Thank you for your post. Yes, you are correct that the reference sorce I was quoting was the book of Enoch.There are some references to him in the Bible,such as Genesis 5:21-29,Chapter 3 of the Gospel of Luke, and one i consider quite important from the New Testament, in Jude 1:13-14, in which Enoch prophesises a catastrophe that will befall Earth,...'Raging waves of the sea, forming out of their own shame, wandering stars to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness forever...'.
From the extracts of the book of Enoch I have read, it is easy to see the correlation between what is described, and the physical evidence imposed by a seven part strike. There are sections of the book,Uriels Machine, which also link to the idea of a movement or displacement of the earth's surface under the pressure of the rising see levels, in an attempt to explain where all the water went, if the flood did indeed occurr.
To deal with John's request for more detailed information, the evidence to support a seven part strike, in the texts I have so far read(not huge numbers I'm afraid), is as follows.The initial research was conducted by a couple called the Tollmans. They looked first at the distribution of tektites, which could be formed by molten rocks being ejected into the atmosphere, freezing into rounde spheres, and falling to the ground. It has been generally recognised that the are possibly the result of high energy impacts with the earth.
The Tollmans research provided them with seven likely areas for seven ocean impacts.More evidence caomes from the study of dendrochronology.They discovered a blip in the radio-carbon calibration curve relative to the Tunguska explosion in 1908, so looked for one to fit in with their own findings, and they again found an anomoly, a pronounced peak around 9500BP,or around 7000-8000 BC. Further evidence came from ice cores, taken and tested in 1980, which show a huge peak of nitric acid around 7640BC. Nitric acid forms as the comet,or asteroid, burns through the atmosphere, burning the nitrogen in the air, thus falling as rain. This may also be linked to biblical descriptions of the flood in which the descriptions of 'bloody rainfall' are used.
More evidence came from the magnetostratisgraphical records which show a large disturbance in the earths magnetic field between 7000-8000BC.
The evidence put forward in the book is quite compelling, indeed wmscott, in his reply, seemed to me to accept it, but did not relate it to the flood stories because these were ocean impacts. I am curios as to your reasons for this. Granted i am merely commenting on evidence given from a small source, at this time only 'Uriels Machine', but the evidence and accounts given in the book suggest that ocean impacts at this time could have caused world wide flooding.
Apert from the two tsunamis, of massive height, which would be formed,and could be responsible for flooding many inland areas,it would also over time increase co2, increasing the world temperature and speeding up the melting of the ice sheets, which may already have been occurring due to the retreating of the previous Ice Age.
my question is what reason do you have for negating an ocean strike as the suse of the flood, when similar associted research assists your argument for the shifting of the earths surface to accomodate the increase in water volume?
sorry for the length of the post...i get carried away!
™ Version 4.2