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

[Dravin]

3. Why do you think that God wanted all the dolphins dead?

Behold the face of evil!

[MobyMule]

I agree. I think HiJolly does, too. I believe you are missing his point, which I understand to be that the literal occurrence and global nature of the flood of Noah are central to the testimony of many Saints. This may be unfortunate, but it is a fact.

Yes I've seen it myself. Which is why core principals and being converted to Christ should always be the main focus. Alot of members get hung up on fluff or details of things we don't have clear cut answers for.

[MobyMule]

I too believe it shouldn't have any bearing on salvation. However, I'm hesitant to say that there are not some who do hinge their beliefs on a global flood. People lose faith for lesser reasons. Its hard to believe sometimes, but always worth it to have faith in the Lamb.

I agree with you. And people think it is silly we cover the basics so much. There is a very good reason for that.

[HiJolly]

I don't buy that. I'm not saying a flood didn't happen. I'm just saying that whether or not it was Global I think isn't the main issue of the story. It is about being obedient and folllowing God and his servants. Whether or not I personally believe in a global flood or not should not have any bearing on my salvation.

Glad to hear it, MM, and I completely agree. I would just love it if all LDS were on board.

HiJolly

[Snow]

Yes I've seen it myself. Which is why core principals and being converted to Christ should always be the main focus. Alot of members get hung up on fluff or details of things we don't have clear cut answers for.

It may be something for which there is no clear cut answer but whether or not their was a flood as described in the OT is not a matter of fluff. It speaks directly to the character of God; is He the type of god that would kill innocent human life and innocent animal life in order to kill other guilty human life and then erase all physical evidence of it???

[Justice]

What innocent human life died?

And, the animals moved to a better place. I don't think they really cared.

[Vort]

What innocent human life died?

Infants and children under the age of eight.

[Justice]

Ahhhh. Sure enough.

But, then again, they are saved in the Celestial Kingdom automatically.

[Snow]

And, the animals moved to a better place. I don't think they really cared.

So... do a good deed. Kill a puppy today. Right?

[MobyMule]

It may be something for which there is no clear cut answer but whether or not their was a flood as described in the OT is not a matter of fluff. It speaks directly to the character of God; is He the type of god that would kill innocent human life and innocent animal life in order to kill other guilty human life and then erase all physical evidence of it???

Snow I'm dissapointed. While I agree the character of God isn't fluff to say that somewhow the events of the flood change or make that character tainted is misguided. Whether we like it or not all death on this planet whether directly/indirectly will always go back to God. I believe the plan was called The Plan of Salvation. We agreed to it. Death is just part of life. Whether or not you agree with the motivation or premise for the Flood it's not really your call is it. Also do we really know everything about it? I trust that God's reasoning and purpose were valid even if I don't see it. I'm sure the Lord will love to have some nice gospel discussions with us once we have the opprotunity.

Children and animals die every day through no fault of thier own. Does this mean God is mean and cruel? No it means that events must happen. Future events are predicted in which probably millions of people will die? Does this change your preception of God?

This life while great to us is really a pitiful existence to what it will be. I think if we saw that and really knew what the next life was like death would be a much less scary thing. Plus we see death as being this huge loss. Is it really? While I agree we do lose some things we hold dear if we have faith in Chirst and that faith turns out that we were correct that death isn't the end have we really lost anything. Have we not gained much more than anything we ever had here.

[MobyMule]

So... do a good deed. Kill a puppy today. Right?

Yeah all those pet shelters who do this to keep the streets clean go strait to the celestial kingdom. I thought that was in the Journal of Discourses somewhere.

[Snow]

Snow I'm dissapointed. While I agree the character of God isn't fluff to say that somewhow the events of the flood change or make that character tainted is misguided. Whether we like it or not all death on this planet whether directly/indirectly will always go back to God. I believe the plan was called The Plan of Salvation. We agreed to it. Death is just part of life. Whether or not you agree with the motivation or premise for the Flood it's not really your call is it. Also do we really know everything about it? I trust that God's reasoning and purpose were valid even if I don't see it. I'm sure the Lord will love to have some nice gospel discussions with us once we have the opprotunity.

Why would you suggest that killing innocent babies and puppies somehow taints God or his character? I have my own thoughts but I only asked the questions - you are the one that thought it somehow looked bad for God. I assume that you believe that God's activities are good and holy activities and so that would make baby and puppy killing holy, wouldn't it?

I myself don't think that God killed all the babies and puppies. I don't question His motivations since I don't think He did it.

As to your idea that it's all a mystery and one day it will be explained to us... that's a weak argument. It's not even an argument. It's a cop out.

Children and animals die every day through no fault of thier own. Does this mean God is mean and cruel? No it means that events must happen. Future events are predicted in which probably millions of people will die? Does this change your preception of God?

That's not the point. We aren't talking about children who just die (illness and accident, etc). We are talking about someone, God, actually and actively killing them. Totally different thing.

This life while great to us is really a pitiful existence to what it will be. I think if we saw that and really knew what the next life was like death would be a much less scary thing. Plus we see death as being this huge loss. Is it really? While I agree we do lose some things we hold dear if we have faith in Chirst and that faith turns out that we were correct that death isn't the end have we really lost anything. Have we not gained much more than anything we ever had here.

That smacks of the earlier argument. Killing people is doing them a favor. I reject that idea.

[MobyMule]

Why would you suggest that killing innocent babies and puppies somehow taints God or his character? I have my own thoughts but I only asked the questions - you are the one that thought it somehow looked bad for God. I assume that you believe that God's activities are good and holy activities and so that would make baby and puppy killing holy, wouldn't it?

I myself don't think that God killed all the babies and puppies. I don't question His motivations since I don't think He did it.

As to your idea that it's all a mystery and one day it will be explained to us... that's a weak argument. It's not even an argument. It's a cop out.

That's not the point. We aren't talking about children who just die (illness and accident, etc). We are talking about someone, God, actually and actively killing them. Totally different thing.

That smacks of the earlier argument. Killing people is doing them a favor. I reject that idea.

Your the one who suggested it not me. Again whether you think God actively participated or not is moot. Since he is the grand designer of all things it still come back to him doesn't it. So your argument to me doesn't make sense. Just like everyone else who has authority or responsibility it doen't matter why something happens under your stewardship you are held responsible for it. Just as we are responsible for our children I think it applies here.

You can call it a cop out all you want but the fact is we won't know everything in this life as it pertains to God's dealings with men and the details of all those detials. What we have at best is stories that are retold in the symbolism or short version of events.

[Justice]

I myself don't think that God killed all the babies and puppies. I don't question His motivations since I don't think He did it.

I'd like to hear more on who killed them, or how they were killed.

[Dravin]

So... do a good deed. Kill a puppy today. Right?

You know you want to:

[Hemidakota]

Still with the comedic routine?

God didn't write Genesis.

Now if the account was wrong, would Joseph Smith corrected this statement or at least spoke on it in conference or meeting explaining it was a localize versus a global deluge? I believe so…even if the last living Jaredite prophet, Ether, who had the fuller account called it a world flood and not local.

Setting here for a few scholars of the church, who believe Job never existed, was also quoted by the Savior in the D&C. No matter what evidence there is, if the Lord stated it, I would believe the Savior over the world at that point and wait for the evidence to come forth when He is ready to apply it for own learning.

[Snow]

I'd like to hear more on who killed them, or how they were killed.

Now you pretend that you aren't even familiar with the story - what's up with that? According to what you believe God killed them and they died by drowning. Try Genesis 6...

[Snow]

Now if the account was wrong, would Joseph Smith corrected this statement or at least spoke on it in conference or meeting explaining it was a localize versus a global deluge? I believe so…even if the last living Jaredite prophet, Ether, who had the fuller account called it a world flood and not local.

Setting here for a few scholars of the church, who believe Job never existed, was also quoted by the Savior in the D&C. No matter what evidence there is, if the Lord stated it, I would believe the Savior over the world at that point and wait for the evidence to come forth when He is ready to apply it for own learning.

You're missing the point entirely.

God doesn't speak. He is silent. He has never publicly commented on whether Genesis or Job are literal and historical. He has never opined on whether the D&C is completely accurate.

People confuse dogma with God. It fine to say you believe the Savior over the world but Christ didn't leave a written record that you could agree with. All you can do is agree with people like the anonymous authors of Genesis, Matthew, and Mark, etc, none of which ever met the Savior.

[Snow]

Your the one who suggested it not me.

That's inaccurate. I commented that other people, not me, believe that God kills innocent people, on account of still other guilty people and then YOU introduced the concept of tainting, not me,

Again whether you think God actively participated or not is moot. Since he is the grand designer of all things it still come back to him doesn't it. So your argument to me doesn't make sense.

It doesn't make sense, as you say, if you assume all sorts of preconditions. In saying that it all comes to God you are assuming that God is omnipotent (the scriptures tell us that He is not). You are assuming that there are not powers, co-eternal with God that exercise free will independently (the scriptures tell us that there are). And, in particular, the subject being discussed here is whether God himself actively caused all that evil and suffering, so it is hardly moot.

Just like everyone else who has authority or responsibility it doen't matter why something happens under your stewardship you are held responsible for it. Just as we are responsible for our children I think it applies here.

Not exactly. I have stewardship over a medium sized company. I just fired an employee for stealing. She exercised her own free will to circumvent the reasonable and prudent controls that I had set up to safeguard the company. She is an agent unto herself and I am not responsible for her criminal behavior.

However, the opinion I hold here is not that God, the creator, was responsible for a flood as described in the Bible either directly by causing it or indirectly by creating the universe since I do not argue that there was such a thing. As to whether or not God is ultimately for all natural evil - that's an unsolved dilemma.

You can call it a cop out all you want but the fact is we won't know everything in this life as it pertains to God's dealings with men and the details of all those detials. What we have at best is stories that are retold in the symbolism or short version of events.

I wholeheartedly agree

[Justice]

Now you pretend that you aren't even familiar with the story - what's up with that? According to what you believe God killed them and they died by drowning. Try Genesis 6...

You know, I just don't get it. Do you try intentionally to be hard to engange?

I asked what you believe and you tell me what I beleive, and to go read the chapter. If we understood it the same way we wouldn't be having this discussion.

If you want to exchange thoughts and have a rational conversation, please do so. If all you want is to play word games then I'll find something else to do.

Whether you believe it or not my question was sincere. I do not know how you interpret the flood, other than you believe it was not global. If that's all there is then just say so.

[Snow]

You know, I just don't get it. Do you try intentionally to be hard to engange?

I asked what you believe and you tell me what I beleive, and to go read the chapter. If we understood it the same way we wouldn't be having this discussion.

If you want to exchange thoughts and have a rational conversation, please do so. If all you want is to play word games then I'll find something else to do.

Whether you believe it or not my question was sincere. I do not know how you interpret the flood, other than you believe it was not global. If that's all there is then just say so.

What are you talking about.

This discussion was about how God, supposedly, created a worldwide flood and destroyed all life through the flood - an account that you said you agreed with and then out of nowhere you ask who destroyed the life and how - then you imply I am irrational.

Tell me - how could your question have been sincere or rational? Do you not even know what you believe yourself?

As to what I believe, obviously there was no such worldwide flood that covered the earth up to the tops of the mountains that destroyed all flesh on earth, with the except of Noah and company and 2 of every animal (or 7 depending on which of the two bible stories you believe) as described in the Bible. There may well have been a more localized flood or maybe a number of such floods but not as described in the Bible. I agree with Brigham Young that such stories from the Bible are "baby stories."

[Justice]

I have my own thoughts...

I myself don't think that God killed all the babies and puppies. I don't question His motivations since I don't think He did it.

Snow? You made this comment, yes?

I asked what you think happened, in response to this comment, and then you say:

According to what you believe God killed them and they died by drowning. Try Genesis 6...

To which I reply:

I do not know how you interpret the flood, other than you believe it was not global.

What are you talking about.

Tell me - how could your question have been sincere or rational? Do you not even know what you believe yourself?

I was asking what you believe. Instead of answering you play all these word games. And THEN, finally you give me an answer:

As to what I believe, obviously there was no such worldwide flood that covered the earth up to the tops of the mountains that destroyed all flesh on earth, with the except of Noah and company and 2 of every animal (or 7 depending on which of the two bible stories you believe) as described in the Bible. There may well have been a more localized flood or maybe a number of such floods but not as described in the Bible. I agree with Brigham Young that such stories from the Bible are "baby stories."

So, that’s it? You believe the flood was local. So, you accuse those who believe in a global flood of believing that God destroyed innocent babies and puppies, but in your flood (or floods) babies and puppies were not harmed in the local flood(s)?

And, there is only one story in the Bible as to how many animals of each kind Noah took in the ark, 4 of the unclean and 14 of the clean. Both places the numbers are listed do agree if you understand what’s being said. I do not see where they took 7 of any kind of animal… but I do see 7 pairs (which is 14).

Genesis 7:

2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

3 Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.

8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth,

15 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life.

Clearly, "by sevens, the male and the female" cannot be 7, or else there would be either a male or female without a mate, and it just wouldn't make sense with verse 15. Verse 15 is not saying "only 2," but it is saying "2 by 2" or by pairs, the male and female.

Anyway, thanks for sharing your belief.

[Snow]

Snow? You made this comment, yes?

I asked what you think happened, in response to this comment, and then you say

To which I reply:

I was asking what you believe. Instead of answering you play all these word games. And THEN, finally you give me an answer:

So, that’s it? You believe the flood was local. So, you accuse those who believe in a global flood of believing that God destroyed innocent babies and puppies, but in your flood (or floods) babies and puppies were not harmed in the local flood(s)?

I have no clue what you are getting at. You know perfectly well that I don't buy the flood story. I don't think that God killed all the babies and puppies in the world. How can I answer who killed them and how if I don't even believe that it happened?

Seriously - this is getting old.

And, there is only one story in the Bible as to how many animals of each kind Noah took in the ark, 4 of the unclean and 14 of the clean. Both places the numbers are listed do agree if you understand what’s being said. I do not see where they took 7 of any kind of animal… but I do see 7 pairs (which is 14).

Genesis 7:

2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

3 Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.

8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth,

15 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life.

Clearly, "by sevens, the male and the female" cannot be 7, or else there would be either a male or female without a mate, and it just wouldn't make sense with verse 15. Verse 15 is not saying "only 2," but it is saying "2 by 2" or by pairs, the male and female.

Anyway, thanks for sharing your belief.

Question: Have you ever read Genesis?

You quote one story found in chapter seven but have never heard, apparently of the story that precedes it by a chapter. This isn't some esoteric concept Justice. It's been widely known by scholars for centuries.

Here's one description: The Two Genesis Flood Stories

Next thing you know, you'll be telling me that there is only one creation account.

[Justice]

Well, I quoted the "2 of every kind (or sort)" from one location, I did not know I had to quote it in every usage.

Genesis 6:

19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.

So, now, which interpretation fits better with Chapter 7:

A. Genesis 6:19 is speaking of only 2 of each kind of animal, and therefore makes the Bible directly contradict itself.

B. Genesis 6:19 is speaking of "2 by 2" a male and a female, making chapters 6 and 7 (where a more detailed account of the animals is given) agree.

I go with B.

Who is Henry E. Neufeld and what is Energion? He seriously over-thought it when the solution is very easy. There's a lot there and I don't have time to read it all. Can you paste in a few lines of interest?

[Guest]

Whoa guys! Man, you sure have a way of making some convert's head spin...

Okay, if we really need scientific proof to prove the words written in Genesis then go ahead and prove to me some Israelite d00des came to the Americas and started their own civilization yonder. I'd love to hear the scientific proof of this event as well - and we're not accepting the scriptures as enough evidence right?

I have a friend who will not go through the missionary discussions because she laughs out loud when I tell her about Nephites and Lamanites. Come to think of it, she has no problem accepting the Hebrews migrated out of Egypt - I doubt she has scientific proof of that either. But, at least I can tell her - here, this is what Snow gave me as scientific proof. This would make my missionary effort so much easier.