Geology and the Great Sphinx

The link that you posted did not list a "great roof". It listed "a roof", "beautiful roof", and "the roof". As to referring to the great pyramid; you must have a heck of a good imagination to take that from the text you supplied. Do you make the connection because the pyramid is old, and has a roof?

The only Joesephus I could find relating to this was during the period after Jesus' crucifixion. Perhaps I found the wrong person, this is likely.He says however that the pillar of brick should be destroyed. Neither has been destroyed so I don't see how this applies. Both are said to report "many scientific discoveries and inventions, notably in astronomy" but this does not seem to be the case.In the second link you supplied I read the following paragraph and this seems to blur what you are trying to say even more : The flood, I am told, created the depth of the Grand Canyon in sediment, raised Mount Everest from level ground, and shot water from the depth of the Earth into space - but it did not affect these two monuments? Granted the Sphinx was buried in sand for quite some time, but certainly not to any depth I would expect given what I am told the flood did to the rest of the planet.You had previously stated that the Pyramid was an altar, not a pillar created to survive a flood for the purpose of preserving knowledge.IE: I still do not understand why these two monuments are evidence of a pre-flood society or that the flood took place at all.

So because the Giza Plateau did not move (upthrusted) this explains why there is so little damage to both structures and why there is virtually no sedimentation? There is no other way that a structure could have visible water markings yet have not gone through a world wide flood?

I read Doddy Curumehtars explanation of the Nile floods as simply a plausable alternative to the global flood scenario. Had he believed this to be the cause I would ask him to explain, as I would like you to explain how this could be the cause of the features seen on the Sphinx.The opening thread makes this statement: This is what the alternate theory bases its claim on that the Sphinx is much older than previously thought. 40 days of rainfall hardly seems to be a case for "slowly eating" of the hard limestone layers. A single flood of the Nile would not produce the features seen, and I do not believe that Doddy Curumehtar even suggested such a thing. He did say the nile flooded often.If you believe that a single event could produce the results seen on the Sphinx, why is it not realistic to say that this event is simply a localized flood? Or localized heavy rainfall?