Gen. 9:11 // Noah's covenant and world flood theory

[deseretgov]

That's doesn't entirely make sense to me. Didn't God also say he would never scourge the earth by a flood again? So if God did in fact say that..he wouldn't have caused the flood in New Orleans. It would have then had to have been because of fault of a man made item such as the levees in New Orleans.

Yes and if God ever flooded the whole earth again then He would be breaking His promise. But since all floods have been small localized ones he isn't breaking His promise. If God promise there would be no more localized floods, then God is already breaking His promise because He has either cause or allowed localized floods to occur.

Let's go over it again.

If God cannot control the elements then that means He is too weak to control them. If he choses not to ten that means He has no influence. Either of these go against what we know about God.

But if God does control the elements than those natural occurances happen because He chooses for them to occur.

Did God cause the flood during Noah's time to happen? Or was it just random chance?

I have no interest in educating you.

You seemed quite interested when you were claiming I wasn't using critical thinking.

[Justice]

A belief in something that is not correct isn't faith. It's just a wrong idea in your head.

If you think that the account found in Ether is actual evidence of a flood as described in the Bible (worldwide - up to the tops of the mountains), then I'll simply say that you don't understand the difference between evidence and heresay.

Again, there is no proof the floods were not global.

Genesis 7:

19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.

...

23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

There is some evidence that it was global. I really have no idea why you seem to hold me in contempt for arriving at the interpretation that I do. Why speak unkindly of me for believing the Bible over science?

Can science explain how Christ walked on water? Or, how Christ spoke and the wind and elements obeyed Him?

I really do appreciate your love of science, but God trumps science as we understand it every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

[Justice]

Oh, I forgot Ether.

Ether 13:

2 For behold, they rejected all the words of Ether; for he truly told them of all things, from the beginning of man; and that after the waters had receded from off the face of this land it became a choice land above all other lands, a chosen land of the Lord; wherefore the Lord would have that all men should serve him who dwell upon the face thereof;

In my view, this can only be speaking of the creation, or the flood. But, if you have other ideas, please fill me in.

[Snow]

You seemed quite interested when you were claiming I wasn't using critical thinking.

Let me clarify for you. I am interested in pointing out your errors and failures to apply critical thinking. I am wholly uninterested, at present, in educating you in the rudiments of geology.

[Snow]

Again, there is no proof the floods were not global.

There you go.

Someone once said that God wanted all Jews and Americans dead. That there is no proof to the contrary is meaningless.

I really do appreciate your love of science, but God trumps science as we understand it every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Had God said anything on the matter, it may in fact trump whatever - but newsflash - God is silent on the matter. He says nothing about it. All we have is what men say about it.

[Justice]

D&C 1:

38 What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.

D&C 124:

45 And if my people will hearken unto my voice, and unto the voice of my servants whom I have appointed to lead my people, behold, verily I say unto you, they shall not be moved out of their place.

The problem is that we don't hearken unto His voice, or the voice of His servants. I am sincerely trying to, but I know I have a long way to go. Maybe one day if I can get it right, and hearken the way I should, the answer will be revealed to me and then I can gain the wisdom needed to answer definitively. Until I get there I can be believing.

Part of my point is that spiritual answers and knowledge come by hearkening unto the word of God, and the word of His servants, and not by detailed and scientific analysis. We will never prove the events or history of the scriptures by leaning on man's methods for gaining knowledge.

If you trump the word of God contained in the scriptures by what man can learn through science then you will never find the answer. I know it sounds backwards, but I have learned this to be true. I'm not sure what good it will do but I will post those scriptures if you think it will help.

Mark 2:

9 Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk?

10 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,)

11 I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy bed, and go thy way into thine house.

12 And immediately he arose, took up the bed, and went forth before them all; insomuch that they were all amazed, and glorified God, saying, We never saw it on this fashion.

Either you believe Jesus simply spoke and the man was healed, or you imagine some allegorical meaning that could explain this story.

I believe. I believe He spoke and the man was truly healed by the power of Christ's word.

If Christ can speak and heal a man, then what is not possible to Him? He can accomplish all things in the scriptures.

Evidence?

Why do you need evidence when Christ has all power?

Just believe.

Edited December 14, 2009 by Justice

[Maxel]

Guys-

Arguing with Snow on this matter is useless. He's proven, time and time again, that he holds nothing but contempt for the idea of a global flood, and that he's more than willing to mock anyone who disagrees with him (case in point, the fact that it's a "Mormon Myth" that the flood was globalized; that those who believe in a global flood are either ignorant of the scientific evidence or are not "rational, intelligent" people; etc.).

If you want a productive discussion about the flood, don't engage him- he's not even willing to consider hypothetical solutions to the problem because "there's no evidence".

[Traveler]

Some of my thoughts. Snow is right about a lot of things – I am not sure he is right about everything. As a person the believes in G-d and a scientist – I have my bias as do many. Bias is not always correct. 60 years ago the scientific bias was that dinosaurs were cold blooded. Now most scientist have a bias that dinosaurs were warm blooded.

On many occasions as I have flown over the Grand Canyon, I have looked down on the landscape and thought to myself that it is obvious that the carving of the Grand Canyon is not a single epoch but rather the minimum of at least two distinct epochs. This is in observing the upper parts of the canyons are large broad “U” shaped and the lower parts of the canyon are sharp “V” shaped. Yet I have not read anywhere that the Grand Canyon has two distinct creation periods or epochs.

Sometimes we become to believe something is true just because of the point of view that survived. This I see as a problem because it appears to me that the herd mentality is wrong more than it is right. This is the main problem I have with the current “global warming” proofs. In our society money plays a more important role than truth. Research is more about getting funding than it is about uncovering truth. Because of personal experience (not sourer grapes) I do not trust government funded research – what the government does and demands from research has become too political for me; especially if pending legislation and the allocations of large sums of money is depending on it.

As to the flood. Snow is right about one thing. There is a lot missing in the popular interpretations of the epoch of Noah in the religious community. I tend to believe the scientific community is more accurate and has less of an ax to grind than the religious community. But that is not to say that many scientists do not bring an ax to grind to their research. For me there are more unanswered questions than there are answered questions concerning the flood. So for now I have a liberal view and I am willing to consider many explanations. But I see nothing that excites me on this forum.

The Traveler

[Just_A_Guy]

i believe god can do things science can't explain, with our limited understanding.

blasphemy!

[Just_A_Guy]

I think that This

[Just_A_Guy]

I believe god can do things science can't explain, with our limited understanding.

Blasphemy!

[OneEternalSonata]

....Blasphemy?

[Maxel]

Blasphemy!

Must not laugh... Must not laugh... Must not laugh...

...

[Snow]

I'm not sure if there is such a thing. I don't have them. My sources are incredibly biased, and rooted in a sense of victimhood. Then again, I still wonder if the human impact on global warming is that signficant. :)

I guess it is hoping for too much... an unbiased opinion. Someone is either going to believe in creation/ID or not and so would be biased... but I would like to see some credible, non-polemical, non-apologist treatment of the creation/ID science propositions... I myself, alone, am not qualified to weigh the merits.

[HiJolly]

I guess it is hoping for too much... an unbiased opinion. Someone is either going to believe in creation/ID or not and so would be biased... but I would like to see some credible, non-polemical, non-apologist treatment of the creation/ID science propositions... I myself, alone, am not qualified to weigh the merits.

Since we cannot escape bias, I think it's a good idea to hear both sides out, and then consider where our own bias leads us. A great place to do that is here: Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District Intelligent Design case

HiJolly

[Justice]

Or, one can do that here:

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

Excerpt:

Many of us have fond memories learning about Noah and his ark during our days at home and in Primary. Perhaps our parents and teachers held up a picture of Noah preaching to laughing and mocking people as he stood in front of the partially built ark, or perhaps they showed us a picture portraying the ark filled with animals standing on the deck as the great vessel rested in the water. Later, our Sunday School or seminary teachers added to our knowledge of this great man, his righteousness, his missionary work, and the revelations surrounding the building of the ark. As Latter-day Saints, we treasure this sacred, true account of one of God’s great prophets who lived so long ago.

Not everyone throughout the modern world, however, accepts the story of Noah and the Flood. Many totally disbelieve the story, seeing it as a simple myth or fiction. Typical of some modern scholars, one author recently discounted the events of the Flood by using such terms as “implausible,” “unacceptable,” and “impossible”; he stated that believers who would hope to provide geologic or other evidence regarding the historicity of the Flood “can be given no assurance that their effort, however sustained, will be successful.” 1 Another author titled his book The Noah’s Ark Nonsense, 2 revealing his disbelief that the Flood actually took place.

Still other people accept parts of the Flood story, acknowledging that there may have been a local, charismatic preacher, such as Noah, and a localized flood that covered only a specific area of the world, such as the region of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers or perhaps even the whole of Mesopotamia. Yet these people do not believe in a worldwide or global flood. Both of these groups—those who totally deny the historicity of Noah and the Flood and those who accept parts of the story—are persuaded in their disbelief by the way they interpret modern science. They rely upon geological considerations and theories that postulate it would be impossible for a flood to cover earth’s highest mountains, that the geologic evidence (primarily in the fields of stratigraphy and sedimentation) does not indicate a worldwide flood occurred any time during the earth’s existence.

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.

There is more if you click on the link.

[Vort]

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,

True.

a prophet of God,

True.

who preached repentance and raised a voice of warning,

True.

built an ark, gathered his family and a host of animals onto the ark, and floated safely away

True.

as waters covered the entire earth.

False.

Donald W. Parry is an assistant professor of Hebrew at Brigham Young University and a member of the international team of translators of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Neither of which positions qualify him to speak about things clearly beyond his ken.

[Justice]

It would seem that, since it was in the Ensign, a church publication, that if the statement were false that "someone" either wouldn't have allowed it, or would have issued a correction.

Shouldn't this be allowed at least as evidence of how the Church authorities feel about it?

[Justice]

I mean, who are we to say which of those statements are right or wrong? You go down the list and offer your opinions on which are fact or false, why can't he? Do we believe yours over his? Do you think since it is a church publication, do you think "he shouldn't be allowed to make false statments that I disagree with," or do you think," hmmm maybe I should look into this more, maybe I'm wrong?"

These are faith based statements, and not factual based. I have a discussion going on about this very issue on a different thread... come join in.

[Justice]

But, as far as evidence, he presents some good evidence based his knowledge and study of Hebrew and ancient texts. I'd like to see the evidence (in the Bible) that shows it may not have been a global flood.

[HiJolly]

But, as far as evidence, he presents some good evidence based his knowledge and study of Hebrew and ancient texts. I'd like to see the evidence (in the Bible) that shows it may not have been a global flood.

Way back in post #1 -- the OP -- the english word 'earth' is the evidence, once you look up the meaning of the Hebrew word it was translated from. I think both words are sufficiently vague to allow for a non-global flood. It's just the surrounding text, and the other texts (particularly in the PoGP) which, when put into context, suggests nothing other than a global flood.

But then, I'm biased. And I'm also just a bit conflicted, since I beleive that if there was a 'global flood', it had to have occurred a *very* long time ago, based on the evidence...

HiJolly

[Vort]

It would seem that, since it was in the Ensign, a church publication, that if the statement were false that "someone" either wouldn't have allowed it, or would have issued a correction.

Shouldn't this be allowed at least as evidence of how the Church authorities feel about it?

Sure, it's evidence. But it does not establish anything. Or are you willing to state that nothing ever published in the Ensign has been counterfactual or contrary to LDS doctrine?

[Vort]

I mean, who are we to say which of those statements are right or wrong?

Who is he to declare LDS doctrine?

You go down the list and offer your opinions on which are fact or false, why can't he?

Sorry, I must have missed the post where someone said he can't give his opinion.

Do we believe yours over his?

In my case, of course you do.

Do you think since it is a church publication, do you think "he shouldn't be allowed to make false statments that I disagree with," or do you think, "hmmm maybe I should look into this more, maybe I'm wrong?"

Are you suggesting that I have not "looked into it"? Or do you think that because I came to a different conclusion from someone else, therefore I must need to "look into it" some more?

These are faith based statements, and not factual based. I have a discussion going on about this very issue on a different thread... come join in.

Thanks for the invite. I appreciate it, but decline, as I have little interest in discussions that center around how scientific principles or conclusions ought to be determined by someone's scriptural gloss.

[Vort]

But, as far as evidence, he presents some good evidence based his knowledge and study of Hebrew and ancient texts. I'd like to see the evidence (in the Bible) that shows it may not have been a global flood.

There is no Biblical evidence of a "global" flood. There is no evidence (that I know of) that the ancient Hebrews of 2500 BC even knew they lived on a globe. A "global flood" is thus utterly anachronistic.

[Justice]

Way back in post #1 -- the OP -- the english word 'earth' is the evidence, once you look up the meaning of the Hebrew word it was translated from. I think both words are sufficiently vague to allow for a non-global flood.

Interesting, since the BYU professor I quoted from says the Biblical references of "earth" in the Hebrew all indicate it did mean global, and even showed elsewhere where the same Hebrew word was used and meant global or universal as well.