Egypt During the Flood

[FunkyTown]

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

ARGH! I didn't realize you were talking about the sprinkler system.

I have just lost six coolness points for thinking you were serious.

Well played, sir.

[Vanhin]

ARGH! I didn't realize you were talking about the sprinkler system.

I have just lost six coolness points for thinking you were serious.

Well played, sir.

I suspected that you thought I was serious, but I wanted to let it sink in some more. :) It's a great joke when you are having dinner with a bunch of unsuspecting Finnish Mormons. They get real excited at the prospect of the news being true.

Me: Hey did you hear that the Lutherans are doing baptisms for the dead now?

Others: Oh really! Wow, no I did not know that.

Me: Yeah, they are placing sprinkler systems into their graveyards!

Regards,

Vanhin

[Vanhin]

A couple of more things I wanted to add. One was that the earth was not divided yet until the days of Peleg (Genesis 10:25), and there was just one big "land", so even if the Hebrew translation means "land", it would effectively have the same meaning as "earth" for the purpose of the flood. For references see Topical Guide: Earth, Dividing of.

During the Millennial reign of Christ, the land will be gathered back into one place as it was in the beginning, according to Mormonism.

He shall command the great deep, and it shall be driven back into the north countries, and the islands shall become one land; And the land of Jerusalem and the land of Zion shall be turned back into their own place, and the earth shall be like as it was in the days before it was divided. (D&C 133:23-24)

The other thing concerns the animals that needed to be stuffed into the ark. I think this is where evolution, as I believe it, comes into play. You didn't necessarily have to have a representative of all the breeds of dogs, for instance. You would only need the grey wolf, which even today can still breed with domestic dogs, who are all just subspecies of wolves that have been selectively bred.

Much debate has centered on the relationship between the wolf and the domestic dog, though most authorities see the wolf as the dog's direct ancestor (see Origin of the domestic dog). Because canids have evolved recently and different species interbreed readily, untangling the relationships has been difficult. However, molecular systematics now indicate very strongly that domestic dogs and wolves are closely related, and the domestic dog is now normally classified as a subspecies of the wolf: Canis lupus familiaris. Additionally, breeding experiments in Germany with poodles, wolves, and later on with the resulting wolf-dogs showed unrestricted fertility, mating via free choice and no significant communication problems (even after a few generations). This contrasted with the hybrid offspring of poodles crossed with coyotes and jackals, which all showed a decrease in fertility and significant communication problems, as well as an increase in genetic diseases after three generations of interbeeding. The researchers therefore concluded that domestic dogs and grey wolf are the same species. (Source)

I think the article on the Grey Wolf was fascinating.

So you don't need all the worms, just a few samples that can evolve into other sub-species over time.

Regards,

Vanhin

[deseretgov]

Well if the earth wasn't divided until the time of Peleg. Then it's probable the huge mountain ranges hadn't formed yet either. So if the Earth's surface was still relatively near sea level. Thus there wouldn't need to be the volume of water calculated based on current measurements.

Also the erosion around the body of the Sphinx is thought by some to be water erosion.

Here in Idaho, while ago, there was an earthquake that caused the top of a mountain(I think it might have been Borah) to rise three feet in one second. So geological transformation can happen that fast. Based on that calculation, it would take about 2.6 hours to form Mount Everest.

[Vort]

What makes you think the division of the earth in Peleg's day is geographical? A political division is far more likely to be the meaning. Hate to tell you folks, but the continents were divided a very, very, very long time before there were any people around.

[Vanhin]

What makes you think the division of the earth in Peleg's day is geographical? A political division is far more likely to be the meaning. Hate to tell you folks, but the continents were divided a very, very, very long time before there were any people around.

That has always been a plausible possibility to me.

I believe what I believe because of several factors, but mainly because of the dynamic in the following scriptures:

Genesis 10:13 and 1 Chron. 1:19: And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of the one was Peleg; because in his days the earth was divided: and his brother’s name was Joktan.

D&C 133:24: And the land of Jerusalem and the land of Zion shall be turned back into their own place, and the earth shall be like as it was in the days before it was divided.

The Topical Guide, also, lists the account of the division in this context, for example. See Topical Guide: Earth, Dividing of.

Here's from a typical Sunday School lesson (referring to the D&C verse above):

Conditions during the Millennium

The earth will again be as it was when Adam and Eve lived in the Garden of Eden (see Articles of Faith 1:10). The whole earth will be a delightful garden. There will not be different continents as we have now, but the land will be gathered in one place as it was in the beginning (see D&C 133:23–24). (LDS.org - Sunday School Chapter Detail - The Millennium)

Regards,

Vanhin

[Mohammad]

I believe that the traditional viewpoint (handed down from Jewish scholars)has been that it is referring to the time around the Tower of Babel when the people of the earth were "divided" and separated due to the confusion of tongues. The Hebrew word "palag" means divided as I recall.

If the continents were somehow divided during the time of Peleg, that would have been quite the cataclysmic event.

[deseretgov]

Old Testament Student Manual Genesis - 2 Samuel

(4-22) Genesis 10:25 . Was the Earth Divided in the Days of Peleg?

“The dividing of the earth was not an act of division by the inhabitants of the earth by tribes and peoples, but a breaking asunder of the continents, thus dividing the land surface and creating the Eastern Hemisphere and Western Hemisphere. By looking at a wall map of the world, you will discover how the land surface along the northern and southern coast of the American Hemisphere and Europe and Africa has the appearance of having been together at one time. Of course, there have been many changes on the earth’s surface since the beginning. We are informed by revelation that the time will come when this condition will be changed and that the land surface of the earth will come back again as it was in the beginning and all be in one place. This is definitely stated in the Doctrine and Covenants. [ D&C 133:18–20 is then cited.]” (Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, 5:73–74.)

If I remember correctly the way the age of the continent seperation is determined by sections of the ocean floor which contain different magnetic polarities. By counting the number of zones between the continent and the mid atlantic rift then multiplying that number by how long scientists think it takes for the magnetic poles to switch from north to south they can determine how long it took ofr the plates to seperate. That's the short version any way. But I'm not sure how scientist know that the time between magentic pole shifts is exactly the same all the time.

Also here's just a personal observation, I'm not a geologist, but when the continents east and west fo teh mid atlantic rift both were formed from that rift by lava piling up around the edges of the rift. Now if we assume(and we all know what happens when we assume) that lava from the rift builds up at a somewhat constant rate. then some time between the continental shelf and the present positions fo teh coninents they plates moved very quickly. This is evident because there is much less material built up between the continental shelf and the mid atlantic rift. Since it moved so fast it had less time to build up material. This would result in a lower sea floor just like what we sea. But if material built up out of the mid atlantic rift at a constant rate and the continents seperated at a constant slow rate then we should see continent rather than sea floor between the continents an dthe mid atlantic rift. A shallow sea at the most.

[Snow]

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.

No - the possible ANSWERS to those question do not presuppose original authorship was divinely inspired to be literally and historically accurate.

Take the creation account. It is not literally and historically accurate and the text says nothing about it being allegorical - that is, we are left to figure that out on our on... not that it's all that tough.

Here's a line of reasoning: Take the Bible. It has been transmitted to us today with error, interpolation, mistakes, historical problems and even forgery. God allowed His Word to be collected and transmitted with all those problems. Why? Obviously it is good enough in such a state to accomplish it's mission. Does that mean that God had no hand whatsoever in preserving His Word? I'd answer that God did play some sort of role in preserving His Word, despite the problems. So, just because you accept that JS covers the beginning of the flood account in The Book of Moses, it in no way mandates that the account originally found in Genesis must be literal and accurate.

The author of Genesis wrote over a thousand years after the flood. It was written based on the oral traditions that were handed down. He had no perfect knowledge of what really happened. He likely wrote the stories the way they were taught him. The Lord could have inspired the writer to include accurate enough doctrine and not bothered with historical accurateness just as God has not bothered to ensure accurate transmission of scripture down through the ages.

[Justice]

If the continents were somehow divided during the time of Peleg, that would have been quite the cataclysmic event.

Like a global flood? :)

[Justice]

It is true that scripture writers often use their memories as a source:

Ether 5:

1 And now I, Moroni, have written the words which were commanded me, according to my memory; and I have told you the things which I have sealed up; therefore touch them not in order that ye may translate; for that thing is forbidden you, except by and by it shall be wisdom in God.

I would suggest that when one has been enlightened by the spirit concerning a matter it is very difficult to forget.

I don't think because they use their memories it means that's where the mistakes come from. In like fashion, I don't think we can assume error because they write events they did not witness in person. The Spirit is fully capable of showing scripture writers what they must write. Also, I believe more scripture writers than we know have had "interpreters" or Urim and Thummim to "show" them past and future events as they have happened and will happen. It's no more illogical to think they can write accurately about the past than they do about the future.

I don't believe the Bible is a perfect translation, but I believe it is more accurate and literal than we sometimes think. I believe the Bible creation story just as it outlines. I also believe the Garden of Eden story just as it outlines. I believe if a story is allegorical it generally says so.

How do I explain some things that are not science based?

Ether 3:

4 And I know, O Lord, that thou hast all power, and can do whatsoever thou wilt for the benefit of man; therefore touch these stones, O Lord, with thy finger, and prepare them that they may shine forth in darkness; and they shall shine forth unto us in the vessels which we have prepared, that we may have light while we shall cross the sea.

5 Behold, O Lord, thou canst do this. We know that thou art able to show forth great power, which looks small unto the understanding of men.

I believe (or I know) the brother of Jared literally made and brought stones of some sort to the Lord and the Lord touched them and they lit up, giving off significant light.

Can I explain it? Not by science as we know it.

But, the Lord is capable of doing all things for the benefit of man. This is a great and important teaching for us to undertstand. The Lord can and does do things for man, according to their faith, that seem impossible to us because of our lack of understanding. He won't do anything detrimental to man, even though we often see His actions as just that. From His perspective, all knowing and all seeing, His actions benefit man, even if we don't see it that way... perhaps especially when we don't see it that way.

Edited December 5, 2009 by Justice

[Moksha]

Like a global flood? :)

Now for the Final Jeopardy challenge: Plate Tectonics and "A whole lot of shaking going on".

Alex, for $8,029 my question is, "What Jerry Lee Lewis in the Holocene Epoch?"

[Hemidakota]

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.

I am skeptic to the dating practices of any object, location, and how they draw that conclusion in archeology. I wouldn’t give any credence to the dates given.

According to the Book of Abraham [chp 1], when Egypt was discovered by Egyptus, daughter of Ham, the land was still under water. Now, how is it possible to discover a land covered by water that still has not receded? Could there be an object exposed out of the water that brought her to this area to dwell?

In understanding Noah's deluge, it requires further study and daily ponderous, with continues prayer on what had happen until the answer is given.

Another point on learning more about Noah is to learn the previous people, location, and land masses. Did the earth have the same mountain ranges before Noah day? Were the land masses together or apart? What was considered the polar caps? Where did all the water come from? What comments did the Lord make to Joseph Smith concerning His return with the earth land masses? What was Joseph Smith comment concerning Noah deluge?

A classic example that is missed by the masses in the church, when Adam and Eve departed from the Garden of Eden, it is now known the exact location of the exit point declared by Joseph Smith. However, according to the Lord - His own voice, He drove both of them out of the garden eastward. We know what is eastward and I am sure the Lord knows the same. The point of departure given by Joseph Smith was north east, what is considered the middle of the Garden or location of the Tree of Life. There is a contradiction on direction. Or is it? If they left the garden eastward, it is more than 24-degrees off from the point of departure. If that is the case, something has changed the polar positioning.

What we do know and can attest too, Noah was in fact living in what we call North America land mass. In my studies for duration of 18-months in answering a question about fresh water fish surviving the flood, I came to learn that Noah was actually in the area what we call Carolinas. Also, Adam’s children were consecrated in one area of the world and this was disobeying one of GOD’s commandments to go forth and multiply and fill the earth. Same pattern was seen again later with Nimrod and society in Abraham’s day.

Looking at the Brother of Jared, returning back to the Americas, he was required to bring back not only fresh water fish, animals, insects, and so forth. As the Lord may have called others to this land or other lands that we are not privy too know at this time.

So many questions to ask the Lord.

.

Edited December 11, 2009 by Hemidakota

[Hemidakota]

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.

Adding, if this earth was remolded with other fragmented worlds, the aging technique is useless.

[Flyonthewall]

I am skeptic to the dating practices of any object, location, and how they draw that conclusion in archeology. I wouldn’t give any credence to the dates given.

According to the Book of Abraham [chp 1], when Egypt was discovered by Egyptus, daughter of Ham, the land was still under water. Now, how is it possible to discover a land covered by water that still has not receded? Could there be an object exposed out of the water that brought her to this area to dwell?

A very simple explaination of this is, that the Nile river flooded every year, and it could have been during this time that Egyptus discovered the land.

Adding, if this earth was remolded with other fragmented worlds, the aging technique is useless.

I am of the opinion that this earth is one that "passed away" and was re-used. Not necessarily made from fragments of other worlds, but in like manner it would explain how we can have geological formations, and fossil records that are much older than the time man has been here...and also makes the aging technique irrelavent

[Moksha]

Why even introduce the flood? If it didn't really occur, why not clarify the allegory or affirm that it is allegorical in nature?

Would it be as fun to know that it was Colonel Mustard in the library from the very beginning?

These questions presuppose that one believe that the Book of Moses is Divinely inspired and given by revelation to Joseph Smith.

Somewhere between the inspired and the actual falls the shadow. An allegorical understanding makes up for the disparity between what is told and what is known. Perhaps inspiration can take many forms with allegory being one of them.

:)

[Vort]

Somewhere between the inspired and the actual falls the shadow. An allegorical understanding makes up for the disparity between what is told and what is known. Perhaps inspiration can take many forms with allegory being one of them.

That way lies madness. It is the province of cafeteria Mormons, who pick and choose which doctrines they most want to believe and wave away all the others as allegorical or figurative.

I can accept that histories are imperfect. I can accept that men, even prophets, misinterpret things and otherwise make mistakes (even Lehi failed to notice the filthiness of the water in his vision). I can accept that the word of God as found in our scriptures is not 100% perfectly accurate and, like all writings, must be read with the Spirit to yield benefit.

I cannot and will not accept the hand-waving argument that seeks to dismiss any "problematic" teaching or passage by saying, "Well, hey, c'mon, it's all just allegory." Christ's atonement is not allegory. The Book of Mormon is not allegory. Joseph's First Vision is not allegory. The eternal nature of my soul is not allegory. These are the bedrock foundations of reality as I understand it. Explaining away everything we don't understand as "just allegory" is ultimately a cowardly act, one that says, "I am willing to believe a lot of the warm fuzzy stuff, but I am not willing to admit that there are things I don't know or just can't understand right now."

I don't believe in a global flood. I think the very idea is absurd. Furthermore, I don't believe the scriptures (ANY scriptures) teach that it was global. But I am willing to admit that my perception may be off, and I expect that the believers in a global flood are likewise willing to admit that their scriptural understanding may be just exactly as flawed as I think it is. I know that this is not the case outside the Church, but at least within the Church all Saints should be at least this honest, I think.

[Moksha]

Explaining away everything we don't understand as "just allegory" is ultimately a cowardly act, one that says, "I am willing to believe a lot of the warm fuzzy stuff, but I am not willing to admit that there are things I don't know or just can't understand right now."

I don't believe in a global flood.

You are unwilling to believe in the flood as written, but will deny that it is allegory. You seem willing to go with "its a mystery" instead.

Willingness to believe warm fuzzy stuff??? How dare I do that!!! Give us the cold hard mysterious instead.

:)

[Vort]

You are unwilling to believe in the flood as written, but will deny that it is allegory. You seem willing to go with "its a mystery" instead.

Not quite. I am certainly unwilling to write off the flood as "allegory", but I am more than willing to entertain the idea that our account is not completely accurate, and that it was written (or more likely told) for a different audience with different expectations and for a purpose other than describing the geologic history of the planet.

As I mentioned before, I do not believe there is any scripture that establishes a global flood, so my disbelief is over interpretation rather than scriptural teaching.

Willingness to believe warm fuzzy stuff??? How dare I do that!!! Give us the cold hard mysterious instead.

Of course, my concern was not over a willingness to believe "the warm fuzzy stuff". Rather, it was toward the unwillingness to believe things that don't appeal to us for some reason.

For example, and without pointing any fingers, various people on this forum have demonstrated an unwillingness to believe:

• that prophets can ever err
• that prophets can be trusted at all
• that Church policy might be suboptimal
• that the Church is true
• that God interacts in people's lives
• that God would ever order someone to kill
• that the Book of Mormon is a literal history
• that the Book of Mormon contains faulty accounts

Are not we, along with Thomas, commanded to "be not faithless, but believing"? No one wants to be superstitious and believe a bunch of false things. On the other hand, in our mortal state, how can we avoid believing incomplete truths and outright falsehoods? Given that situation, would it not be wise to be rather too believing instead of not believing enough?

Once we open a way to disbelieve some tenets of the gospel, we give ourselves permission to start down a road that ultimately leads to ruin.

Or so it seems to me.

[Wingnut]

Adding, if this earth was remolded with other fragmented worlds, the aging technique is useless.

I've never heard that idea, which is an interesting one. If that's the case (which I'm sure we'll never in this lifetime), that would definitely make sense in accounting for a multi-million (or more) year history of earth, especially if (and I doubt it) the Bible's timeline is accurate.

[Vort]

According to the Book of Abraham [chp 1], when Egypt was discovered by Egyptus, daughter of Ham, the land was still under water. Now, how is it possible to discover a land covered by water that still has not receded? Could there be an object exposed out of the water that brought her to this area to dwell?

Are you familiar with Egyptian geography and the annual cycle there? The Nile floods every year, inundating the land around it. This is clearly what is meant here.

(Note: The entire earth need not be flooded by the Nile in order for the land to be "covered by water". That concept would be a modern and very obvious misunderstanding of the scripture -- perhaps not unlike the concept of Noah's "global" flood.)

In understanding Noah's deluge, it requires further study and daily ponderous, with continues prayer on what had happen until the answer is given.

Or it requires understanding the worldview of the ancients and what the story of Noah's ark was intended to teach.

A classic example that is missed by the masses in the church, when Adam and Eve departed from the Garden of Eden, it is now known the exact location of the exit point declared by Joseph Smith. However, according to the Lord - His own voice, He drove both of them out of the garden eastward. We know what is eastward and I am sure the Lord knows the same. The point of departure given by Joseph Smith was north east, what is considered the middle of the Garden or location of the Tree of Life. There is a contradiction on direction. Or is it? If they left the garden eastward, it is more than 24-degrees off from the point of departure. If that is the case, something has changed the polar positioning.

I think this is an excellent example of wresting the scriptures through overanalysis.

[TruthSeekerToo]

I don't believe the Bible is a perfect translation, but I believe it is more accurate and literal than we sometimes think. I believe the Bible creation story just as it outlines. I also believe the Garden of Eden story just as it outlines. I believe if a story is allegorical it generally says so.

Hi Justice. I'm just curious what you believe regarding the order of creation. Of the accounts we have as endowed LDS members there are a few conflicts in regards to the order. Which one do you believe is literal and which do you believe to be inaccurate?

[Snow]

For example, and without pointing any fingers, various people on this forum have demonstrated an unwillingness to believe:

• that prophets can be trusted at all
• that God would ever order someone to kill

I must have missed those posts. Can you point me towards them?

Once we open a way to disbelieve some tenets of the gospel, we give ourselves permission to start down a road that ultimately leads to ruin.

Or so it seems to me.

That's hardly the key issue. The more interesting issue is what is a "tenet" of the gospel.

Some people would say that a tenet of the gospel is that God will brutally kill people on account of the sins of others. I'd disagree that is a tenet of the Gospel.

Some would say that a tenet is an acceptance of the Bible as the inerrant word of God. I'd agree with Joseph Smith and Brigham Young in disagreeing with that.

Up until the 20th century the Church thought it a tenet that one could not go to the highest level of the celestial kingdom unless one engaged in illegal plural marriage. The Church has long since abandoned that 'tenet."

Another abandoned tenet is that of blacks and the priesthood, or the Lamanite outreach program, etc.

There may be some non-negotiable discrete corpus of doctrine and required interpretation of such but you can't very well charge people with abandoning tenets until such tenets are definitively and authoritatively defined.