Earth, day as we know it was far faster than it is today. Life back then lived in a more perfect situation enviromentally-wise, they were healthier. Either the quickness of Earth's spin affected them or it did not, in some cases it might have increased their age, as space travel would if we ever achieve such a thing, but the trick is, we, as living in the present time, would not feel that time is speeding up around us.

Thus the possibility of dinosaurs living with humans is not unlikely, it's possible, but only if the moon had such a huge effect on Earth in that time.

[Arrianna]

This, to me, poses a really interesting question: Is it possible that humans and dinosaurs have, at some point, lived together?

It's a radical idea that is openly mocked whenever it is mentioned but... The Ancient stories and history do talk about gigantic lizards etc living on the earth at one time. If all they had was bones to go on how would they know they were "lizards"? What is more the original name for what we call dinosaurs was "dragon", the name dinosaur was coined in the 1830's app. The Komodo Dragon is a remnant of this. There are stories of these dragons being around for a very long time till they were hunted to extinction. I never thought of the reason some of them were so large was simply because they lived so long though. It is something to think about.

The idea of the moon effecting things is interesting too. There is good evidence that the days and years are growing longer. It is possible to point out that until around 800BC the year was counted 360 days not 365.25 and evidence shows that it really may have been. However it does not explain entirely the change in the ages of what lived on the earth. I have read of scientists researching aging who say that men and animals age based on two things, exposure to UV and something genetic that can possibly be turned off. If it can be turned off is it possible at one time it was turned on? If so what would trigger it? It can't be entirely environmental because Noah still lived a very long time but his children and so on lived for fewer and fewer years in each suceeding generation.


Pre-Flood Culture and Politics
My head hurts. I am currently reading an extensive review of literature found in the last century or so about Enoch. It turns out that huge amounts of the old and new testament includes quotes from these scriptures that were lost in the days of early Christianity and yet back up authors from that time that were discarded as unreliable in the early 1800's... go figure. So I'll leave most things specific to Enoch alone and concentrate on what I have learned about the society itself.


A Pastoral society. Everything I read points to this. In this case pastoral means that they lived in tents, tended large herds, hunted as needed, and grew only that food that they needed and no more. There was none of our professional farming where you grow as much as you can for the purpose of trade. Trade was rather in terms of created "goods", those things you make with your hands. They were commanded to fill the earth and they tried. With the addition of the Pacific basin there was a lot of it to fill in a period of 1600 years so to speak. Historical scholar W.Cleon Skousen figured out the math and taking into account that they could have children for around 500 years within 650 years there could be 4,882,812,500 surviving children in a single generation not including their parents and so forth. Now we know there weren't actually that many for reason's I will go into but it would also back up his belief that the "stone age" remnants found in Europe are actually the remains of the farthest reaches of this migration whether voluntary or, more likely, those fled there by long warfare. A refugee situation would easily explain the evidence of their condition and life as it is possible they could have fled with only what they could carry.

Cities did exist of course but with one exception they were built in defiance of Gods commandment and were monuments to the glory of man, seats of power. (I wonder if they were built of wood also seeing that later writings about after the flood talk of the use of brick and "bittum" as if it is new and incredible.) The one exception to this reason for building cities was the city of Enoch where, when the world had become so wicked that it was not safe to live among it, the righteous gathered together for safety and built the first Zion. At that time "all the nations" of the world gathered together a large army to destroy Zion. When they fled from Enoch's power, as he commanded earth and nature itself against them, they fell to arguing among themselves and from that time forward there was continual war in the land. They even invaded and settled the new land that rose up in the middle of the east sea.

So what was this society like that was so wicked? They were a society of secret combination's and oaths. Men would kill to get gain and would swear others to secrecy with oaths that included the drinking of blood. The "Salome" stories outside the bible are said to have been inspired by their doings. They were "without affection". Men would kill their own children, wives, and family for gain. Women would do likewise and conspire against those they should love.

"Men dressing like women; women like men." "They are without affection, and hate their own blood." "The secret places of the earth were doing evil, the son lay with the mother and the father with the daughter, all of them committed adultery with their neighbor's wives, they made solemn covenants among themselves concerning these things,"

Children were not only not valued eventually neither was marriage itself and so they would not know their sibling or parent, mother or father. Originally the religion was a perversion of the gospel, they would have the ordinances (baptism, priesthood, marriage etc) but would not obey the laws therein or preach versions of their own, (for gain, keeps coming up doesn't it?). Eventually they defied God entirely, setting themselves up as Gods or worshiping fallen angels who would give them knowledge in exchange. Human sacrifice was instituted, slavery created, mass genocide committed for possession of lands, and woredoms and idolatries became an integral part of society.

"for having received liberty (agency), they despised the Most High, scorned his laws, and forsook his way. Slavery was not given from above but came by transgression, and the barrenness of your women does not come by nature but by your willful perversions." "They began to sin against the birds and beasts and against each other, eating flesh and drinking blood while the earth fell under the rule of the lawless,"

Most importantly the teachings of the prophets offended them because they liked being how they were. In their arrogance they believed that their knowledge of "chemistry, manufacture of weapons and jewelry and cosmetics, the trade secrets of angels- formulas, incantations, drugs, astrologies," and so forth made them mighty enough they would answer to no one. "They thought to emancipate themselves from God through their technological know-how." (Enoch) In those days even the children were acquainted with the "mysterious arts" (advanced science). The people believed that they were "smart enough" that could control the world around them, even as they polluted it, to such a degree that there would be no consequences for their actions. They dared God to do his worst.

Looking at this list I have to wonder just how far away we are from emulating them now. Divorce or simply not marrying is so common it is unremarkable. Crime syndicates and mafia are on the rise as is human trafficking. The laws are seen merely as conveniences to be avoided when they cease to please. Our leaders are corrupt and selfish and we allow them to rule us, to lead us. Sciences are seen as something to be used to control life itself with no value on it other then what is to be gained. Where does it stop?

In the ancient writs it says that the corruption became so bad that God wiped it clean with the flood and returned it to it's primitive state. Everything was destroyed as the earth was baptized to remove the stain. Symbolic yes but still what does it mean for us now?


[Edit]
Re: Rain Before Noah

It is also a land that does not have rain, instead a mist forms upon the land in the morning and waters it with the dew. We are speaking of an extremely high water table across the entire planet. A water table that would result not in large rivers (without the large contours of the earth where would it go) but instead smaller streams, multiple springs, and ponds and as anyone who has farmed in the great plains can tell you a high water table requires no rain or irrigation for farming; the earth itself is moist enough that if you plant it it will grow. That same moisture would cause a low lying fog upon the earth at times when the temperature of the earth was warmer then that of the air... times such as early morning.

This is the theory but while the land model makes sense to me I am having second thoughts about a lack of rain in entirety the more I learn. For starters the East Sea couldn't have been too small or the land that rose up in it would have been to small to bother to invade but if it was to large they wouldn't have seen it. Either way combined with the streams, springs, ponds, even small rivers there would have been enough moisture for some rain. Without high mountains to stop it though how would the clouds have circulated? What form would it take? I am now leaning toward a combination of the two.

The same stories that speak of a mist coming up in the morning to water the lands do also speak of rain as something that happened near the time of the flood. Nor is there a big "wow what is this" moment when it did begin to rain that fatal time but rather in the events leading up to it. Specifically it speaks of *"darkening heavens, torrential rains, and all manner of meteoric disturbances alternate with periods of terrible drought," the sea is also drawn back and then invades the land. (All this makes me think of Zyta's question concerning the moon.) If there really was a combination of the two, if the high water table created mist upon the earth that then watered the plants, rain was incidental rather then depended on, and meteoric activity and other stresses up on the earth was causing raising and lowering of that same water table... you would have alternating droughts and rains... all adding additional stress on the plates and the crust where it had already begun to buckle. These things don't just happen out of no where after all.

So what is the significance of the rainbow as a sign? As I was pondering that I remembered the prophesies concerning the next time the world would be purified, not with water but with fire (symbolic of confirmation of the holy ghost). The significant part of that is that in the year before it happens there is supposed to be no rainbows. So if they did have rain before the flood and would have known about rainbows is it possible that the reason for the symbolism is what it to come rather then what is past? This of course leaves the question of what would cause a year with no rainbows but that is a subject for the future.


*"The Book of Enoch as a Theodicy"- Nibley, Hugh

______________________



A Note on the History of Records
One of the things that has puzzled me as I studied the scriptures is the constant references to other sources and previous records we don't have. They indicated that there were records of religion that went back far earlier then the sojourn in Babylon by the Israelites many historians refer to as the religions "origin and source", which is silly really since it is long after Abraham and Moses but I suppose they wish to delegitimize both Judaism and Christianity as original religions. In my currant studies I have discovered that in the early 1800's the original scientists did not have access to any records that proved otherwise. Evidently the scriptures that were studied in support of the original Bible, was quoted over 120 times in the New Testament, an unnumbered amount of times in the Old Testament, referenced by 30 other canonical works, and the early Christian and pre-Christianity Rabbi's themselves taught from were first discounted by political religious leaders and then actively suppressed.

In the last century however these records keep coming to light. Multiple versions and copies in multiple languages that back each other up consistently. Records found hidden from those who would destroy them between walls or sealed in caves from Christian, Essen, and yes Hebraic sources. Interestingly enough not only do these records do everything they were claimed to have they are even found to have been reference as well in the earliest known Assyrian and Egyptian writings; that's pretty far back. Interesting that a religion supposedly considered the illegitimate child of Babylonian captivity has instead born out it's claim to trace back to the very beginning instead.

[Barronmore]

The one exception to this reason for building cities was the city of Enoch where, when the world had become so wicked that it was not safe to live among it, the righteous gathered together for safety and built the first Zion. At that time "all the nations" of the world gathered together a large army to destroy Zion. When they fled from Enoch's power, as he commanded earth and nature itself against them, they fell to arguing among themselves and from that time forward there was continual war in the land.

Makes you wonder if the City of Enoch was a giant tent city like that of the Children of Israel when they wandered in the desert for 40 years.

In the ancient writs it says that the corruption became so bad that God wiped it clean with the flood and returned it to it's primitive state. Everything was destroyed as the earth was baptized to remove the stain. Symbolic yes but still what does it mean for us now?

Well, the scriptures do say that at the second coming (or right before) the earth will be cleansed by fire...and be symbolic of the earth receiving the holy ghost. Rather that's a spiritual fire from heaven or the 'coming nuclear holicost' we've always been warned about is up for grabs. But the ancient records are clear, it will happen and it will be a cleansing of the world by fire.

[Arrianna]

The Sons of God & the Daughters of Man

Genesis 6
1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
3 And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.


Everytime a discussion on angels begins someone brings these verses up and talks about how angels married mortal women and had children. I have never understood why since 1) I have read that vs 2 is mistranslated and should be "daughters of God" and 2) being sons and daughters of God is referred to often in the Bible as those who follow God (Ps. 82: 6, Isa. 45: 11, Hosea 1: 10, John 1: 12, Acts 17: 29, Rom. 8: 14, 2 Cor. 6: 18, Gal. 4: 5, etc). Then I started studying the early scripts and I found it. It's not in the Bible it is in, you guessed it, The Book of Enoch and other Apocrypha that was used as cannon scripture by the early church.

In these early scripts they speak of "Watchers, Fallen Angels, Sons of God, Nephilim, or Rephaim". Like above their offspring are called Giants. Stories of god like beings having children with mortal women was common in the ancient world. It is easy to see how combined with the influence of Babylon culture and folktales and seen through the veil of mysticism so common in the writings of medieval monastics we could now have handed down to us a complete mythos of hierarchy of angels and demons based upon those fallen and otherwise who aided in the corruption of the pre-flood generations. A closer look at fragments, scripts that have since come to light however, paint a very different picture then the currant understanding; in fact my original impression is confirmed in a rather disturbing way.

The "Cedrenus" fragment is clear in a way newer scripts are not that the Sons of God are both "the Watchers" and most significantly the descendants of Seth (born to Adam and Eve after Able's death) and the Sons of Man are the descendants of Cain. This is significant in an entirely new way. For when Cain lay in wait and slew Able in collusion with his older siblings he became Master Mahan (I wonder if this is where the word "Man" originates) head of the first secret combination on the earth, the secret that one may kill to "get gain". Cain and Able were not the first of Adam and Eve's children only the first to be raised in the complete gospel, to be raised in the priesthood. Their older siblings, already grown, had chosen Lucifer over God when Lucifer deceived them and claimed the glory and position of God for himself. The death of Able and abandonment of Cain from their teachings must have been crushing for Adam and Eve. No wonder they rejoiced when Seth was born and grew up following the Gospel; it was through him that a righteous generation, the inheritance and patriarchy, grew through the earth. Yet it was his sons, the Sons of God, who had been fully initiated into the priesthood who allowed themselves to be swayed by carnal desires. They left the teachings of God, married outside of the faith (daughters of men), and took the secrets of God (the rites and laws of the Gospel) with them and started their own churches for gain (priestcraft= the teaching of religion for personal gain) using the outward ceremonies and observances but ignoring the commandments and inner beliefs.

Isa. 29: 13
13 ¶ Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:
Psalms of Soloman 8:9-11
"in secret places underground they wrought confusion;...They committed adultery, every man with his neighbors wife. They concluded covenants with one another with an oath touching these things."

Nor was it just the sons who left the Gospel for the Daughters (and even wives) of God married the Sons of Man as well. Giants in the land? In ancient times being a "Giant" had nothing to do with physical stature but societal. The giants were the leaders of Man, those who elevated themselves above others, the beginning of Kings, and it was their children who were the first.

Taken without this understanding, combined with the corruption of other ancient beliefs, not to mention the miracles and works of God claimed therein (that we now would recognize as natural events such as tsunamis etc.), and the extremely scientific descriptions of the heavens and other such nature that conflicted with the popular beliefs then of how the heavens were arranged it is easy to see why these scriptures would be written off as pure legend and fantasy and remove from the teachings of the newly formed Catholic church. Fortunately they are still with us and with the right knowledge and understanding we can learn much from them. God really is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. It is man rather that changes.

[Chiefblackhammer]

Very interesting theory, my wife and I have discussed creationism and how it all began several times and she would enjoy reading this as well. She fancies the "Gap theory" however I personally don't share that view. I cannot say I hold firm views on what I believe happened as there is just too little recorded about time lines and how events "happened" for me to "conclude" anything. I will say I scoff at evolution and the big bang theory as attempts to disprove creationism instead as viable possibilities. When you try take ideas and fabricate "evidence" to support it I just loose all respect for the theory.

In terms of what you have written I find your call on vertical tectonic activity very intriguing. I wonder if the lost city of Atlantis fell victim to one of these shifts and what a visual model of these shifts would look like.

[Arrianna]

Your wife should check out a book called "In the Beginning" by Dr. Walt Brown. You can read or order it online here: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ He has obvious biases but his scientific points on the subject are interesting.



Atlantis according to some pretty conclusive evidence found in the last decade or so was destroyed by a massive volcanic explosion. Evidently their capitol was built on a caldera that blew, destroyed the city (obviously), and wiped out the rest of the civilization in the massive tsunamis that radiated outward for a period of two days. We knew them as the Minoans... that's right, Atlantis was in the Mediterranean. You can see a really interesting show that goes through all the evidence by the Discovery channel in their Lost Worlds series.