Water on Mars

Mars as a source of the water that came at the time of Noah's flood.


by Fred P Miller
Fact: Several "meteors" found in the Antarctic ice are confirmed by astronomers to have originated on Mars.

It had been proposed about 1950 by one secular writer in the past that the ice on Antarctica was dumped there in a near cosmic collision. Immanuel Velikovski was a well known historian who taught with and was a companion of Albert Einstein at Princeton University. Also, Donald Patten, a Christian writer also proposed the same thing about 1966 in his Book The Biblical Flood and Ice Age Epic"(See Patten's work on line at: http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/astronomy/SNCMeteorites.html) Recently discovered ancient cosmic events lend some support to this hypothesis. Mingled with the ice on the Antarctic continent are "meteors" (12 discovered so far) whose origin has been established fairly firmly as being from Mars. A larger number of Martian meteors have also been found widely distributed over the rest of the planet Earth.

The Bible account of the Genesis Flood indicates two or three sources for the waters that covered the planet. One was from earth movements from beneath and the other from outer space including the prediluvian water canopy.

Gen 7:11 ...the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

According to the narrative in Genesis the source of the flood diminished when these two sources were turned off and also when the rain stopped.

Gen 8:2 The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained;

It is Velikovski's view, with some supporting and corroborating evidence, since his book was written, (He predicted the high surface temperature of Venus among other things before it was possible to verify the data.) that Venus, originally a wandering star and a late-comer to the Solar system, was in a near collision with Mars. Mars was moved and drawn from it's orbit toward the earth and its moons were seen by earth inhabitants, (see number 10 below.) It is therefore possible that these "Worlds in near collision" caused not only some of the rocks to be drawn off Mars and deposited on the earth but also the water that formerly covered a portion of the Mars surface, was, according to Patten's proposal, deposited as ice in the Antarctic and other regions. This may be the answer to where the water on Mars went. There seems to be clear erosion evidence of former oceans on Mars

Several things support this idea.

1. At some time in the past Mars was close enough to the earth for the 2 Moons of Mars to be seen. They have been described in more than one ancient source. They can not be seen with the naked eye.

2. The orbit of Mars is not regular but very eccentric giving evidence of a disturbance of its orbit in the past. The asteroid belt which is beyond Mars also gives evidence of a collision in the past and the fragmenting of a planet that orbited between Mars and Jupiter The former planet now fragmented into asteroids now orbits very eccentrically and crosses the orbits of both Mars and the Earth.

3. The fact that in the past the continents on Earth were much larger and the ocean beds smaller is evidenced by the river valleys in the continental shelves under the present sea level and may be evidence of the addition of water from a celestial source at the time of the Flood.

4. The "meteors" ascertained to be from the surface of Mars show signs of heat by partial burning when entering the atmosphere of the earth amd confirm their "foreign" origin. The fireball of a meteor is caused by melting and ionization of the outer layers of the meteorite, leaving a blackened layer called a fusion crust.

5. The ice in the Antarctic is resting on bedrock far below the surface of the ocean. A buildup of snow over eons can not account for the depth of the ice below sea level. Being dumped from outer space can do so.

6. There is clear evidence that Mars at one time supported a great amount of water, enough to have had an ocean. Please see http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4582649 for this evidence of a shoreline on Mars.

7. The Martian rocks called meteors found in many parts of the Earth are also mingled in the Antarctic ice and are of recent origin according to the most eminent astronomers. The recent origin of the Mars meteors is cited in well documented article on line http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/astronomy/SNCMeteorites.html


"The ALH84001 meteorite was among the SNCs discovered in Antarctica. It is the oldest known SNC, with its crystallization age of 4.5 billion years indicating the rock is as old as Mars itself. The meteorite is thought to have been blasted off Mars 15 million years ago and remained in interplanetary orbit until entering the Earth's atmosphere and landing in Antarctica approximately 13,000 years ago. "

8. Loss of oceans on Mars. In the same scientific survey of the evidence the origin of the Martian "meteors" the astronomers point out that there is evidence on Mars of a condition where there were vast amounts of water that are now missing. Thus the amount of water may have been swept off the planet by the near collision postulated by Velikoski and Patten. The astronomers agree there were oceans (called flood conditions) on Mars in the past as indicated in the following quotation.

An analysis of the Chassigny, Shergotty, and Zagami meteorites by Watson et al. (1994) found a high deuterium/hydrogen ratio relative to terrestrial values, as well as only a tenth as much water in the amphibole mineral phases as expected. Watson et al. interpreted these results as supporting the assertion that, in order for Mars to have lost the amount of water implied by the contrast between current Martian conditions and the ancient flood features seen on the planet, the escape rate of hydrogen from Mars must have been higher in the past.

9. Mars' two Moons: There is one other evidence on Mars similar to the fragmentation of the Planet that once orbited in the asteroid belt. That is the two moons of Mars whose origin is more akin to capturing a fragment of an asteroid than to portions of the planet being torn from the surface of Mars itself. The moons are not round as are other planetary moons in the solar system but are elongated and erose and craggy in nature. Astronomers agree with this assumption in a comment in an article on the moons of Mars.


Phobos and Deimos [are] compositionally similar to Type 1 carbonaceous chondrites found in the asteroid belt. These data strongly suggest capture as the origin of the two asteroid like moons of Mars.

10. The Moons were seen from Earth with the naked eye. Jonathan Swift wrote in 1726 a remarkably accurate description of the moons of Mars 151 years before they were discovered by astronomers. In Gulliver's Voyage to Laputa Chapter 3 he describes the astronomers in a fictitious place and their ability to describe the moons of Mars before they had been first discovered by astronomers in 1877.

They have likewise discovered two lesser Stars, or Satellites, which revolve about Mars; whereof the innermost is distant from the Center of the primary Planet exactly three of his Diameters, and the outermost five; the former revolves in the space of ten Hours, and the latter in Twenty-one and an Half; so that the Squares of their periodical Times, are very near in the same Proportion with the Cubes of their Distance from the Center of Mars; which evidently shews them to be governed by the same Law of Gravitation, that influences the other heavenly Bodies.

Could this be coincidence? Or did Swift have knowledge from an earlier period when Mars was drawn off its orbital path close to the Earth where and when the moons were observed and their sighting preserved in folk lore and oral history.

Where did all the extra water come from? Possibly from Mars.

Weekly Communion

The Weekly Observance of the Lord’s Supper

I recently heard someone say "there is no commandment in the New Testament. to observe the Lord’s Supper every week" Of course this statement is both True and False. It is true because there is no such commandment. But it is false in that it implies that a weekly observance of communion is not God’s directive will for The Lord’s church. We do not learn God’s will for the church only by commandments. Jesus said He had all religious authority. He transferred that authority only to his Apostles, no one else. He not only told them that what ever they bound or loosed on earth was bound and loosed in Heaven; But he also told them to wait in Jerusalem until they were endowed with Authority from on High! Thus what ever the apostles set as precedents. in all the churches we are to follow. We learn God’s directive will, (that is, those things He expects us to obey or be penalized if we do not) not only by Commandments but also by examples laid down for us by what the Apostles bound and loosed, and by principles in the word of God. We obey the commandments, we follow the examples, and we apply the principles. But it is the example of a weekly observance of the Lord’s Supper that we are addressing here. It is understood that the Apostles set the precedent of meeting on the first day of the week. We follow that example and there is no commandment saying the church must have its assembly on the first day of the week. We simply see the example of the Apostles setting the precedent of the Lord’s church meeting on the first day of every week. There are four New Testament passages that plainly show that it was also the practice of the New Testament church to partake of the Breaking of Bread (a euphemism of the Lord’s Supper) every first day week assembly. Thus we are to follow their example if we want to do God’s will.

Scripture Examples to follow.

1. Acts 2:42And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship and in breaking of bread and in prayers.

If all four of these religious items were followed steadfastly. What would that mean? If a person came to church once a year,. Would he be steadfast ? How about every three months? No? How about once a month? We would probably say, "he comes once in a while, but he is not steadfast." Thus to be steadfast the observance of each requires them to be a part of every weekly assembly. Breaking of bread is a euphemism for the Lord’s Supper. It can also mean taking a meal. But would eating a meal fit this context? For instance: Fellowship, Apostle’s doctrine, prayers, and eating breakfast steadfastly. It does not fit the context. We take the Lord’s Supper in the weekly observance of being steadfast in the prayers and Preaching Apostle’s doctrine and sharing. All or none are enjoined by precedent.

2. Acts 20:5These going before waited for us at Troas. 6And we sailed away from Philippi after the days of unleavened bread and came to them at Troas in five days; where we stayed seven days. 7And on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached to them, ready to depart in the morning; and continued his speech until midnight.

The disciples came on the first day of the week. Why? Because they were taught by the Apostles that that was the day to assemble. Most commentators note that 5 days crossing the Aegean Sea must have been caused by bad weather and made Paul late arriving on Monday instead of Sunday or earlier as he must have planned. It is obvious from the ensuing context that did not want to delay because he wanted to be in Jerusalem on a set time. However he felt it was needful for this church which he had started on his way out to Corinth for him to meet with them and it is clear that they came together for the primary purpose of observing the Lord’s Supper. This is another precedent setting verse. We are to follow precedents.

3. 1 Corinthians 11::20 When you come together therefore into one place, it is not the eating of the Lord's supper (the way you are doing it). ......... ........33Therefore, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait one for another. 34And if any man is hungry, let him eat at home; so that you do not come together to condemnation. And the rest I will set in order when I come.

This passage shows that the Corinthian church were eating the Lord’s supper when they assembled. They assembled on the first day of the week according to 1 Cor. 16:1. But they were taking Communion improperly. They were making a meal out of it instead of a memorial eating to observe Jesus death. and according to 1Cor 10:16The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? Gaining spiritual access to that death and blood. He told them to do it right and explained how. Thus they also were taking Communion on the first day of the week, Every first day of the week. Because that is the Apostolic precedent. They continued doing so after being corrected.

4. Hebrews 10"25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as you see the day approaching. 26For if we sin wilfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remains no more sacrifice for sins, 27But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. 28He who despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: 29Of how much sorer punishment, do you suppose, he shall be thought worthy, who has trodden under foot the Son of God and has counted the blood of the covenant, with which he was sanctified, an unholy thing and has done despite to the Spirit of grace?

How can one lose his relationship to the sacrifice of the Cross? Well this verse says it is possible for the sin of "forsaking the assembling? How is that possible? What connection does weekly church attendance have to do with the sacrifice of the cross or "blood of the covenant?"

Jesus called the cup or fruit of the vine in the observance that he instituted at the last Passover, "the blood of the covenant." It is recorded four times in the New Testament. Testament and Covenant are the same word in the Greek New Testament.

1. Matthew 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

2. Mark14:24 And he said to them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.

3. Luke 22:20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

4 1 Corinthians 11:25 He also took the cup after the same manner, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood:

It is plain in the Hebrews passage that the sin that would cause one to lose his sacrifice is turning ones back on the Lord’s supper, The Blood of the Covenant, in its weekly observance. The Lord’s Supper then was in the assembly that Hebrews warns us not to forsake. It is forsaking the Blood of the Testament; or the passage makes no sense. Thus this is the fourth passage that gives an Apostolic precedent for a weekly observance of the Lord’s supper.

Indeed, we should take this article of Faith as seriously as the apostle makes it in the Hebrews passage.