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

[Justice]

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?

I am saying I am more likely to believe an article in the Ensign (a church publication) from a BYU professor of ancient scripture, than I am most other sources.

[Justice]

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?

I'm suggesting that since you came to a different conclusion that an article published by the church that you *might* at least consider the possibility that your conclusion might be wrong.

[HiJolly]

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.

The professor is certainly entitled to his or her opinion. I differ. An appeal to authority is reasonable, if not logically sound, since none of us is going to claim omniscience. (I hope )

HiJolly

[OneEternalSonata]

Justice, after reading the posts here I'd say it likely was global. An Ensign article is reliable. I should have prayed about this, instead of theorizing. (And so I will.) I know I misunderstand/misinterpret some scriptures, but I'm always open to amending my thoughts when I am wrong.

[Justice]

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.

He just gave you some evidence that the Bible teaches there was a global flood. It's whether or not you choose to believe his presentation. I would think you would at least find it curious, and want to refute his ideas with what you have discovered, item by item, instead of ignoring them.

Abraham 1:

31 But the records of the fathers, even the patriarchs, concerning the right of Priesthood, the Lord my God preserved in mine own hands; therefore a knowledge of the beginning of the creation, and also of the planets, and of the stars, as they were made known unto the fathers, have I kept even unto this day, and I shall endeavor to write some of these things upon this record, for the benefit of my posterity that shall come after me.

There is ample evidence, like this, to show that man has been revealed the workings of "worlds" like what was made known to Abraham and "the fathers." Since Abraham was born approximately 2000 BC, his "fathers" (plural) would possibly reach back to 2500 BC. I'm guessing Adam is included in his term "fathers," but if you want to believe he intended on reaching back only to 2200 - 2300 BC, and not 2500 BC, that is your prerogative.

[Justice]

Thank you, HiJolly and OES, that is all we can expect to do. I'm not here to convince or convert anyone to any idea or theory. My goal is to provide evidence and discussion, and hopefully we live in a way the Spirit will guide us. It can't happen if we're not open minded.

I, too, had not decided one way or the other. However, I do see strong evidence in favor of a global flood, and as I thought about the purpose of the story and what it was trying to teach, and removed my focus off of the event itself, I was able to see that understanding the true nature and teaching of the story depends on the flood being global. As I prayed, this idea was sweet.

So, now I present what I learned as evidence for others to do with what they choose.

Edited December 16, 2009 by Justice

[deseretgov]

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.

This is like saying, that because the ancient europeans did not know about the Americas then the Americas didn't exist.

The occurence of an event is not influenced by the knowledge of a person about that event.

If a tree falls in the forest and nobody knows about it does it really fall?

[Snow]

Justice, after reading the posts here I'd say it likely was global. An Ensign article is reliable. I should have prayed about this, instead of theorizing. (And so I will.) I know I misunderstand/misinterpret some scriptures, but I'm always open to amending my thoughts when I am wrong.

Well - it's "reliable" evidence that the person writing the article thinks there was a global flood and that his opinion didn't give the publishers to much heartburn.

It is not, however, evidence that there was really was a global flood.

[Justice]

Well - it's "reliable" evidence that the person writing the article thinks there was a global flood and that his opinion didn't give the publishers to much heartburn.

It is not, however, evidence that there was really was a global flood.

"The publishers" just happen to be "the Church."

Is your problem with his evidence that it is from the scriptures? Are you looking for evidence outside the scriptures?

I'm rather amazed that you don't view his article as evidence of a global flood, seeing he is a professor at BYU and the article was published in the Ensign, and it is located on the Church web site.

It's not that his words are confusing or hard to interpret.

My question to you, Snow, is what would "the other side" have to produce in order for you to view it as evidence? I'm not speaking about proof, mind you, but evidence. If the article were written by a Harvard proffessor and it was in a thesus or the National Geographic make a difference?

Snow, this IS evidence of a global flood. It may not agree with your opinion; it may be hard for you to accept because it may cause you to have to re-think a great many of your beliefs about what in the scriptures might be actual events. I really don't know how or why you can reject it as evidence, but that doesn't mean it's not. It's rather silly to stare at something and say it's not what it is.

There were other articles on the Church web site that discussed the flood, and of the 30 or so articles I went through, not a single one expressed the opinion of a localized flood. I'm still looking.

[Hemidakota]

Here is evidence that it included America (either North or North and South, depending how you want to see it):

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;

I believe your interpretation of the scripture you posted is correct. I believe there was one land mass before the flood.

We will come to know that nothing is impossible for the Lord. As there was no high mountians as we see today versus before Noah's day.

What to watch is what the Lord spoke to Joseph Smith concerning the past earth during the days of Adam and Noah. Then as you alluded too, Ether reading of the Jared's records. Even the earth magnetic poles are not as it was in the days of Adam. All of this will need to be return to its natural state as Adam and Eve walked in the garden.

It is amazing how we think that what we see is a static model of today is the same as yesterday...that is not the case.

Edited December 17, 2009 by Hemidakota

[Vort]

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.

This is like saying, that because the ancient europeans did not know about the Americas then the Americas didn't exist.

The occurence of an event is not influenced by the knowledge of a person about that event.

Obviously, you are completely missing the point. You and others are arguing that we should believe a in global flood because the Biblical record describes the flood as global. I am pointing out that this is utter nonsense.

If a tree falls in the forest and nobody knows about it does it really fall?

Uh...yes?

[HiJolly]

Ok, I'm not Snow but I can't resist.

"The publishers" just happen to be "the Church."

And....? What assumptions do you have concerning what the Church publishes?

Is your problem with his evidence that it is from the scriptures? Are you looking for evidence outside the scriptures?

Scriptural evidence for the nature of God and the details of the Gospel of Jesus Christ makes sense. Scriptural evidence for how the earth was created, or how the physical development of the earth has progressed, well, not so much. The scriptures make no such claim, as far as I know.

Some years ago I decided that my speaking out on my views concerning this issue (historicity of the Global Flood) was not a good idea, and could actually cause believers to lose faith in the Gospel. I have slipped from that stance here on this board in a couple of threads, and now I regret it.

I yield the thread back to Justice.

HiJolly

[Justice]

I am pointing out that this is utter nonsense.

It should be very easy for you to show us the text in the Bible, or evidence from a reliable source, that clearly shows how you believe it's utter nonsense. I mean, if you say you disagree, then you just disagree. But, utter nonsense? That'll be a neat trick, when, in fact, you're working against the wording in the Bible.

[Justice]

And....? What assumptions do you have concerning what the Church publishes?

Of course my answer is obvious... Earlier in this thread, or maybe in a different one, I said that if the Church publishes the information, or maintains it on it's web site, it should at least be considered evidence. My assumption concerning what the Church publishes or maintains on it's web site is that if there were a serious error it would get addressed. I don't even have a coment for a member finding something on the Church web site or in the Ensign "utter nonsense."

Some years ago I decided that my speaking out on my views concerning this issue (historicity of the Global Flood) was not a good idea, and could actually cause believers to lose faith in the Gospel. I have slipped from that stance here on this board in a couple of threads, and now I regret it.

I'm not against thought. I believe science can help us determine the past. But, I also believe that Gospel related teachings will never be proven by science. That is not the intent. God could have proven them all if He chose to do so.

When the pursuit of science causes us to disbelieve the scriptures, then we have taken man's knowledge too seriously.

Again, the story of the flood is not about whether or not the water covered the entire earth, but that God destroyed all life on earth because of wickedness, and will destroy all wickedness off the earth when the people have become ripe for destruction. Also, the hope is that he will save one man, or family, among the entire earth who keeps His commandments.

The idea that the flood was localized can't deliver the seriousness of that message... not like a global flood can. So, you just have to ask yourself is God capable of creating a global flood, and is He capable of saving one man or family from that flood. If you answer no, then you've missed the entire point of the story, and of the scriptures in general. If your answer is yes, then why the discussion about whether or not it was global? And, why the seeming contempt (not you, but others) toward those who choose to believe it was global if you believe it was possible?

[Vanhin]

Of course my answer is obvious... Earlier in this thread, or maybe in a different one, I said that if the Church publishes the information, or maintains it on it's web site, it should at least be considered evidence. My assumption concerning what the Church publishes or maintains on it's web site is that if there were a serious error it would get addressed. I don't even have a coment for a member finding something on the Church web site or in the Ensign "utter nonsense."

I'm not against thought. I believe science can help us determine the past. But, I also believe that Gospel related teachings will never be proven by science. That is not the intent. God could have proven them all if He chose to do so.

When the pursuit of science causes us to disbelieve the scriptures, then we have taken man's knowledge too seriously.

Again, the story of the flood is not about whether or not the water covered the entire earth, but that God destroyed all life on earth because of wickedness, and will destroy all wickedness off the earth when the people have become ripe for destruction. Also, the hope is that he will save one man, or family, among the entire earth who keeps His commandments.

The idea that the flood was localized can't deliver the seriousness of that message... not like a global flood can. So, you just have to ask yourself is God capable of creating a global flood, and is He capable of saving one man or family from that flood. If you answer no, then you've missed the entire point of the story, and of the scriptures in general. If your answer is yes, then why the discussion about whether or not it was global? And, why the seeming contempt (not you, but others) toward those who choose to believe it was global if you believe it was possible?

Yep, and a local flood can't satisfy the doctrine that it was a "baptism" of the Earth, as current Church publications claim. I think full immersion makes sense from that standpoint.

Regards,

Vanhin

[HiJolly]

Yep, and a local flood can't satisfy the doctrine that it was a "baptism" of the Earth, as current Church publications claim. I think full immersion makes sense from that standpoint.

Regards,

Vanhin

Current Church publications claim that the Global Flood as a "baptism" is doctrine of the Church? Is that outright, or implied?

I'd love a link. Thanks.

HiJolly

[Vanhin]

Current Church publications claim that the Global Flood as a "baptism" is doctrine of the Church? Is that outright, or implied?

I'd love a link. Thanks.

HiJolly

No problem. This is an actual Church publication, and not just a single writer's opinion. I am aware that this study help is not itself "scripture", but I admit it as evidence that this doctrine is found in current Church publications.

GUIDE TO THE SCRIPTURES

FLOOD AT NOAH’S TIME

See also Ark; Noah, Bible Patriarch; Rainbow

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

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

See Guide to the Scriptures: Flood At Noah’s Time.

Regards,

Vanhin

[Vanhin]

Also I would submit the Old Testament Institute manual page 55.

http://institute.lds.org/content/languages/english/Institute%20of%20Religion%20Materials/Student%20Manuals/Religion%20301,%20Old%20Testament%20Student%20Manual%20Genesis-2%20Samuel~eng.pdf

Regards,

Vanhin

[Vanhin]

And of course, the scriptures themselves. This particular verse stands out to me.

And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. (Gen. 7:19)

Regards,

Vanhin

[Vanhin]

And I would submit the fact that at the Second Coming of Christ, the earth will be "cleansed" by fire, before receiving it's paradisaical glory, as this collection of scriptures indicate (which include references to the flood as well): Topical Guide: Earth, Cleansing of

Regards,

Vanhin

[HiJolly]

Of course my answer is obvious... Earlier in this thread, or maybe in a different one, I said that if the Church publishes the information, or maintains it on it's web site, it should at least be considered evidence. My assumption concerning what the Church publishes or maintains on it's web site is that if there were a serious error it would get addressed.

Evidence for what? It easy enough to go with "the truth". Life is sometimes a bit more complicated than that, though.

Whom we choose to deliver truth to us is a 'sticky wicket'. Authority is ok for a while, but eventually it has to be different. The temple teaches us who to trust, to depend on for truth, and it's not Church publications, or even the Brethren.

They are a great place to start - they get one on the road - but they are not the source of truth. The Church teaches that the only source is God, or his personal 'messengers'. Think of the endowment. Ultimately, one cannot depend on authority figures for 'truth'.

The Hindus teach that their most ascended Masters no longer have any need for scriptures. This seems outlandish, but look at the example of Joseph Smith. He never said this, but look at what he did. When one becomes an oracle by being One with God in Mind (see the Lectures on Faith), then one *produces* scripture. Just as Joseph did.

He took the Bible, the BoM, the D&C, the authoritative scripture of the day, and revised them over and over. He altered declared doctrine at will. And it's OK! God endorsed that. Joseph was merely attempting to communicate God's will more clearly. He could continue for 40 years and still need further attempts, for the divine truths don't lend themselves easily to english, or french, or whatever language, simply because they are more divine than language.

We don't live up to our priveleges, when we fail to see ourselves as being capable of doing this. God wants us to. Joseph said all the Saints should be prophets. We risk being though of as 'whack jobs' even within our own Church by doing so. Joseph taught that we must be willing to sacrifice ALL THINGS if we are to become what we *can* become. It *is* scary.

Some people get too disconnected to reality in this process, and go over the 'deep end'. It is a risk. Yet That's how people viewed Jesus and Joseph and the story goes on & on. Covenants help root us in a stable foundation. Well. I've gone on too much. Try to see!!

I'm not against thought. I believe science can help us determine the past. But, I also believe that Gospel related teachings will never be proven by science. That is not the intent. God could have proven them all if He chose to do so.

Agreed, except that bit about restricting the value of science to the past.

When the pursuit of science causes us to disbelieve the scriptures, then we have taken man's knowledge too seriously.

That's where I'm choosing to not engage. I'm not saying you're right, and I'm not saying you are wrong. Every person should study the science, study the scriptures, ponder, commune with God, then make their own call.

Again, the story of the flood is not about whether or not the water covered the entire earth, but that God destroyed all life on earth because of wickedness, and will destroy all wickedness off the earth when the people have become ripe for destruction. Also, the hope is that he will save one man, or family, among the entire earth who keeps His commandments.

I don't think that's the message. I like the way I said it, a few days ago.

The idea that the flood was localized can't deliver the seriousness of that message... not like a global flood can.

I agree.

So, you just have to ask yourself is God capable of creating a global flood, and is He capable of saving one man or family from that flood.

I don't think that's the right question.

If you answer no, then you've missed the entire point of the story, and of the scriptures in general. If your answer is yes, then why the discussion about whether or not it was global? And, why the seeming contempt (not you, but others) toward those who choose to believe it was global if you believe it was possible?

Again, I think you've missed the view, or understanding, that people like myself have.

Believe, and seek always for truth. I think you are doing so, and therefore I'm not disturbed in the least by our discussion. The trap that I see is when we are not driven to continue seeking truth, because we think we've got enough, or that we have all that we'll ever need.

I don't think you're in that boat. :)

HiJolly

[HiJolly]

No problem. This is an actual Church publication, and not just a single writer's opinion. I am aware that this study help is not itself "scripture", but I admit it as evidence that this doctrine is found in current Church publications.

GUIDE TO THE SCRIPTURES

FLOOD AT NOAH’S TIME

See also Ark; Noah, Bible Patriarch; Rainbow

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

Ok. Doctrine is declared in the Four Standard works, and in the declarations and proclamations of the First Presidency, and in the Articles of Faith. See the Church's web site.

Church publications explain and teach from these sources, but are not sources of doctrine, themselves.

Therefore, discussions, explanations and teachings of the baptism of the earth are not doctrinal.

HiJolly

[Vanhin]

Ok. Doctrine is declared in the Four Standard works, and in the declarations and proclamations of the First Presidency, and in the Articles of Faith. See the Church's web site.

Church publications explain and teach from these sources, but are not sources of doctrine, themselves.

Therefore, discussions, explanations and teachings of the baptism of the earth are not doctrinal.

HiJolly

Okay but I did link you some Church publications as you asked. The above one is especially good, because it concurs with the doctrine that is actually established in the scriptures provided as taught by Peter.

Regards,

Vanhin

[Justice]

I don't think that's the message. I like the way I said it, a few days ago.

Maybe it's not the whole message, or perhaps there are even multiple mesages. But, certainly, part of the message is that God will save man from utter and global destruction if He follows His commandments. I think it's a great lesson for us in our day.

Another possible reason why it wasn't dealt with in scripture in a more specific way, is that the story of a global flood could have been passed down for many, many generations after, so there probably wasn't a need to present evidence that it was global. It was just understood. It wasn't until later in the history of man where people began to postulate other ideas. But, the word is written as it is and the truth is there to be discerned, even if not as specific as some would like.

[HiJolly]

Okay but I did link you some Church publications as you asked. The above one is especially good, because it concurs with the doctrine that is actually established in the scriptures provided as taught by Peter.

Regards,

Vanhin

Yes, and thank you, Vanhin. My point is that Peter doesn't say anything about the earth being baptised.

HiJolly