Egypt During the Flood

[LostSheep]

While studying genesis tonight, I ran into a big hole, and it's really kind of got me worried. The story of Noah's Ark makes sense to me. However, the time does not. I have a very hard time believing that Adam and Eve were created around 4,000 BC...

Using the chronology found in Genesis 5 and supposing that the Fall of Adam was 4000 BC, we can calculate the year of the Flood as 2344 BC. (Source: Gospel Doctrine)

There's one HUGE problem with this...

The Egyptian civilization coalesced around 3150 BC, and it developed over the next three millennia. (Wikipedia)

If the flood wiped out everyone on earth, except for 8 people, why did the flood seem to have NO impact on the development on civilization?

:confused:

PS, I'm not a skeptic trying to prove atheism. I'm just trying to understand this.

[Dravin]

Well you have three options really:

1. The flood didn't happen, at least not as described.

2. The biblical timeline is off.

3. The historical timeline is off.

[kittymac1969]

While studying genesis tonight, I ran into a big hole, and it's really kind of got me worried. The story of Noah's Ark makes sense to me. However, the time does not. I have a very hard time believing that Adam and Eve were created around 4,000 BC...

Using the chronology found in Genesis 5 and supposing that the Fall of Adam was 4000 BC, we can calculate the year of the Flood as 2344 BC. (Source: Gospel Doctrine)

There's one HUGE problem with this...

The Egyptian civilization coalesced around 3150 BC, and it developed over the next three millennia. (Wikipedia)

If the flood wiped out everyone on earth, except for 8 people, why did the flood seem to have NO impact on the development on civilization?

:confused:

PS, I'm not a skeptic trying to prove atheism. I'm just trying to understand this.

The link you provided seems to be broken.

MY belief is that the entire world wasn't destroyed by the flood; just Noah's civilization.

I admit I could be wrong.

Ultimately, there's no way of scientifically proving WHEN the flood happened or WHEN ancient Egyptian society came to be. Theories,yes, proof, no.

Edited December 3, 2009 by kittymac1969

[thekabalist]

As a rabbi I believe that people read way too much into the biblical dates. The Bible wasn't really meant to be an account from year one until the prophets. There are clear generational gaps in the text. Might I recommend the writings of rabbi Aryeh Kaplan?

Kabbalah and the Age of the Universe, Aryeh Kaplan, Book - Barnes & Noble

b'shalom!

[kittymac1969]

As a rabbi I believe that people read way too much into the biblical dates. The Bible wasn't really meant to be an account from year one until the prophets. There are clear generational gaps in the text. Might I recommend the writings of rabbi Aryeh Kaplan?

Kabbalah and the Age of the Universe, Aryeh Kaplan, Book - Barnes & Noble

b'shalom!

Thanks for the link..I'll have to buy the book

[Flyonthewall]

There are some thoughts out there that the flood was not really "worldwide" in a literal sense, but in the same sense that Cesar ruled that the "whole world" should be taxed.

It may have happened in a limited geographical area, or it could have been an allegorical story. What the scriptures do tell us is that Pharoh, a decendent of Noah, played a big part in the Egyptian civilization.

[thekabalist]

There are some thoughts out there that the flood was not really "worldwide" in a literal sense, but in the same sense that Cesar ruled that the "whole world" should be taxed.

It may have happened in a limited geographical area, or it could have been an allegorical story. What the scriptures do tell us is that Pharoh, a decendent of Noah, played a big part in the Egyptian civilization.

This is also perfectly possible and I'd say it's even likely. The word used in the flood narratives is the word הארץ (haaretz) which means "the land" and not "the world". So it could mean that it was restricted to the land of the biblical characters. In fact it is more plausible as there isn't enough water in the world to flood the whole world in the proportions described by the Bible without such water having then to disappear into thin air.

b'shalom!

[Jamie123]

I believe the early parts of the Bible are mythology rather than factual history. A lot of people will thump their Bibles and call me a "liberal" and a "modernist" (and other unpleasant things besides), but the truth is I've never found even the best Young Earth arguments very convincing. So call me whatever names you want!

I'm not saying that the stories aren't the inspired word of God: If the Jews were God's chosen people then their mythology could have been divinely inspired.

[Wingnut]

The link you provided seems to be broken.

Works fine for me.

I have conflicting beliefs regarding the flood.

Literally, it makes sense that it only would have been a regional thing. Trying to wrap my head around the idea of a worldwide flood is enough to make it explode. Besides, like someone else said (referencing Caesar), it could have been written as "the world" but really have been "the world they knew."

Spiritually, I believe that it was actually the whole world -- a baptism, if you will. And if it was worldwide, couldn't water pressure and erosion account for biblical/historical dating discrepancies? Would it affect accuracy of carbon dating techniques? (I'm asking anyone who might have a geologic background. I've heard this before, but I don't know enough to know if it's accurate or just a religious man's justification.)

Ultimately, I don't worry about it, because it doesn't matter to me. How widespread or localized the flood may have been is irrelevant to my life. The scriptural lessons that we are supposed to draw from the story are the same.

Edited December 3, 2009 by Wingnut
typos

[Traveler]

There are a number of “test” to scripture that would indicate that the narrative or the texts that have been preserved for our generation are not complete – at least not supportive of various popular interpretations employed today. For example the size of the ark is incapable of even containing all the known species of worms let alone the fast array of animal life. It is also interesting to note that the ark did not preserve plant life that would be as threatened as animal life.

It is my personal view that we should value the epoch and understand that we are being given an insight to covenants and to things that will come to be as much as that which has occurred somewhere in our past.

The Traveler

[Maxel]

I wouldn't worry about it too much, LostSheep. There are a number of possible explanations, ranging from the absurd to the scientifically credible. Ponder on it a while, but don't let it become a stumbling block. I think Wingnut's proffered explanation and thoughts are worth a second thought and some pondering, as well.

Ultimately, what's important is that you keep moving forward in your quest for greater faith and knowledge, and not let this become a stumbling block.

[Moksha]

The symbolic truths that can be gleaned from allegory are sufficient in themselves. Go gently on trying to stretch allegory to fit history.

[Snow]

While studying genesis tonight, I ran into a big hole, and it's really kind of got me worried. The story of Noah's Ark makes sense to me. However, the time does not. I have a very hard time believing that Adam and Eve were created around 4,000 BC...

Using the chronology found in Genesis 5 and supposing that the Fall of Adam was 4000 BC, we can calculate the year of the Flood as 2344 BC. (Source: Gospel Doctrine)

There's one HUGE problem with this...

The Egyptian civilization coalesced around 3150 BC, and it developed over the next three millennia. (Wikipedia)

If the flood wiped out everyone on earth, except for 8 people, why did the flood seem to have NO impact on the development on civilization?

:confused:

PS, I'm not a skeptic trying to prove atheism. I'm just trying to understand this.

Hint: There was no such literal, historical event as described in the Old Testament.

[Kishkumen_Called]

The premise of this thread makes me chuckle, mostly because I have the same disposition. I will happily accept one impossibility and question or rationalize another. I guess that's part of what makes us human - we are living paradoxes!

We all have a choice - trust man with his crude instruments and immature theories or trust God and His infinite wisdom and power.

One thing I am grateful for is that the things that really matter (the Atonement, plan of salvation, etc.) are explored and explained over and over, repeatedly, that I may understand Heavenly Father's plan for me and how to apply it.

Cheers

[bytor2112]

I guess the Lord decided to mention HIS intentions in the Book of Moses to further confuse things?

[Snow]

I guess the Lord decided to mention HIS intentions in the Book of Moses to further confuse things?

Ah, sarcasm.

Your dogma is showing bytor. What you should have said - what would have been more accurate to say is: you guess that Joseph Smith decided to rewrite (translate would be the wrong concept) a portion of the Old Testament and in so doing, an introduction to the flood story was included in The Pearl of Great Price's Book of Moses but the actual flood itself was not covered so, from The Book of Moses itself, we really don't know how the supposedly actual flood would have been described by whoever was supposed to have been the original author of the Book of Moses. Moreover, whereas some accept inspiration as the method of transmission for the text of the Book of Moses to Joseph Smith, we just don't know if the original author of the text was literal and historical factual in his accounts - and God Himself isn't saying.

... and of course, we know that some parts of the Book of Moses (eg chapters 2 and 3) are not literal and historically accurate, but rather allegorical or abstract.

[bytor2112]

Granted....I am dogmatic and must confess that I believe that the Book of Moses was Heaven sent, BUT, that doesn't really answer my question. Let me rephrase:

Why even introduce the flood? If it didn't really occur, why not clarify the allegory or affirm that it is allegorical in nature? These questions presuppose that one believe that the Book of Moses is Divinely inspired and given by revelation to Joseph Smith.

[Vanhin]

I accept the flood as a literal event that covered the entire earth, and in fact was the baptism of the earth, and symbolized a cleansing. Here's from the Guide to the Scriptures on the matter:

GUIDE TO THE SCRIPTURES

Flood At Noah’s Time

See also Ark; Noah, Bible Patriarch; Rainbow

During Noah’s time the earth was completely covered with water. This was the baptism of the earth and symbolized a cleansing (1 Pet. 3: 20-21).

God will bring a flood of waters upon the earth to destroy all flesh, Gen. 6: 17 (Moses 7: 34, 43, 50-52; 8: 17, 30). The waters of the flood were upon the earth, Gen. 7: 10. God set a bow in the cloud as a token of the covenant, Gen. 9: 9-17. After the waters had receded, the land of America became a choice land, Ether 13: 2. The wicked shall perish in the flood, Moses 7: 38; 8: 24. (Guide to the Scriptures: Flood At Noah’s Time)

When Christ comes again, the baptism of the earth will be completed and cleansed, even by fire, and be renewed (See Topical Guide: Earth, Cleansing of, AoF 1:10).

I don't think sprinkling, even for this circumstance, would have been sufficient. However, as a side note, I heard Lutherans and Catholics are performing baptisms for the dead now. I've got hard evidence.

Regards,

Vanhin

[FunkyTown]

Granted....I am dogmatic and must confess that I believe that the Book of Moses was Heaven sent, BUT, that doesn't really answer my question. Let me rephrase:

Why even introduce the flood? If it didn't really occur, why not clarify the allegory or affirm that it is allegorical in nature? These questions presuppose that one believe that the Book of Moses is Divinely inspired and given by revelation to Joseph Smith.

Because the flood happened is what I would say. I highfive you and your faith, Bytor.

[Mohammad]

I accept the flood as a literal event that covered the entire earth, and in fact was the baptism of the earth, and symbolized a cleansing. Here's from the Guide to the Scriptures on the matter:

FYI I thought I might add that from the Islamic viewpoint, the Quran does not explicitly state that the flood covered the whole planet. See Sura 11 and Sura 71. The Kabalist noted earlier that the Hebrew word for earth can also be interpreted to mean the land. Many Islamic scholars also argue that the flood was local. So at least from the Jewish and Islamic traditions, the flood does not have to be considered a world-wide phenomenon.

On the other hand, it seems that both the LDS and evangelical traditions interpret it or consider it to be a world wide baptism of the entire earth.

[FunkyTown]

I don't think sprinkling, even for this circumstance, would have been sufficient. However, as a side note, I heard Lutherans and Catholics are performing baptisms for the dead now. I've got hard evidence.

Regards,

Vanhin

I skeptically request to see your hard evidence: What evidence do you have that would stand up in court and be accepted by both prosecutor and defense council?

[Vanhin]

I skeptically request to see your hard evidence: What evidence do you have that would stand up in court and be accepted by both prosecutor and defense council?

Well, that is just a picture of the hard evidence, for you to actually witness the evidence first hand, you will have to go visit the cemeteries in question.

Regards,

Vanhin

[Mohammad]

Well, that is just a picture of the hard evidence, for you to actually witness the evidence first hand, you will have to go visit the cemeteries in question.

Regards,

Vanhin

I think there is a enough water there for a court of law to rule in you favor Vanhin.

[Vanhin]

FYI I thought I might add that from the Islamic viewpoint, the Quran does not explicitly state that the flood covered the whole planet. See Sura 11 and Sura 71. The Kabalist noted earlier that the Hebrew word for earth can also be interpreted to mean the land. Many Islamic scholars also argue that the flood was local. So at least from the Jewish and Islamic traditions, the flood does not have to be considered a world-wide phenomenon.

On the other hand, it seems that both the LDS and evangelical traditions interpret it or consider it to be a world wide baptism of the entire earth.

I can respect that, and really this is not some big doctrinal issue that I would lose sleep over.

For those who believe it that are LDS, we have other scriptures that add to our understanding that "earth", as in the planet, is the correct translation, even if it does have other meanings in Hebrew.

From Ether, in our Book of Mormon, for instance, we learn that the land of America became a choice land after the waters receded (Ether 13:2). This is an indication that the flood was not local.

Another reference, is from the Book of Moses in our Pearl of Great Price, where the Lord shows in a vision to Enoch, that all the inhabitants of the earth, except the inhabitants of Enoch's city "Zion", and Noah and those who went into the ark with him, would be detroyed in the flood. (Moses 7:21-43)

Click on the references above to see the scriptures in context.

Anyway, I understand that those writings are not scripture to you, but should be interesting reading, nonetheless.

Regards,

Vanhin

[Vanhin]

I think there is a enough water there for a court of law to rule in you favor Vanhin.

Thanks! It doesn't take much water to baptize in those Christian religions who sprinkle instead of full immersion like us.

Regards,

Vanhin