Noah and the flood.....

[richlittell]

Would all the earths require the same baptismal act? Do those of the lesser glory - namely the Telestial and Terrestial require to be baptized in order to receive that state of glory?

Have no idea, I do believe in the flood, because it is scriptural and we haven't received any revelations to discount or clarify the event. Whether it was regional or global is of no concern to me. I don't think there are any recommendations of baptism for things telestial or terristrial.

[Moksha]

...and let a smile be your umbrella.

Smile be your umbrella? Don't you mean, gather your loved ones about you and care for all God's creatures? Sheeesh!

[Heavenguard]

Thought I would put forth some thoughts.

I do not know what happened. I think it is possible that “world” has both intent and extent in meaning throughout the scriptures. I am not sure that “world” means the same to us as it did the ancients. And so we introduce a new word, global. This is a new term that was not used by the ancients. I am not sure it is wise to introduce new words and then say that the concepts are the same.

I agree with this standpoint. Looking at just how the language was, very poetic, many metaphors, significant (representational) numbers, etc., there is much that you can't read straight as literal text the way you would read a history book written in modern times. Just as we use hyperboles, so would the authors then. You might say that a concert hall was packed "with a million people", but of course no hall actually holds a million people. (That I know of?)

However, I would take the account of the flood to have flooded all that was known to the author. At that time, they certainly did not have a sense of the remote continents and would not even be able to mentally grasp that a flood would or could reach them.

[Hemidakota]

Let us not have compliancy in addressing what others may not be aware of when we try to address an issue with Noah - I do believe Noah had the ability to know the prevailing conditions of the coming deluge. As Elder Peterson remarked; "Noah was perfect in his generation..."

"And it came to pass that Noah prophesied, and taught the things of God, even as it was in the beginning.

"And the Lord said unto Noah: My Spirit shall not always strive with man, for he shall know that all flesh shall die; yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years; and if men do not repent, I will send in the floods upon them.

"And it came to pass that Noah called upon the children of men that they should repent; but they hearkened not unto his words. And it repented Noah, and his heart was pained that the Lord had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at the heart.

"And the Lord said: I will destroy man whom I have created, from the face of the earth, both man and beast, and the creeping things, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth Noah that I have created them, and that I have made them; and he hath called upon me; for they have sought his life.

"And thus Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord; for Noah was a just man, and perfect in his generation; and he walked with God, as did also his three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

Edited August 26, 2008 by Hemidakota

[Guest bren1975]

If you don't believe the flood was literal, then you differ from the prophets.

"There is a third group of people—those who accept the literal message of the Bible regarding Noah, the ark, and the Deluge. Latter-day Saints belong to this group. In spite of the world’s arguments against the historicity of the Flood, and despite the supposed lack of geologic evidence, we Latter-day Saints believe that Noah was an actual man, a prophet of God, who preached repentance and raised a voice of warning, built an ark, gathered his family and a host of animals onto the ark, and floated safely away as waters covered the entire earth. We are assured that these events actually occurred by the multiple testimonies of God’s prophets."

LDS.org - Ensign Article - The Flood and the Tower of Babel

[Justice]

As I prayerfully read and study the account of the flood, I always get the same answer. That it needed to be global to restart life. It's a basic principle and I try not to let other things cloud that judgment. As long as you believe it was "complete enough" to restart life, then you fall in line with the basic principle the story is teaching.

IMO, I don't know how anything but a complete and universal flood could spport the basic point of the story.

[Captain_Curmudgeon]

It has always struck me as strange that one of the casualties of the flood was the very wood of which the arc was built. We never hear of it in the Bible after Noah's flood (or before, actually).

The olive tree came through fine (as we know from the dove incident) but the gopher wood tree perished.

If you go to your local lumberyard and ask for gopher wood today, they'll think you're on a fool's errand (i.e. Go for wood).

[OneEternalSonata]

Noah's flood symbolizes the Atonement, as Jonah and his captivity, yet neither does so perfectly. A type and a shadow need not be an exact copy to be faithful and true. These things are clear, yet unclearly seen. Whenever I find something I believe to be lacking I always discover the doctrine to be fuller and richer. The flood needed be sufficient to God, and it was, even if I couldn't perceive it.

Edited August 27, 2008 by OneEternalSonata

[Moksha]

It does concern me somewhat when my religious leaders posture themselves so strongly for the allegorical stories of the Bible as being literal.

[Hemidakota]

Are stating that the Great Deluge never happened?

[Justice]

When you seek to find answers to questions such as these, it's imperative to look for God's definitions of the terms involved. Here is a very basic one that most people miss:

Genesis 1:

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

8 And God called the firmament Heaven.

10 And God called the dry land Earth;

Read that as many times as it takes to sink in.

Did you get "In the beginning God created the firmament and the dry land?"

If you didn't keep reading it until you do. It's the key to understanding what actually happened during the creation. It's also helpful to define terms used later.

If we are to truly understand the creation and, yes, even the flood, it is best to begin with His definitions.

I realize terms may have different meaning and application, but I find it best to start at the basic beginning.

[Hemidakota]

Compare Moses wiritng with Abraham's view of Creation....

[Hemidakota]

It has always struck me as strange that one of the casualties of the flood was the very wood of which the arc was built. We never hear of it in the Bible after Noah's flood (or before, actually).

The olive tree came through fine (as we know from the dove incident) but the gopher wood tree perished.

If you go to your local lumberyard and ask for gopher wood today, they'll think you're on a fool's errand (i.e. Go for wood).

Perhaps, another meaning to the words "gopher" and "ets" (wood) used in Genesis 6:14 can be translated in the Septuagint (LXX.) as "squared beams." Or in the Vulgate version translated these same words as "planed wood." Yet, we have a few researchers have suggested that word "gopher" may have referred to wood lamination process, which might have been necessary considering the huge size of the ark was over 450 feet long or more. Yet, we can also note similarity between a "g" and a "k" in the Hebrew alphabet, which both resemble a backwards "C", it is suggested that the first letter in the word "gopher" could be a scribal error, and that the word should be "kopher." Now the word Kopher is a Hebrew word translated as "pitch" in Genesis 6:14. Pitch is a waterproof covering. If that is the case, the verse would properly read, in effect, "Make yourself an ark of pitched wood; make rooms in the ark, and cover it inside and outside with pitch."

Now, we could add more assumptions....

[bytor2112]

21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.

22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.

23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father’s nakedness.

24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.

25 And he said, aCursed be bCanaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.

26 And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his aservant.

27 God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.

Noah is being abit harsh here...or am I missing something? Why curse anyone, much less Canaan?

[Hemidakota]

21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.

22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.

23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father’s nakedness.

24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.

25 And he said, aCursed be bCanaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.

26 And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his aservant.

27 God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.

Noah is being abit harsh here...or am I missing something? Why curse anyone, much less Canaan?

Actually not since Canaan was rebellious and would not heed the living Prophet Noah. Who was it made mockering [accused] at Noah while in his wine? Ham! Let me remind you that Noah was a righteous man and he drank wine and became intoxicated. The Lord never did forsake him in consequence thereof and Noah retained all the power of his priesthood. When Noah was accused by Canaan, Noah cursed him by the priesthood which he held, and the Lord had respect to his word and the priesthood which he held; notwithstanding he was drunk, the curse remain for sometime thereafter.

Reference HC 4:445-46.

Edited August 28, 2008 by Hemidakota

[bytor2112]

I thought it was Ham, the Father of Canaan that told his brothers and exposed his Fathers shame.....

[Hemidakota]

Yes! You are correct. Canaan is the son of Ham and Ham was the rebellious son. Canaan followed his father pattern.

[Snow]

I watched a Discovery channel program about whether the Biblical account really occurred. They made a pretty compelling case that Noah could not have built the Ark nor could there have been a worldwide flood. There isn't and geological evidence to support the story of the worldwide flood. So, is the account literal or perhaps a retelling of a Babylonian disaster that has been recorded in the Epic of Gilgamesh and other epics?

There, obviously, was no worldwide flood, as described in the bible, that is a flood up to the tops of the mountains.

If anything, the earth was symbolically baptized by such a pervasive downpour that all the earth was coated with water at the same time, if only for a moment.

[Moksha]

If anything, the earth was symbolically baptized...

I don't know about you, but my lawn is certainly up for a few sprinkles this weekend.

[Hemidakota]

There, obviously, was no worldwide flood, as described in the bible, that is a flood up to the tops of the mountains.

If anything, the earth was symbolically baptized by such a pervasive downpour that all the earth was coated with water at the same time, if only for a moment.

Reminds me of the Catholic church with sprinkling the forehead and call it baptism.

Regarding the mountains tops speculation, unless we have written history or proof of such high-mountins did exist prior to deluge, I am open to anyone proving it. The earth as I told Steve Nelson [bYU] is not a static model. We simply don't know for now how these ranges or mountains came into being prior to new world of Noah since there is no known written history to examine. I even examine some of the writings of Enoch and still left unanswered.

[blamb]

The Bible says that in the days of Peleg the earth was divided (shortly after the flood). There very well could have not been very tall mountains when the deluge happened. See "Science and Mormonism" by Melvin Cook for one scientists viewpoint on the subject and some pretty interesting hypothesis on how it could have physically happened and also evidence of it having happened.

[Nappaljarri]

LOL, if we relied on man's philosophy and science to explain scriptural events, there could be cases left right and centre for nothing actually happening and it all being mystical. Some points going on from HiJolly and Vanhin.

1. When we are baptised, does it happen just in our head as a thought, or is it phyisical?

2. When we received the Gift of the Holy Ghost, did it happen just in our head, or did it physically happen with hands laid on head etc?

3. The gospel of Jesus Christ is taught by symbols that are physically manifest in our lives (I love the quote, which I cannot find right now that Pres Hinkley said in reply to "what is the symbol of your church?", he said, "its members are the symbol of the what the church teaches.... something physically manifest)

4. We are taught that we were and the earth and it's creations were all created spiritually and then physically. This is a pattern to me. That pattern continues in this earth life where we receive physically and then spiritually.

Putting that all together, I have a firm testimony that the flood actually happened physically. I have no doubt. But just like all scripture and doctrine, one must find out for themselves by prayer and obedience and fasting.

[Hemidakota]

Concur....Heavenly Father is not limited to our natural Laws [telestial state].

[rastler00]

I never realized a lot of the LDS didn't believe in what is considered legitimate science. I find that fascinating. :)

[Justice]

I never realized a lot of the LDS didn't believe in what is considered legitimate science. I find that fascinating. :)

Legitimate science tells us that a man cannot be cured of leprosy simply by touching him.

In fact, it says the person who touches him might get leprosy himself.

There are so many places we can go with this discussion. I don't think anyone has said they don't believe in science. I think everyone is saying they actually believe Jesus can walk on water, regardless of what science says. That's all.