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

[Snow]

I would like to post a highly relevant quote regarding the mabul (the Deluge (popularly "Flood") ):

“Logic, historical documentation, archeology and science are not threats to Tor•âh′. To the contrary, they illuminateTor•âh′. Logic and science threaten only modern interpreters who mindlessly regurgitate Medieval interpretations. To immunize your children against secularism, as well as against Christianity, you must apply yourselves to learning how logic and science reconcile with Tor•âh′; and be prepared to discard interpretations that conflict with the Creator of logic and science in our universe—in other words, interpretations ofTor•âh′ that actually conflict with Tor•âh′. “

(..)

“Today, we know the world is globular. But, in the time that the account of No′akh was first related, hâ-Â′rëtz referred to "the civilized world"—of a family: âdâm, then No′akh. The account in Tor•âh′ relates No′akh's perspective, not our modern perspective.” (..)

“Not surprisingly to me, scientists have found the area where the Ma•bul′ occurred. We know this area as the Black Sea. Scientists know that it was once landlocked, with far less water. The natural land bridge to the west formed a dam against the Mediterranean. It fragmented over time, due to tectonic shifting. Finally, during a torrential rain, the natural land dam, between what is now the Black Sea and the Mediterranean burst; and the Mediterranean flooded the Black Sea. Corroborating this, the ark came to rest on the nearby Ararat Mountains in Turkey. Even if we find this phenomenon wrong one day; nevertheless, it is this type of logical and scientific explanation that has the potential to prove correct one day. No less importantly, it is also this type of explanation that your child can rely on, and relate to, their intelligent and educated peers when they encounter

questions in and after high school.”

That's a very reasonable perspective, but unfortunately your efforts go for naught with the fundamentalist reader. If the text says that the flood covers the whole earth and they grew up believing it, that's what they are going to believe now and no amount of reason and explanation is going to change it for them, If the Bible says that God colluded with Satan to kill Job's family, that's what they are going to believe. Period. They are fundamentally incapable of applying reason and critical thinking to the account.

[Justice]

Ah - the gospel of peace and love... be good or God will kill you.

Interesting statement.

Using your statement in reference to the topic at hand:

1 Peter 3:

18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;

20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

There are a few intersting tidbits in this scripture (speaking strictly about God's love and patience and not about whether the flood was global or local), and about how God sent His Son to those that were in Prison who had died as a result of the flood, to teach them so they would be given a better opportunity to repent than had they remained on earth in that wicked generation.

There was very little chance of them repenting while on earth, since the earth was covered with wickedness. But, by mercifully removing them from the earth and sending His Son to them in the Spirit World, God showed that we can't understand His purposes by looking through human eyes. We can't dig in dirt and uncover His purpose. These people were given a better opportunity to repent, and future generations were given a better opportunity to break free of the wickedness man chose for himself.

I don't look at it just as here and now. I realize God doesn't always reveal His purposes, but He revealed His overall purpose... to SAVE man, as many as possible. I know that God will give each man sufficient opportunity to hear, believe, and understand the message of Christ. It doesn't have to be as a mortal on earth, it could have been in the pre-mortal existence, or even in the post-mortal existence.

To witness death caused by God and think "God is cruel" is being narrow-minded and not considering that God knows the beginning from the end. It's projecting your own limited understanding of God onto Him, based soley on what you can see.

It's also a bit silly to believe God will not cause the physical death of millions to better their chances at exaltation. Did He not send His Only Begotten Son to earth to die a horrible death? Why did He do that? Because He enjoyed watching His Son suffer? Were those who died in the flood better than Christ?

God causes things to happen that increase mankind's chances, and make possible their repentance and return to Him. Every single person who died in the flood will be resurrected and have that physical death overcame for them BY GOD, something they could not do on their own. God is adding MORE than just overcoming physical death... He is adding opportunity for them to overcome spiritual death.

So, please don't think that since I believe the flood was global and "all flesh" was destroyed (just like scripture says), that I believe God must be terrible and vindictive. I believe He had a higher purpose and plan to give those people a better opportunity at repentance. It's easy to see if you focus on the scriptures and quit relying on man's understanding... something that they discovered in the dirt.

I trust God enough to know that He is doing the right thing, or He wouldn't be where He is. If you want to believe that God can't kill men, or allow them to be killed, without jeopardizing your underlying faith in Him, then you are going to have a hard time getting past why He allowed His Son to be crucified.

[Snow]

The inconsistency of those that believe in a global flood...

When Genesis speaks of a flood that covers the earth, the more fundamentalist minded accept that as a literal description that the entire earth will be flooded. However, when Luke described the birth of Christ and says that a decree went out the the whole world should be taxed, no one actually believes that the whole world was to be taxed, just the Roman empire.

[Justice]

That was already addressed in a different thread... or perhaps earlier in this one.

All you have to do is consider who is speaking. To Caesar, all the world was Rome since that's all he had power to tax. It's context.

I do get your point, though. Once a person starts "interpreting" where do they stop? Some stop sooner; some stop later.

I do get it, Snow, I just don't have proof . But, you know that :) .

Out of curiosity (maybe I'll look into it when I get a chance), I wonder how the words used for "world" compare in both of those uses?

[bert10]

Snow the forces of destruction are created by broken spiritual laws. In order words we bring the wraths on our head.

The Forces of Wrath are created by broken spiritual laws. And God does control to some extant judgment...but Justice in the end will have its way.

The Heavenly laws that control the forces that bring blessings or destruction are given to all men. The Wraths comes and act individually for individual sins and they act in concert when the group [bundle] is condemned of a particular sin or sins. So we end up being punished individually and nationally because of forces we have engendered. We bring those things on our own heads. It is perfect justice.

The law of harvest is ....

<>. Sow the wind and reap the whirlwing.

<>. Where much is given much is required.

<>. He that knew the will of God and did not do shall receive many stripes.

<>. He that knew not the will of God and did things worthy of many stripes shall receive few stripes.

That is why God said to do to others what you would like them to do to you.

For anger, ill will, hates of all kinds and other lusts and vices are all forces dealing with darkness and destructions...which we invoke and sends out...by our thoughts, words and actions. And you can be sure that they are returned on our heads a hundred fold.

Peace be unto you

bert10

Ah - the gospel of peace and love... be good or God will kill you.

Peace be unto you too bert.

Don't let THIS happen to you. Straighten up and fly right today!

Edited December 28, 2009 by bert10

[Snow]

Snow the forces of destruction are created by broken spiritual laws. In order words we bring the wraths on our head.

The Forces of Wrath are created by broken spiritual laws. And God does control to some extant judgment...but Justice in the end will have its way.

Is that like the Nazgûl were they, the Ringwraiths, the Ulairi, the Enemy's most terrible servants; darkness went with them, and they cried with the voices of death?

The Heavenly laws that control the forces that bring blessings or destruction are given to all men. The Wraths comes and act individually for individual sins and they act in concert when the group [bundle] is condemned of a particular sin or sins. So we end up being punished individually and nationally because of forces we have engendered. We bring those things on our own heads. It is perfect justice.

Not in LDS theology. We, unlike you, believe that man is punished for HIS OWN sins. God did not send the 911 bombers because he was mad at America.

[Relentless]

It's obvious that you can cut and paste but whether or not you understand what a fallacy remains to be seen.

I see that you have backed away from your original argument - that since we do not know who the author is, it is a fallacy to say that they never met Jesus - and moved to a new argument that is "safer" to assume that people that lived after the time of Christ may have met him than people who died before the time of Christ. Not much of an argument but I am please that you recognized your original argument had little merit.

Still, I am wondering why you have failed to demonstrate that the scholarly opinion that Gospel authors had not met Christ is a fallacy. Can you tell us why? Are you too busy? Are you not familiar with the methodology and reasoning they employ?

I don't know if that is true. Let's see what you say next to gauge.

Wow. You are very good at cutting and pasting.

Yeah - whatever. I am interested, as I said before, in you demonstrating the fallacy. Are you going to or not?

Well?

And I can see that you are very adept at not answering questions. It's ok, I wouldn't want to address the Joseph Smith point either if my argument was laid to waste by it. Much better to pretend that the one I am debating has yet to fulfill their obligation.

As for my understanding of what a fallacy is, I guess I can't prove it to you because you seem to think that only you are smart enough to understand big words. I guess I am just to uneducated, and as you always tell people, you don't have the inclination to educate us.

I think the casual reader of this forum would be more inclined to see how stating that BEYOND ANY DOUBT THE ONES WHO PENNED MARK, MATTHEW, GENESIS etc, NEVER MET THE SAVIOR would be an argument based off of faulty logic. But it's ok that you stick to your guns and avoid further debate (quick, tell me that further debate isn't warranted because I "failed" to prove something to you). I hear that's what ALL of the intellectuals are doing these days.

[Hemidakota]

You are correct. There were, at various times during earth's 4.6 billion year history, single lass masses, the most recent one being called Pangaea.

However, Pangaea broke up into separate land masses hundreds of millions of years ago.

At the time of the flood, the earth was NOT one land mass.

I am interesting to see where this number came from? Was this earth formed here? Even the prophet casually pointed out the age when he and Sidney witnessed the creation at the Johnson home.

[Hemidakota]

That was already addressed in a different thread... or perhaps earlier in this one.

All you have to do is consider who is speaking. To Caesar, all the world was Rome since that's all he had power to tax. It's context.

I do get your point, though. Once a person starts "interpreting" where do they stop? Some stop sooner; some stop later.

I do get it, Snow, I just don't have proof . But, you know that :) .

Out of curiosity (maybe I'll look into it when I get a chance), I wonder how the words used for "world" compare in both of those uses?

It is not the proof you need, it is the doubting faith of asking GOD of others are called ini in serious problem. It is same in stating, GOD or the Savior, have no clue to what the term Earth or world means. For me, this is a serious issue and note why GOD does not reveal the greater word to them.

Justice, a classic example is using history of GOD removing both Adam and Eve from the garden and was expelled eastward. Was GOD wrong when Adam inhabitant the area we call Adam-Ondi-Ahman and built the first altar to GOD? Adam-Ondi-Ahman is not east but north-east.

As we can know the exact location on where Cain dwelled and the Ark was built. It is not hard to spend the time to research and listen to the still small voice [others may receive vision or dreams vice the voice] with further instruction to be edified.

Moses was correct and so was Joseph Smith. Even Sidney Rigdon seen it and knows a lot more than most here concerning the history of creation of spirits and the earth.

[Justice]

/agreed

[Snow]

And I can see that you are very adept at not answering questions.

Hold on sport. You asked an irrelevant question that required no response. You asked whether or not it was more likely that a gospel author had met Jesus than the author of Homer. So what. Your original point wasn't whether or not it was more likely. Your point was that since the author was anonymous, it was a fallacy to say that he/she hadn't met Christ. YOUR reasoning was fallacious since it is demonstrable - as in the case of Homer that anonymity means little.

It's ok, I wouldn't want to address the Joseph Smith point either if my argument was laid to waste by it.

Do you even have a clue about what this discussion is about? Whether or not Joseph Smith met Jesus is completely irrelevant as to whether a Gospel author had met Him. Only a joker or lightweight would claim that bringing up JS laid waste to anything. If you have some evidence of Gospel authors meeting Christ, present it.

Prediction: can't and won't.

Much better to pretend that the one I am debating has yet to fulfill their obligation.

YOU made a claim. What is this now? Three times you've avoided supporting your claim. Yes - it is at least three times.

Prediction: Can't and won't.

As for my understanding of what a fallacy is, I guess I can't prove it to you because you seem to think that only you are smart enough to understand big words. I guess I am just to uneducated, and as you always tell people, you don't have the inclination to educate us.

You've done nothing to demonstrate otherwise.

I think the casual reader of this forum would be more inclined to see how stating that BEYOND ANY DOUBT THE ONES WHO PENNED MARK, MATTHEW, GENESIS etc, NEVER MET THE SAVIOR would be an argument based off of faulty logic. But it's ok that you stick to your guns and avoid further debate (quick, tell me that further debate isn't warranted because I "failed" to prove something to you). I hear that's what ALL of the intellectuals are doing these days.

Be honest. No one claimed that it was beyond any doubt. You are deliberately misstating the claim and that's dishonest. I hate dishonesty in discussion about religious issues.

That gospel authors had not met Christ is a widespread scholarly understanding. It may be the consensus opinion among critical Bible scholars. I referred you to a post that demonstrates some of the reasoning re authorship of Mark. I note that rather than refute the points made in the post, which is what a knowledgeable poster who disagrees would do, you simply misstate the claim (above) and resort to rhetoric.

If you have something substantive to contribute, specifically as it applies to your claim, post it. Otherwise don't bother. It's a waste of cyber ink.

[Snow]

I am interesting to see where this number came from? Was this earth formed here? Even the prophet casually pointed out the age when he and Sidney witnessed the creation at the Johnson home.

I've mentioned it before but for a great history of how scientists progressed and finally settled on the theory, read the very entertaining:

Amazon.com: A Short History of Nearly Everything (9780767908177): Bill Bryson: Books

[CTRMann]

I find it interesting that no one has mentioned Peleg in this discussion. In Genesis 10:25 we read, "And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother’s name was Joktan."

Something to ponder, eh? How can the earth be divided if at one point in recorded history it was not one?

Dennis

[Justice]

It was mentioned that it was in reference to government, not land mass.

I don't subscribe to that theory, but just letting you know it was mentioned.

To me, the government became divided when Abel left the land of his father and started his own family.

[Relentless]

Woo Hoo, another nickname! Sport, I kinda like it, makes me sound athletic and full of spunk.

As to your predictions, well, let's address them;

Hold on sport. You asked an irrelevant question that required no response. You asked whether or not it was more likely that a gospel author had met Jesus than the author of Homer. So what. Your original point wasn't whether or not it was more likely. Your point was that since the author was anonymous, it was a fallacy to say that he/she hadn't met Christ. YOUR reasoning was fallacious since it is demonstrable - as in the case of Homer that anonymity means little.

So when you said

The author of The Iliad was anonymous but he can soundly and reasonably conclude that he never met Jesus.... but go ahead, deconstruct the scholarly argument and point out it's faults.

And I refuted it by saying that it makes no sense to asusme that a body of work now attributed to the collective oral storytelling of a people could have met the Savior, but someone who was in the same area around the same time as the Savior could have met Him, yet now it is a moot point not worthy of addressing? Well I am sorry, but I addressed it when you brought it up, but then again, I can't possibly comprehend what makes things "relevant" or irrelevant", now can I?

Do you even have a clue about what this discussion is about? Whether or not Joseph Smith met Jesus is completely irrelevant as to whether a Gospel author had met Him. Only a joker or lightweight would claim that bringing up JS laid waste to anything. If you have some evidence of Gospel authors meeting Christ, present it.

Prediction: can't and won't.

Yes, this discussion is about if the whole world was flooded, or if it was only a localized flood. More recently it was about the authenticity of the lessons / stories in the Bible, because as some have stated

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.

So if it is just a bunch of writings from anonymous writers, then how could we EVER believe it? Isn't that your point?

To which I brought up the book of Moses, something which you STILL haven't addressed, which leads us to why I brough up Joseph Smith.

If you look at the title page of Moses, you will see that it is "An extract from the translation of the Bible as revealed to Joseph Smith the Prophet, June 1830—February 1831", so seeing as how you were doubting the truthfullness of claims that the whole earth was flooded BECASUE

none of which ever met the Savior.

I told you that Joseph Smith wrote (ie put ink on paper) Moses, and he most certainly HAD met the Savior.

YOU made a claim. What is this now? Three times you've avoided supporting your claim. Yes - it is at least three times.

Prediction: Can't and won't.

Which claim have I not supported? I notice you left that little bit out. Hm, seems like you need some cut and paste lessons. As you have already told me, I am good at it, so unlike you, I do have the time and inclination to teach you. So no need for you to go buy a book!

You've done nothing to demonstrate otherwise.

I have done nothing to show you that I understand what a fallacy is? I am sorry, but simply because you do not agreee with me does not mean I lack the understanding. I suppose I could write a paper on the subject for you, but I am kinda busy trying to teach this guy how to cut and paste right now.

Be honest. No one claimed that it was beyond any doubt. You are deliberately misstating the claim and that's dishonest. I hate dishonesty in discussion about religious issues.

That gospel authors had not met Christ is a widespread scholarly understanding. It may be the consensus opinion among critical Bible scholars. I referred you to a post that demonstrates some of the reasoning re authorship of Mark. I note that rather than refute the points made in the post, which is what a knowledgeable poster who disagrees would do, you simply misstate the claim (above) and resort to rhetoric.

If you have something substantive to contribute, specifically as it applies to your claim, post it. Otherwise don't bother. It's a waste of cyber ink.

Maybe you should be honest with yourself, you made a pretty definitive statement when you said

none of which ever met the Savior.

.

I simply challenged your conclusive assumption. So how am I misstating the claim? it seems pretty open and shut to me, you said NONE OF WHICH EVER MET THE SAVIOR and I said that you can't know that.

So because something is a widespread scholarly understanding, it is true? Well thank you for enlightening me yet again. I guess that the Darwinists are indeed correct and evolution is proof that there is no God, because it is widespread SCHOLARLY UNDERSTANDING.

Also, is there a form I have to fill out to get more of this "cyber ink"? You tend to use (some people might say waste) a lot, where do you get yours from? Is there a discount for buying in bulk, because I for one couldn't care less about how much "cyber ink" I use.

[Hemidakota]

It was mentioned that it was in reference to government, not land mass.

I don't subscribe to that theory, but just letting you know it was mentioned.

To me, the government became divided when Abel left the land of his father and started his own family.

Far West area.

Last month, spending much time in searching Noah’s location of building the ark, using past remarks from scriptures, Joseph Smith/other prophets, temple site blessings, articles, books, the key in finding such an answer is dependent of land masses began changing and tilting direction of the poles.

Edited January 5, 2010 by Hemidakota