Noah's Flood: Why I believe...

[Guest Believer_1829]

At one point I considered the possibility that the Flood was a localized even blown out of proportion by Biblical writers, so I decided to examine the words about Noah in the Book of Mormon...

The Lord Jesus Christ quoting Isaiah says:

3 Ne. 22: 9

9 For this, the awaters of Noah unto me, for as I have sworn that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth, so have I sworn that I would not be wroth with thee.

and in Ether we are informed...

Ether 6: 7

7 And it came to pass that when they were buried in the deep there was no water that could hurt them, their vessels being atight like unto a dish, and also they were tight like unto the bark of Noah; therefore when they were encompassed about by many waters they did cry unto the Lord, and he did bring them forth again upon the top of the water.

So, apparently, the Lord Jesus Christ Himself believed that the "waters of Noah" covered the whole earth.

There is also research by those who do believe, that lend credibility to the story of a worldwide flood...

Scientific Evidence for a Worldwide Flood

[Just_A_Guy]

I'm agnostic on this issue--could be persuaded either way--but the Ether passage is actually Moroni speaking about 3500 years after the event; and one could easily argue that Christ's reference to "earth" is ambiguous and that He is just quoting some extraordinarily beautiful and poetic language from Isaiah to make a larger point.

[Guest Believer_1829]

If you want you can argue yourself out of believing anything. I don't think it's a swell idea though.

[Just_A_Guy]

Yeah, you're probably right. Considering the opposing viewpoint is never a productive exercise . . . :)

[Wingnut]

If you want you can argue yourself out of believing anything. I don't think it's a swell idea though.

Are you seriously incapable of entertaining or even thinking about the possibility of a viewpoint other than your own? On anything? You started this thread, and in so doing, invited people to share their opinions. Why bother opening a discussion if all you're going to do is shoot down anyone who disagrees with you?

[Guest Believer_1829]

Yeah, you're probably right. Considering the opposing viewpoint is never a productive exercise . . . :)

There comes a time when you have to figure out what you will put your faith in...

When the scriptures say, "Ever learning and never coming to a knowledge of the truth.", it was not a compliment.

[Just_A_Guy]

There comes a time when you have to figure out what you will put your faith in...

Yes . . . and that time is when there is a clear, unambiguous, authoritative statement that will be confirmed to me by the Holy Spirit.

If you have such a statement that you'd like me to consider, I'm all ears.

[Guest Believer_1829]

Yes . . . and that time is when there is a clear, unambiguous, authoritative statement that will be confirmed to me by the Holy Spirit.

If you have such a statement that you'd like me to consider, I'm all ears.

You can't ask God for the answer yourself? The veil of separation between man and God was torn asunder at Christ's death, we can approach the throne of God ourselves now.

[bmy-]

You can't ask God for the answer yourself? The veil of separation between man and God was torn asunder at Christ's death, we can approach the throne of God ourselves now.

And sometimes he'll tell you to use your brain and figure it out on your own. To to look at evidence, to test that evidence, and come to logical conclusions.

Let's not kid ourselves. What this is all about is whether or not the Old Testament book of Genesis (along with the rest of the Old Testament, and the New Testament) is an accurate account of what happened around 4600 years ago with regard to a worldwide flood, and about 6000 years ago, with regard to Creation itself.

This web page is doomed from the very first paragraph. It's clearly evident that the creation story in Genesis is inaccurate -- and that destroys the entire article from this Young Earth Creationism website.. since this is the first thing I came to in the article.. I'll start with how a literal interpretation of Genesis does not jive with the the accepted evolutionary theory.

Problems with a Global Flood, 2nd edition

My question I would like to ask you is this: How did predators survive in a post-flood world?

Edited August 12, 2009 by bmy-

[Gatorman]

Believer,

First, it seems that this is a sore point for you. You are coming across as if your POV is the only obvious one and anyone who does not share it is beneath you and clueless. That is a dangerous position to come from when try to hold a discussion. Others have done it recently and any positive value to their message has been lost.

That being said, I can't say with absolute certainty if it was the whole earth or some smaller area. But, neither do I believe that the answer is critical to the purpose of the story/action. Thus, if one wants to study it and it does not affect the idea that Heavenly Father wiped out 'man' to reset, what does it have to be negative. Now, if someone is saying that no flood ever occured and that no arc was built, we are into dangerous area.

[Guest Believer_1829]

From Howard W. Hunter (the one who signed my mission call, btw)...

In a book published the same year he became Prophet, President Howard W. Hunter addresses the question, "Should we disbelieve the account of Noah and the flood as related in the Old Testament?" Here is what he said:

"There is an effort on the part of so-called modernists to change religious beliefs and teachings of the past to conform to modern thought and critical research. They deemphasize the teachings of the Bible by modern critical methods and deny that scripture is inspired....

"The Old Testament unfolds the story of the creation of the earth and mankind by God. Should we now disregard this account and modernize the creation according to the theories of the modernists? Can we say there was no Garden of Eden or an Adam and Eve? Because modernists now declare the story of the flood is unreasonable and impossible, should we disbelieve the account of Noah and the flood as related in the Old Testament?

"Let us examine what the Master said when the disciples came to him as he sat on the Mount of Olives. They asked him to tell them of the time of his coming and of the end of the world. Jesus answered: ' But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.' (Matt. 24:36-39.)

"In this statement the Master confirmed the story of the flood without modernizing it. Can we accept some of the statements of the Lord as being true and at the same time reject others as being false?

"When Martha heard that Jesus was coming, she went out to meet him, and they discussed the matter of the death of her brother and the resurrection. Jesus said to her, ' I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live.'

"Both of these statements, the one regarding Noah and the fact of the flood and the one in which he declared himself to be the resurrection and the life, were made by the Lord. How can we believe one and not the other? How can we modernize the story of the flood, or refer to it as a myth, and yet cling to the truth of the other? How can we modernize the Bible and still have it be a guiding light to us and a vital influence in our beliefs?

"There are those who declare it is old-fashioned to believe in the Bible. Is it old-fashioned to believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of the Living God? Is it old-fashioned to believe in his atoning sacrifice and the resurrection? If it is, I declare myself to be old-fashioned and the Church to be old-fashioned.... If it is old-fashioned to believe in the Bible, we should thank God for the privilege of being old-fashioned." (Howard W. Hunter, That We Might Have Joy [salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1994], pp. 22-23.)

[bmy-]

My question I would like to ask you is this: How did predators survive in a post-flood world?

I created a post on the first page as well.

[DigitalShadow]

My question I would like to ask you is this: How did predators survive in a post-flood world?

I created a post on the first page as well.

They learned to like seafood, because apparently God's wrath only extended to land animals.

[Hemidakota]

I wholeheartedly agree with your belief...nor I doubt that even Joseph Smith would of dispelled the notion of global flood if it really didn't happen as explained by the earlier post deluge prophets. It does requires further personal investigation as I did, when questioning the fresh water fishes, and then approach the Lord on whether or not it indeed happens as written. Remember also, the Book of Moses was received by revelation as Joseph Smith receive it. Now, if it was a local flood, I would assume Joseph would have talked about it. In fact, he never did.

A classic example of church naysayers, look at the critics concerning the story of Job not being a real person as stated by a few at the ‘Y’...but then, why would the Lord use his name as a real person when talking to Joseph Smith? Interesting how they failed to see this small revelatory portion of the D&C.

I have to agree with Elder Mark E. Peterson statement [“Noah and the Flood”] –

Let us recognize the miracles of God. Let us see Him walk in his glory as He performs them.

Think of the natural upheavals that will precede and accompany the second coming of Christ. They will be God's miracles: Mountains will topple. Valleys will be raised. Seas will heave beyond their bounds. Earthquakes will cause the earth to reel as a drunkard. An overflowing scourge will come. Tempests will rage. The city of Enoch will return. And for the coming of the Ten Tribes from the land of the north, a highway will be cast up out of the sea.

Miracles? Doesn't God exercise His infinite strength to bring about His own purposes at His own time? With all His divine power, sufficient even to form the galaxies out in space, was He not able to eliminate the animal odors in the ark? If He could feed three million Israelites on manna and quail for forty years, would He not be able to provide food in the ark for 150 days? Who knows how many species of life there were in Noah's day? Who knows whether those now living existed then? Who knows if animal life was actually scattered over the whole earth then? Obviously human life was pretty much confined to a limited area. Was animal life also? It was after the flood that the scriptures say life was scattered over the whole earth. Who knows?

Who knows many things? Why not admit that we do not possess all knowledge, not even a detailed account of the deluge, and give God credit for having the intelligence to accomplish what He had in mind?

Since He had the power to create the earth in the first place, with all its oceans, underground lakes, fountains, and wells, in addition to the rain clouds in the skies, was He not able to control the elements and cause a flood if He wanted to? Is anything too hard for the Lord?

The flood was a miracle. The episode of the animals and other life taken aboard the ark was another miracle. The rise of the waters out of the depths of the earth and the downpour from the skies were God's doing. And so was the subsequent receding of the waters. The deluge covered the earth and the waters receded just as God planned it all. And it was truly a miracle.

[Guest Believer_1829]

Believer,

First, it seems that this is a sore point for you. You are coming across as if your POV is the only obvious one and anyone who does not share it is beneath you and clueless. That is a dangerous position to come from when try to hold a discussion. Others have done it recently and any positive value to their message has been lost.

That being said, I can't say with absolute certainty if it was the whole earth or some smaller area. But, neither do I believe that the answer is critical to the purpose of the story/action. Thus, if one wants to study it and it does not affect the idea that Heavenly Father wiped out 'man' to reset, what does it have to be negative. Now, if someone is saying that no flood ever occured and that no arc was built, we are into dangerous area.

You are right I am a bit defensive, as I have been called uneducated and less intelligent for daring to believe in the stories of the OT about Creation and the Flood, when at the beginning (of posting in general, not this particular thread) I was merely expressing my belief.

[bmy-]

They learned to like seafood, because apparently God's wrath only extended to land animals.

If only that was a a viable explanation. Numerous digestive issues, etc. Not to mention that an influx of water on the scale of the supposed global flood would kill marine life as well.

[Hemidakota]

From Howard W. Hunter (the one who signed my mission call, btw)...

What most will fail on the mechanism of this great miracle, GOD power is Celestial bound and easily overrides anything that is Telestial or current physical laws. Commanding the great deep open and bring forth H2O from other heavenly expanses would never be a problem since the intelligences honor HIM. Neither melting the polar caps when most mountains were no bigger than a 'mole hills' [expression here], noting this from D&C writings. If the Lord stated this, I would contend against those who claimed to follow the gospel and yet seek to dispel latter-day revelation concerning the pre-deluge environmental landscape.

We simply do not have a pre-deluge landscape on what was north and where the continents previous positions as to Adam's time. I suspect some here would contend with this simple statement but remember, the Lord made it clear, everything will return back to that state of which both Adam and Eve came too live in…

"Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low: and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain."

"For the mountains shall depart, and the hills be removed; but my kindness shall not depart from thee, neither shall the covenant of my peace be removed, saith the Lord that hath mercy on thee."

"Oh that thou wouldest rend the heavens that thou wouldest come down, that the mountains might flow down at thy presence."

"So that the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the heaven, and the beasts of the field, and all creeping things that creep upon the earth, and all the men that are upon the face of the earth, shall shake at my presence, and the mountains shall be thrown down, and the steep places shall fall, and every wall shall fall to the ground."

"And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places."

Edited August 12, 2009 by Hemidakota

[Just_A_Guy]

The veil of separation between man and God was torn asunder at Christ's death, we can approach the throne of God ourselves now.

This would seem to imply that it was not possible for man to approach God before the crucifixion.

But I digress.

[NeuroTypical]

From Howard W. Hunter (the one who signed my mission call, btw)...

Isn't it nice we can disagree, and still be friends.

LM

[Hemidakota]

How many prophets or writings do we have revealing they have approached God?

[Guest Believer_1829]

This would seem to imply that it was not possible for man to approach God before the crucifixion.

But I digress.

Not digressing at all, I'm glad you caught on to the meaning...

See anciently the High Priest was the intermediary between Israel and the Throne of God (represented by the Mercy Seat on the Arc of the Covenant), but upon Christ's death the veil was torn and that separation only the High Priest could breach was open to all of God's children.

My point: Instead of waiting for someone you perceive as having more authority then you to receive an answer on the subject and to speak, you can go to the Throne of God yourself and gain that knowledge. He is waiting to give it to you.

[Hemidakota]

When the person is spirituality mature enough to understand it, is when it is given....expecting an answer that moment may not happen.

There is so much knowledge that is withheld from us. To many questions we have to postpone the answers. If we had the faith we could answer them. The Lord is withholding knowledge from us because of our unworthiness. Read what is written in the 27th chapter of 2nd Nephi, the 26th chapter of 3rd Nephi, the 3rd and 4th chapters of Ether. In these chapters the Lord tells us that he is withholding from the world and from the Church the greatest revelation that was ever written. It is the history of this world from the beginning thereof to the ending. The Lord says, in the 27th chapter of 2nd Nephi, that it shall not come forth in the days of wickedness.

When Mormon was about to write in the 26th chapter of 3rd Nephi, the things Christ had said to the disciples, the Lord stopped him, saying: "I will try the faith of my people."

"And when they shall have received this, which is expedient that they should have first, to try their faith, and if it shall so be that they shall believe these things then shall the greater things be made manifest unto them."

Edited August 12, 2009 by Hemidakota

[bmy-]

Believer, you've yet to address my points.

[Guest Godless]

You are right I am a bit defensive, as I have been called uneducated and less intelligent for daring to believe in the stories of the OT about Creation and the Flood, when at the beginning (of posting in general, not this particular thread) I was merely expressing my belief.

You have to understand that it's frustrating for those of us on the science side of the argument (atheists and theists alike) to try to enter a discussion with people who are seemingly unwilling to consider scientific evidence. To us, said evidence is as clear and as valid as scripture and spiritual manifestations are to you. And yet, time after time, we encounter people who are all too quick to put their fingers in their ears whenever a scriptural point of doctrine is challenged by science. Critical thinking is a beautiful thing, and I doubt that your God would object to his followers using it to make informed decisions on non-essential points of doctrine (such as the Flood) rather than relying solely on scripture.

With the exception of DigitalShadow and myself, everyone who has posted in this thread is a member of your Church. They have their own testimonies of the gospel and the scriptures. They also happen to believe that there are stories in the scripture that shouldn't be interpreted in a strictly literal sense in light of modern day scientific knowledge. Does that make them less faithful mormons than you?

Expressing your beliefs is all well and good, but it seems that you like to put yourself on a pedestal and belittle those who don't believe the same as you. Your reference to President Hunter is a perfect example of that. And yes, the belittling takes place on both sides. It seems to me that discussions like these tend to come down to a shouting match between the holier-than-thous and the more-educated-than-thous.

[Guest Believer_1829]

Isn't it nice we can disagree, and still be friends.

LM

I have yet to refer to anyone as uneducated or less intelligent for their differing POV.