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

[Justice]

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.

Oh well... we've come this far... I have to re-state my question since you did not answer it.

So, you believe there was a local flood that "destroyed all flesh" in that area, but believe the babies were preserve from the local flood? Or, do you believe "destroyed all flesh" really meant something else in your local flood?

For some reason you think I'm trying to be difficult. I really am just asking questions, but I admit it's getting old asking questions and not getting answers. I'm trying to give you an opportunity to present your side, and perhaps where you get the evidence that you believe what you believe. I don't necessarily need further evidence other than the Bible, but you say evidence is needed, so I'd like to see yours.

You present as evidence of your belief that, "Genesis isn't teaching a global flood, but a local one. The people of the day didn't understand enough about the earth to even know what "global" meant." (Maybe that was Vort)

Then, also as evidence you say, "Genesis isn't reliable as evidence since God Himself didn't write it."

That's what I walk away with from this discussion, and that's a shame, because I really just wanted to understand why you believe the way you do. If these 2 statements are accurate, then fine... to me they seem to contradict somewhat, and present very little real evidence. Also, entering into the problem is that now we can't rely on the Bible as evidence because man wrote it and therefore can't take it literally. If we can't take it literally then we need to know which stories we can, if any, and which ones we can't.

Correct my misunderstandings of the conversation.

[Relentless]

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 interested to find out how you KNOW how old the earth is? Aren't our current beliefs only a guess? albeit an educated one? As for the one land mass vs multiple land masses, this is not discussed in the scriptures, so I don't know why the "pro global flood" side makes this argument.

This is perhaps the most frustrating thing for me in religion - the absence of critical thinking.

People create ideas for no good reason and then believe those ideas when the ideas are void of critical thought... and in this case if one asks, okay - how did it happen, the "answer" comes... magic. It all happened by magic.

It contradicts a primary tenet of the gospel, negating what we understand to be the importance or intelligence, light and knowledge.

So you are saying the Priesthood is magic? How was Enos able to move mountains by simply telling them to move, or change the course of a river using only his verbal command as described in Moses 7:13?

13 And so great was the faith of Enoch that he led the people of God, and their enemies came to battle against them; and he spake the word of the Lord, and the earth trembled, and the mountains fled, even according to his command; and the rivers of water were turned out of their course; and the roar of the lions was heard out of the wilderness; and all nations feared greatly, so powerful was the word of Enoch, and so great was the power of the language which God had given him.

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

But what if it isn't the "pro global flood" side that has the wrong idea in their head? Why are you so sure that your deductive reasoning and critical thinking has led you to the right conclusion?

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

I am sorry, but to compare these things to the teachings in the scriptures and from the church is downright ludacris. The scriptures do not say to kill America, nor do they preach the extermination of the Jews. Your argument here is unfounded.

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.

So I am curious to know what your belief about the scriptures are? I believe that it is the word of God, delivered to us through chosen people. I do not think that it is merely the ideas of men, as you seem to be indicating (maybe I am reaching here, but how else could you say that God tells us nothing, and that all we have is what men say on the matter?)

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.

I am sorry Vort, but how is the idea that the Bible saying the WHOLE EARTH (ie the globe) was flooded "something that is not in its correct historical or chronological time"? As for the knowledge of the Hebrews, I can not debate this point because I also know of no record stating they knew or didn't know. What I do have is the teachings that Abraham at least knew, as did his fathers;

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.

So it seems that those who spoke with our Heavenly Father and/or Jesus KNEW that the earth was round, and that there are more planets than this one. So using my deductive reasoning, I can theorize that whoever wrote ACCEPTED scripture also knew these things.

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.

How is this utter nonsense? Is it any more nonsensical to believe that Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego were thrown into a fire and did not burn? That the furnace they were thrown into was so hot, it killed the ones who put them in, yet they escaped unscathed?

The scriptures are full of stories that science can not explain, nor can we understand using "deductive reasoning and critical thinking". To me, that is kind of the point, that we do not fully KNOW everything, and therefore have to accept things on faith.

It's anachronistic. That's the point. The Bible can no more say that the Flood was "global" than Newton's Principia Mathematica can teach about relativistic gravitation.

Amazing, you seem to ignore the fact that the Bible covers the creation. What, when the Earth was created, it was flat?

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.

That is: The Biblical record does not describe a flood as being global because the Biblical record cannot describe a flood as being global. That does not directly argue about the global nature of the flood; rather, it argues about the mindset of those who wrote the account.

How did you come to this conclusion? Who are YOU to say it CANNOT describe the flood as being global? I am interested to know why you get to determine the "mindset" of those who wrote the old testament? It has already been shown that some people KNEW about PLANETS. Are we to believe that these planets are actually floating discs, as opposed to globes? What of Enoch, who saw our day? (Enoch teaches, leads the people, moves mountains—The City of Zion is established—Enoch foresees the coming of the Son of Man, his atoning sacrifice, and the resurrection of the saints—He foresees the restoration, the gathering, the Second Coming, and the return of Zion. Chapter heading for Moses 7)

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.

If I might point out one fallacy; If the authors are anonymous, how can we know if they ever met the Savior?

Onto my other points;

We all know the story of the City of Enoch. It was "received into the bossom" of God. There is no historical or scientific evidence that this happened, yet I don't think that Snow or Vort would argue it happened (I could be wrong, as I am often wrong when I try to think what Vort thinks).

As to Heavenly Father "killing babies" and other innocents, let's look at 3 Nephi real quick;

3 Nephi 8:8-16

8 And the city of Zarahemla did take fire.

9 And the city of Moroni did sink into the depths of the sea, and the inhabitants thereof were drowned.

10 And the earth was carried up upon the city of Moronihah, that in the place of the city there became a great mountain.

11 And there was a great and terrible destruction in the land southward.

12 But behold, there was a more great and terrible destruction in the land northward; for behold, the whole face of the land was changed, because of the tempest and the whirlwinds, and the thunderings and the lightnings, and the exceedingly great quaking of the whole earth;

13 And the highways were broken up, and the level roads were spoiled, and many smooth places became rough.

14 And many great and notable cities were sunk, and many were burned, and many were shaken till the buildings thereof had fallen to the earth, and the inhabitants thereof were slain, and the places were left desolate.

15 And there were some cities which remained; but the damage thereof was exceedingly great, and there were many in them who were slain.

16 And there were some who were carried away in the awhirlwind; and whither they went no man knoweth, save they know that they were carried away.

3 Nephi 10:12-13

12 And it was the more righteous part of the people who were saved, and it was they who received the prophets and stoned them not; and it was they who had not shed the blood of the saints, who were spared—

13 And they were spared and were not sunk and buried up in the earth; and they were not drowned in the depths of the sea; and they were not burned by fire, neither were they fallen upon and crushed to death; and they were not carried away in the whirlwind; neither were they overpowered by the vapor of smoke and of darkness.

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???

It would seem so.

[HiJolly]

I think it's all very interesting.

I don't believe there was a literal global flood within the past, say, 100,000 years; I don't believe mankind was produced, created or formed in a manner different from all the animals; I don't believe that God ever wrote scripture Himself (exept maybe the 10 commandments), including Jesus; I believe in scripture as truth and divine and inspired but don't believe they are perfect or infallible or even correct when it comes to scientific or physical facts; I don't believe Adam lived 6,000 years ago, but rather, probably 25,000 years ago;

I *do* believe in miracles; I believe in atonement/redemption/forgiveness; I believe God lives and loves us and *does* interfere in our lives continually; I love the scriptures and believe they are the key to understanding God and His dealings with man; I believe that the Church, while not perfect, is the Kingdom of God on earth; I believe that Joseph Smith was a great, good man with real, human flaws; I believe that membership in the Church is critical to becoming more like Christ; I believe that God will save all who come unto Him in humility and with a broken heart.

Some of the above where I say I "believe", I actually do *know*. :)

I think the topics covered in the second paragraph above are what REALLY matter.

HiJolly

Edited December 22, 2009 by HiJolly
clarifying

[Relentless]

But without the details, what would we have to debate?

[Snow]

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?

Justice,

Did you read the link I gave you? Here's another that might make it clearer for you:

Flood Story: Side by Side

There are two flood accounts (and two creation accounts) found in the Bible - there is the P (Priestly) account and the J(Yahwist... J for Jehovah) account. The Priestly accounts reports that of all the birds, beasts and creeping things, "two of each" are to be taken on the ark. The Yahwist accounts reports it differently saying that it is to be 2 of every unclean animal (1 pair) and 14 (7 pairs) of every clean animal.

It isn't a Henry Neufeld theory. It is called the Documentary Hypothesis and is the generally, almost unanimously accepted by Pentateuch scholars - at least non-fundamentalist scholars. It is now understood that the Pentateuch was written by at least 4 separate authors over different periods and later woven together by R, the redactor. Scholars may quibble over the details but the theory is widely accepted.

[Snow]

Oh well... we've come this far... I have to re-state my question since you did not answer it.

So, you believe there was a local flood that "destroyed all flesh" in that area, but believe the babies were preserve from the local flood? Or, do you believe "destroyed all flesh" really meant something else in your local flood?

For some reason you think I'm trying to be difficult. I really am just asking questions, but I admit it's getting old asking questions and not getting answers. I'm trying to give you an opportunity to present your side, and perhaps where you get the evidence that you believe what you believe. I don't necessarily need further evidence other than the Bible, but you say evidence is needed, so I'd like to see yours.

I cannot tell if you are sincere Justice because your questions do not make sense to me. I dispute that there was a flood such as described in the Bible. I do not argue that there was a local flood though I think there is likely good evidence that there were one or more ancient significant local floods. Whether there were or weren't is not important to me. Since I do not argue that there were such floods, I don't try and explain what happened to "all flesh." I don't think that "all flesh" was destroyed but acknowledge that to the extent that there are floods, often people and animals are killed as a result.

You present as evidence of your belief that, "Genesis isn't teaching a global flood, but a local one. The people of the day didn't understand enough about the earth to even know what "global" meant." (Maybe that was Vort)

That wasn't me but if he said it, he probably has a point. The authors of the Torah had no understanding of what constituted the entire earth and wouldn't know what was happening outside their known world.

You know perfectly well I didn't say that. You may not catch the nuance in what I say but I generally try to be deliberate in what I write and I didn't say that. The Bible, as a body of religious writings, is not what we today would consider historical writing and cannot be relied upon as such. For example, Daniel purports to have been written in the 6th century BCE during the reigns of Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar - but it wasn't really. Modern critical scholars are unanimous that it was written during the 2nd century.

Genesis isn't reliable because God didn't write it, (although one would assume that it would be more accurate if He did). It isn't reliable because the different authors that wrote it were motivated by primarily by religious reasons rather than an adherence to historical accuracy, and their accounts were derived from oral traditions about events that had happened as much as thousands of years earlier.

How accurate would our understanding of Classical Age of Greece be if we had no written records between then and now, only oral traditions? And that was only 2300 years ago. Think about the Archaic era only hundreds of years earlier and how little (nothing) would we know if there were no written accounts between then and now.

That's what I walk away with from this discussion, and that's a shame, because I really just wanted to understand why you believe the way you do. If these 2 statements are accurate, then fine... to me they seem to contradict somewhat, and present very little real evidence. Also, entering into the problem is that now we can't rely on the Bible as evidence because man wrote it and therefore can't take it literally. If we can't take it literally then we need to know which stories we can, if any, and which ones we can't.

Correct my misunderstandings of the conversation.

You would have a better understanding of what I believe if you would focus on what I actually say instead of twisting my positions.

[bytor2112]

So, why not just scrap ALL bogus scriptures that show God to be unmerciful and unjust? If (and I believe it is) HIS work and glory to bring to pass the immortality and Eternal Life of man.....why not, when restoring the Gospel.....clarify or do away with? Surely, God knew that this would be a source of confusion and misunderstanding...I.E., posts like these.

Edited December 23, 2009 by bytor2112

[Snow]

I am interested to find out how you KNOW how old the earth is? Aren't our current beliefs only a guess? albeit an educated one? As for the one land mass vs multiple land masses, this is not discussed in the scriptures, so I don't know why the "pro global flood" side makes this argument.

I don't "know." I accept the unanimous critical scholarly theory. If you don't know how scientists arrive that the age, there is an entertaining lay persons treatment of the subject in this book:

A Short History of Nearly Everything.

So you are saying the Priesthood is magic?

Yes. Magic: "Of, relating to, or invoking the supernatural" (American Heritage)

How was Enos able to move mountains by simply telling them to move, or change the course of a river using only his verbal command as described in Moses 7:13?

If it happened, it happened by invoking the supernatural.

But what if it isn't the "pro global flood" side that has the wrong idea in their head? Why are you so sure that your deductive reasoning and critical thinking has led you to the right conclusion?

Some understanding of history and science is required. I've neither the time or inclination to teach you. There are plenty of resources available to those that wish to be educated.

I am sorry, but to compare these things to the teachings in the scriptures and from the church is downright ludacris. The scriptures do not say to kill America, nor do they preach the extermination of the Jews. Your argument here is unfounded.

You are missing the point. The posters implied defense of the flood, as described by the Bible, was that is must be true since there is no proof to the contrary - as if no contrary proof is a legitimate argument, which is not, hence my reply. Besides which, the poster was wrong. The laws of nature are proof against the flood as described in the Bible.

So I am curious to know what your belief about the scriptures are? I believe that it is the word of God, delivered to us through chosen people. I do not think that it is merely the ideas of men, as you seem to be indicating (maybe I am reaching here, but how else could you say that God tells us nothing, and that all we have is what men say on the matter?)

I believe that the OT is the story of God's relationship with man, told from the man's point of view.

If I might point out one fallacy; If the authors are anonymous, how can we know if they ever met the Savior?

That's not a fallacy. That YOU not knowing how scholars figure these things out.

Telling you how we know such things is beyond the scope of this thread but it a widely held understanding. I occasionally post of such things, for example:

http://www.lds.net/forums/lds-gospel-discussion/27324-who-wrote-mark-hint-not-mark.html

Onto my other points;

We all know the story of the City of Enoch. It was "received into the bossom" of God. There is no historical or scientific evidence that this happened, yet I don't think that Snow or Vort would argue it happened (I could be wrong, as I am often wrong when I try to think what Vort thinks).

It is not a matter that concerns me at present. It belongs to the body of literature called religious writings and its historicity is neither not currently discoverable through the normal means. The flood story is a different matter.

As to Heavenly Father "killing babies" and other innocents, let's look at 3 Nephi real quick;

It would seem so.

You mean that it seems to you that God kills babies and other innocents (on account of other people's guilt. But it doesn't seem so to me. I believe in a benevolent and just God.

[Hemidakota]

Oh well... we've come this far... I have to re-state my question since you did not answer it.

So, you believe there was a local flood that "destroyed all flesh" in that area, but believe the babies were preserve from the local flood? Or, do you believe "destroyed all flesh" really meant something else in your local flood?

Being a local flood, that is the longest voyage ever...150-plus days later. By crossing the Atlantic if those believe it was there at the time, would stopped in Spain or Northern Africa instead.

[Relentless]

That's not a fallacy. That YOU not knowing how scholars figure these things out..

I know that Mark didn't write Mark. I also know that if it was written by an "anonymous" person, then we can't know if they met the Savior or not. Thus rendering your statement;

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.

a fallacy (1. a deceptive, misleading, or false notion, belief, etc 2. a misleading or unsound argument.) Since you do not know who wrote Genesis, Matthew or Mark, you CANNOT know if they met the Savior. You CAN make the statement "I do not believe they met the Savior", but stating "none of which ever met the Savior" is indeed a fallacy.

You mean that it seems to you that God kills babies and other innocents (on account of other people's guilt. But it doesn't seem so to me. I believe in a benevolent and just God.

It doesn't seem that way to me. It seems that way according to the Book of Mormon, in particular the examples I gave in 3rd Nephi. Joseph Smith placed a pretty high value on the teachings of the Book of Mormon, maybe you are familular with the quote "I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book" The MOST CORRECT of ANY BOOK on EARTH". Seems pretty much like an open and shut case. Heavenly Father wiped out whole cities. Now, maybe there were no babies, or ther innocent people in those cities, but logically that wouldn't make sense, so then we are left with the conclusion that yes, Heavenly Father does sometimes allow innocent lives to be taken because he needs to punish the wicked.

[Hemidakota]

Matthew was an Apostle of the Savior and was selected by Him personally. Interesting Snow, you of all should know that.

[Justice]

I cannot tell if you are sincere Justice because your questions do not make sense to me. I dispute that there was a flood such as described in the Bible. I do not argue that there was a local flood though I think there is likely good evidence that there were one or more ancient significant local floods. Whether there were or weren't is not important to me. Since I do not argue that there were such floods, I don't try and explain what happened to "all flesh." I don't think that "all flesh" was destroyed but acknowledge that to the extent that there are floods, often people and animals are killed as a result.

This is what I thought you were saying, and what I was looking for you to say specifically so I could be sure.

I'm confused how you can believe God caused a flood and people died as a result of the flood, but it presents a different moral situation whether or not the flood was global or local.

You say you do not believe "all flesh" was destroyed, but you say often people and animals are killed in floods. So, you believe just some were destroyed? Again, how would that change the moral implications?

Or, do you believe no one died in the flood? Wouldn't that make bulding an ark for safety pointless if people would survive the flood? Did God flood a land where no one was living?

I'll drop everything else and just wait to hear why you believe it is different.

[Relentless]

I'll drop everything else and just wait to hear why you believe it is different.

For some reason I can't use the laugh out loud button on this. But it is funny!

[Justice]

I didn't mean it to be funny. I'm just trying to understand. And, I think this particular point gets to the heart of the matter.

[Dravin]

It doesn't seem that way to me. It seems that way according to the Book of Mormon, in particular the examples I gave in 3rd Nephi. Joseph Smith placed a pretty high value on the teachings of the Book of Mormon, maybe you are familular with the quote "I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book" The MOST CORRECT of ANY BOOK on EARTH". Seems pretty much like an open and shut case. Heavenly Father wiped out whole cities. Now, maybe there were no babies, or ther innocent people in those cities, but logically that wouldn't make sense, so then we are left with the conclusion that yes, Heavenly Father does sometimes allow innocent lives to be taken because he needs to punish the wicked.

Ah. That brings back memories. I remember that particular argument being one of my first interactions with him (IIRC) way back in the day when I first joined.

[Snow]

So, why not just scrap ALL bogus scriptures that show God to be unmerciful and unjust? If (and I believe it is) HIS work and glory to bring to pass the immortality and Eternal Life of man.....why not, when restoring the Gospel.....clarify or do away with? Surely, God knew that this would be a source of confusion and misunderstanding...I.E., posts like these.

Certainly that's a good option. When an account depicts God in a way that contradicts the gospel. there are 3 choices:

1. View the account as imperfect or wrong.

2. View God as not existing within the framework of the Gospel.

3. Say that it's a big ole mystery and that we just ain't smart enough to get it.

Generally, I say that options 2 and 3 are unsatisfactory choices but the fundamentalist mind usually opts for 3.

As for why God doesn't clear up the confusion - he has never publicly said that he agrees with the canon to begin with. Why would you expect him to opine about it now?

[Snow]

This is what I thought you were saying, and what I was looking for you to say specifically so I could be sure.

I'm confused how you can believe God caused a flood and people died as a result of the flood, but it presents a different moral situation whether or not the flood was global or local.

You say you do not believe "all flesh" was destroyed, but you say often people and animals are killed in floods. So, you believe just some were destroyed? Again, how would that change the moral implications?

Or, do you believe no one died in the flood? Wouldn't that make bulding an ark for safety pointless if people would survive the flood? Did God flood a land where no one was living?

I'll drop everything else and just wait to hear why you believe it is different.

This is beyond absurd. I am really tired of this nonsense. You know perfectly well I don't believe that God caused a flood that killed people or that there was a flood as described in the Bible. I asked you before to not twist my words. I will not respond to you on this topic any longer.

Edited December 24, 2009 by Snow

[Snow]

I know that Mark didn't write Mark. I also know that if it was written by an "anonymous" person, then we can't know if they met the Savior or not. Thus rendering your statement;

a fallacy (1. a deceptive, misleading, or false notion, belief, etc 2. a misleading or unsound argument.) Since you do not know who wrote Genesis, Matthew or Mark, you CANNOT know if they met the Savior. You CAN make the statement "I do not believe they met the Savior", but stating "none of which ever met the Savior" is indeed a fallacy.

I don't think you know what a fallacy is. You don't know how scholars figure these things out but that doesn't make it a fallacy.

Or, if you persist, please demonstrate in what ways scholars conclusions are unsound and deceptive. Saying that since the actual author is anonymous and therefore we can't know if they met Jesus of not is a hardly a sound argument. 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.

It doesn't seem that way to me. It seems that way according to the Book of Mormon, in particular the examples I gave in 3rd Nephi. Joseph Smith placed a pretty high value on the teachings of the Book of Mormon, maybe you are familular with the quote "I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book" The MOST CORRECT of ANY BOOK on EARTH". Seems pretty much like an open and shut case. Heavenly Father wiped out whole cities. Now, maybe there were no babies, or ther innocent people in those cities, but logically that wouldn't make sense, so then we are left with the conclusion that yes, Heavenly Father does sometimes allow innocent lives to be taken because he needs to punish the wicked.

Oh really. You want me to assume, along with you, that when Joseph said "most correct" he meant - the most historically accurate?

There are other ways that something can be correct without being the most historically accurate. How about the most correct in teaching of salvation through Christ?

[Justice]

I cannot tell if you are sincere Justice because your questions do not make sense to me.

I asked you before to not twist my words.

Perhaps it looks like I'm twisting your words because I don't understand them yet?

I dispute that there was a flood such as described in the Bible.

I get that part.

I do not argue that there was a local flood though I think there is likely good evidence that there were one or more ancient significant local floods. Whether there were or weren't is not important to me. Since I do not argue that there were such floods, I don't try and explain what happened to "all flesh." I don't think that "all flesh" was destroyed but acknowledge that to the extent that there are floods, often people and animals are killed as a result.

I'm trying to wrap my brain around this. I don't understand what you mean.

Do you mean God did not have Noah build an ark at all, and God did not cause it to rain at all, and any floods that happened were a coincidence with any stories in the Bible, and that if anyone died it was not a result of a flood caused by God?

See, I thought you said "there was a local flood," and I assumed you were saying that God did not cause a global flood but a local one. That's why I asked about the moral difference between a global flood killing people verses a local flood killing people. But, if you don't think God caused even a local flood, then I don't know why you didn't just say "I don't believe God caused a flood at all." That would have made this coversation a lot shorter.

You know perfectly well I don't believe that God caused a flood that killed people or that there was a flood as described in the Bible.

Nope, I did not know that perfectly well. I thought you were saying God did not cause a global flood, just a local one. If you already said "I don't believe God caused a flood at all, global or local" somewhere in these discussions, then I missed it and I apologize.

I will not respond to you on this topic any longer.

Well, that's fine... because if you don't believe God caused a flood at all, I don't know why we're even discussing why the flood was global or local.

[Relentless]

I don't think you know what a fallacy is. You don't know how scholars figure these things out but that doesn't make it a fallacy.

Or, if you persist, please demonstrate in what ways scholars conclusions are unsound and deceptive. Saying that since the actual author is anonymous and therefore we can't know if they met Jesus of not is a hardly a sound argument. 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.

I do love a challenge.

Okay, so let's start with the definition of a fallacy (I already gave it, but what the heck, you think I don't know what the word means, so I'll indulge you);

Fal-la-cy

Noun plural -cies

1. a deceptive, misleading, or false notion, belief, etc.

2. a misleading or unsound argument

3. deceptive, misleading, or false nature; erroneousness

4. Logic. any of various types of erroneous reasoning that render arguments logically unsound

5. Obsolete

6. a false notion

7. a statement or an argument based on a false or invalid argument

8. incorrectness of reasoning or belief; erroneousness

9. the quality of being deceptive

Synonyms; misconception, delusion, misapprehension

So I think I do know what a fallacy is. As for your next line of reasoning; "You don't know how scholars figure these things out but that doesn't make it a fallacy", that is not a sound argument. Unless I missed something, we don't know who actually penned the books. Let us start with Mark;

"The gospel itself is anonymous, but as early as Papias in the early 2nd century, a text was attributed to Mark, a cousin of Barnabas, who is said to have recorded the Apostle's discourses. Papias' authority in this was John the Presbyter. While the text of Papias is no longer extant, it was quoted by Eusebius of Caesarea."

So while we don't know who wrote the Gospel according to Mark, it would seem that they had a better chance of meeting the savior than the author of the Illiad (although modern scholars now believe that "Homer" was not one man, but a ficticious author credited with both the Illiad and the Odysey, which are now thought to be compelations of oral stories handed down over time), because they were not in a different region some 800-1100 years BC. So did I "soundly demonstrate" why it would be safer to think that the author of Mark might have met the Savior then the author(s) of the Illiad? Or should I adopt your line of reasoning and claim that I have no desire to teach you (or in otherwords back up my arguments with something other than opinions given as facts)?

Well, let's keep going I guess, because I doubt you are satisfied yet (not that I suspect you ever will be, because you do have a superior intellect to me and all).

Let's look at Genesis

For centuries, Moses had been believed to have been the author of Genesis, and Wellhausen's hypothesis was thus received by traditionally-minded Jews and Christians as an attack on one of their central beliefs. But in the first half of the 20th century the science of Biblical archaeology, developed by William F. Albright and his followers, combined with the new methods of biblical scholarship known as source criticism and tradition history, developed by Hermann Gunkel, Robert Alter and Martin Noth, seemed to demonstrate that the stories of Genesis (or, at least, the stories of the Patriarchs; the early part of Genesis—from the Creation to the Tower of Babel—which were already regarded as legendary by mainstream scholarship) were based in genuinely ancient oral tradition grounded in the material culture of the 2nd millennium BC. Thus by the middle of the 20th century it seemed that archaeology and scholarship had reconciled Wellhausen with a modified version of authorship by Moses.[79]

This consensus was challenged in the 1970s by the publication of two books, Thomas L. Thompson's "The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives" (1974), and John Van Seters's "Abraham in History and Tradition" (1975), both of which pointed out that the archaeological evidence connecting the author of Genesis to the 2nd millennium BC could equally well apply to the 1st millennium, and that oral traditions were not nearly so easily recoverable as Gunkel and others had said. A third influential work, R. N. Whybray's "The Making of the Pentateuch" (1987), analysed the assumptions underlying Wellhausen's work and found them illogical and unconvincing, and William G. Dever attacked the philosophical foundations of Albrightean biblical archaeology, arguing that it was neither desirable nor possible to use the Bible to interpret the archaeological record.

The theories currently being advanced can be divided into three:[citation needed] 1). Revisions of Wellhausen's documentary model, of which Richard Elliot Friedman's is one of the better known;[80] 2). Fragmentary models such as that of R. N. Whybray, who sees the Torah as the product of a single author working from a multitude of small fragments rather than from large coherent source texts;[81], 3). Supplementary models such as that advanced by John Van Seters, who sees in Genesis the gradual accretion of material over many centuries and from many hands.[82] The 19th century dating of the final form of Genesis and the Pentateuch to c. 500-450 BC continues to be widely accepted irrespective of the model adopted, but with greater respect being made to the ancient nature of the majority of the material. [83] Although, a minority of scholars known as biblical minimalists argue for a date largely or entirely within the last two centuries BC.

Alongside these new approaches to the history of the text has come an increasing interest in the way the narratives tell their stories, concentrating not on the origins of Genesis but on its meaning, both for the society which produced it and for the modern day, placing "a new emphasis on the narrative's purpose to shape audiences' perceptions of the world around them and to instruct them in how to live in this world and relate to its God."[84]

And if we consider the Torrah

Mosaic authorship" is the ascription to Moses of the authorship of the five books of the Torah or Pentateuch. This is expressed in the Talmud, a collection of Jewish traditions and exegesis dating from the 3rd to the 6th centuries CE, and was presumably based on the several verses in the Torah describing Moses writing "torah" (instruction) from God.[citation needed] According to the Encyclopedia Judaica, "The traditional doctrine of Mosaic authorship of the entire Torah has its source in Deuteronomy 31:9–12, 24, more than in any other passage...The Torah itself contains no explicit statement ascribing its authorship to Moses, while Mosaic attribution is restricted to legal and ritual prescription and is hardly to be found in connection with the narrative material."[16] However, according to Catholic Encyclopedia, the attribution of the Torah to Moses dates as back to the Bible itself, noting the fact that several books of the Bible, reference the Torah as the Book of Moses, Law of Moses, etc,[17] and can also be found in the New Testament.[17] Deuteronomy 31:9 and Deuteronomy 31:24-26 describe how Moses writes "torah" (instruction) on a scroll and lays it beside the ark of the Covenant.[18] The attribution of the Torah to Moses is also expressed by the early Roman historian Josephus Flavius. Statements implying belief in Mosaic authorship of the Torah are contained in Joshua,[19] Kings,[20] Chronicles,[21] Ezra[22] and Nehemiah.[23]

The rabbis of the Talmud (c. 200-500 CE) discussed exactly how the Torah was transmitted to Moses. In the Babylonian Talmud Gittin 60a it is written "Said R' Yochanan, the Torah was given in a series of small scrolls," implying that the Torah was written gradually and compiled from a variety of documents over time. Another opinion there that states that the entire Torah was given at one time. Menachem Mendel Kasher points to certain traditions of the Oral Torah that showed Moses quoting Genesis prior to the epiphany at Sinai. Based on a number of Bible verses and rabbinic statements, he suggests that Moses had certain documents authored by the Patriarchs that he made use of when redacting that book.[24] According to Moses Maimonides, the 12th Century rabbi and philosopher, Moses was the Torah's author, receiving it from God either as divine inspiration or as direct dictation in the Hebrew year 2449 AM (1313 BCE).[25][26]

Later rabbis (and the Talmudic rabbis as well - see tractate Bava Basra 15a) and Christian scholars noticed some difficulties with the idea of Mosaic authorship of the entire Torah, notably the fact that the book of Deuteronomy describes Moses' death; later versions of the tradition therefore held that some portions of the Torah were added by others - the death of Moses in particular was ascribed to Joshua. The Talmud explains this by saying that Moses wrote it tearfully, in anticipation of his death; another tradition is that Joshua added these words after Moses died (the next book is the Book of Joshua which, according to Jewish tradition, was written by Joshua himself), and that the final verses of the book of Deuteronomy read like an epitaph to Moses.

Mosaic authorship was accepted with very little discussion by both Jews and Christians until the 17th century, when the rise of secular scholarship and the associated willingness to subject even the Bible to the test of reason led to its rejection by mainstream biblical scholars. The majority of modern scholars believe that the Torah is the product of many hands, stretching over many centuries, reaching its final form only around the 6th and 5th centuries BCE.

Many contemporary secular biblical scholars date the completion of the Torah, as well as the prophets and the historical books, no earlier than the Persian period (539 to 334 BCE).[9] Scholarly discussion for much of the 20th century was principally couched in terms of the documentary hypothesis, according to which the Torah is a synthesis of documents from a small number of originally independent sources.[10]

According to the most influential version of the hypothesis, as formulated by Julius Wellhausen (1844 - 1918), the Pentateuch is composed of four separate and identifiable texts, dating roughly from the period of Solomon up until exilic priests and scribes. These various texts were brought together as one document (the Five Books of Moses of the Torah) by scribes after the exile.

The Jahwist (or J) - written c 950 BCE.[10] The southern kingdom's (i.e. Judah) interpretation. It is named according to the prolific use of the name "Yahweh" (or Jaweh, in German, the divine name or Tetragrammaton) in its text.

The Elohist (or E) - written c 850 BCE.[10] The northern kingdom's (i.e. Israel) interpretation. As above, it is named because of its preferred use of "Elohim" (a generic title used to describe a god, God, or gods).

The Deuteronomist (or D) - written c 650-621 BCE.[10] Dating specifically from the time of King Josiah of Judah and responsible for the book of Deuteronomy as well as Joshua and most of the subsequent books up to 2 Kings.

The Priestly source (or P) - written during or after the exile, c 550-400 BCE.[10] So named because of its focus on Levitical laws.

The documentary hypothesis has been increasingly challenged since the 1970s, and alternative views now see the Torah as having been compiled from a multitude of small fragments rather than a handful of large coherent source texts,[27] or as having gradually accreted over many centuries and through many hands.[28] The shorthand Yahwist, Priestly and Deuteronomistic is still used nevertheless to characterise identifiable and differentiable content and style.

The 19th century dating of the final form of Genesis and the Pentateuch to c. 500-450 BCE continues to be widely accepted irrespective of the model adopted,[29] although a minority of scholars known as biblical minimalists argue for a date largely or entirely within the last two centuries BCE. David Hubbard's 1956 thesis on the Kebra Nagast notes that the few quotations that appear to be from a pre-Hilkiah Deuteronomic source are either from a lost 10th centery written version or an oral tradition

Well, I guess we don't KNOW who wrote Genesis, although there are many who believe it was written by Moses; consider Deut 31:24, 26

24 ¶ And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished

26 Take this abook of the blaw, and put it in the side of the cark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there for a dwitness against thee.

The cross refrences in the footnotes of 26

a TG Scriptures, Preservation.

b 1 Kgs. 8: 21.

21 And I have set there a place for the ark, wherein is the acovenant of the Lord, which he made with our fathers, when he brought them out of the land of Egypt.

c TG Ark of the Covenant.

d Ex. 25: 21.

21 And thou shalt put the amercy seat above upon the ark; and in the ark thou shalt put the btestimony that I shall give thee.

So it apears that Moses did write some book, and it was preserved. Although "scholars" don't really believe this...

Hm, I guess once again if we aproach the authorship with an open mind, there is no way to make a definative statement such as "none of whom ever met the Savior", once again rendering your statement a fallacy.

Well, I guess we really need to look at the last of the source materials; the book of Moses.

An extract from the translation of the Bible as revealed to Joseph Smith the Prophet, June 1830—February 1831

Wait a minute, who wrote this? Was it Joseph Smith? Well, I guess you could say he never met the Savior, but then you'd be denying the first vision, which would seem to undermine Joseph Smith's authority as a prophet and make his fruits (the Book of Mormon) false.

Now you might well argue that as it is an extract of the bible as revealed to Joseph Smith that he didn't "write" it, but seeing as how your earlier argument was that the one who "wrote" the books was the one who put pen to paper, well, I think it's safe to say that Joseph Smith "wrote" the book of Moses.

[Snow]

I do love a challenge.

Okay, so let's start with the definition of a fallacy (I already gave it, but what the heck, you think I don't know what the word means, so I'll indulge you);

Fal-la-cy

Noun plural -cies

1. a deceptive, misleading, or false notion, belief, etc.

2. a misleading or unsound argument

3. deceptive, misleading, or false nature; erroneousness

4. Logic. any of various types of erroneous reasoning that render arguments logically unsound

5. Obsolete

6. a false notion

7. a statement or an argument based on a false or invalid argument

8. incorrectness of reasoning or belief; erroneousness

9. the quality of being deceptive

Synonyms; misconception, delusion, misapprehension

So I think I do know what a fallacy is.

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

As for your next line of reasoning; "You don't know how scholars figure these things out but that doesn't make it a fallacy", that is not a sound argument. Unless I missed something, we don't know who actually penned the books. Let us start with Mark;

"The gospel itself is anonymous, but as early as Papias in the early 2nd century, a text was attributed to Mark, a cousin of Barnabas, who is said to have recorded the Apostle's discourses. Papias' authority in this was John the Presbyter. While the text of Papias is no longer extant, it was quoted by Eusebius of Caesarea."

So while we don't know who wrote the Gospel according to Mark, it would seem that they had a better chance of meeting the savior than the author of the Illiad (although modern scholars now believe that "Homer" was not one man, but a ficticious author credited with both the Illiad and the Odysey, which are now thought to be compelations of oral stories handed down over time), because they were not in a different region some 800-1100 years BC. So did I "soundly demonstrate" why it would be safer to think that the author of Mark might have met the Savior then the author(s) of the Illiad? Or should I adopt your line of reasoning and claim that I have no desire to teach you (or in otherwords back up my arguments with something other than opinions given as facts)?

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?

Well, let's keep going I guess, because I doubt you are satisfied yet (not that I suspect you ever will be, because you do have a superior intellect to me and all).

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

Let's look at Genesis

For centuries, Moses had been believed to have been the author of Genesis, and Wellhausen's hypothesis was thus received by traditionally-minded Jews and Christians as an attack on one of their central beliefs. But in the first half of the 20th century the science of Biblical archaeology, developed by William F. Albright and his followers, combined with the new methods of biblical scholarship known as source criticism and tradition history, developed by Hermann Gunkel, Robert Alter and Martin Noth, seemed to demonstrate that the stories of Genesis (or, at least, the stories of the Patriarchs; the early part of Genesis—from the Creation to the Tower of Babel—which were already regarded as legendary by mainstream scholarship) were based in genuinely ancient oral tradition grounded in the material culture of the 2nd millennium BC. Thus by the middle of the 20th century it seemed that archaeology and scholarship had reconciled Wellhausen with a modified version of authorship by Moses.[79]

This consensus was challenged in the 1970s by the publication of two books, Thomas L. Thompson's "The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives" (1974), and John Van Seters's "Abraham in History and Tradition" (1975), both of which pointed out that the archaeological evidence connecting the author of Genesis to the 2nd millennium BC could equally well apply to the 1st millennium, and that oral traditions were not nearly so easily recoverable as Gunkel and others had said. A third influential work, R. N. Whybray's "The Making of the Pentateuch" (1987), analysed the assumptions underlying Wellhausen's work and found them illogical and unconvincing, and William G. Dever attacked the philosophical foundations of Albrightean biblical archaeology, arguing that it was neither desirable nor possible to use the Bible to interpret the archaeological record.

The theories currently being advanced can be divided into three:[citation needed] 1). Revisions of Wellhausen's documentary model, of which Richard Elliot Friedman's is one of the better known;[80] 2). Fragmentary models such as that of R. N. Whybray, who sees the Torah as the product of a single author working from a multitude of small fragments rather than from large coherent source texts;[81], 3). Supplementary models such as that advanced by John Van Seters, who sees in Genesis the gradual accretion of material over many centuries and from many hands.[82] The 19th century dating of the final form of Genesis and the Pentateuch to c. 500-450 BC continues to be widely accepted irrespective of the model adopted, but with greater respect being made to the ancient nature of the majority of the material. [83] Although, a minority of scholars known as biblical minimalists argue for a date largely or entirely within the last two centuries BC.

Alongside these new approaches to the history of the text has come an increasing interest in the way the narratives tell their stories, concentrating not on the origins of Genesis but on its meaning, both for the society which produced it and for the modern day, placing "a new emphasis on the narrative's purpose to shape audiences' perceptions of the world around them and to instruct them in how to live in this world and relate to its God."[84]

And if we consider the Torrah

Mosaic authorship" is the ascription to Moses of the authorship of the five books of the Torah or Pentateuch. This is expressed in the Talmud, a collection of Jewish traditions and exegesis dating from the 3rd to the 6th centuries CE, and was presumably based on the several verses in the Torah describing Moses writing "torah" (instruction) from God.[citation needed] According to the Encyclopedia Judaica, "The traditional doctrine of Mosaic authorship of the entire Torah has its source in Deuteronomy 31:9–12, 24, more than in any other passage...The Torah itself contains no explicit statement ascribing its authorship to Moses, while Mosaic attribution is restricted to legal and ritual prescription and is hardly to be found in connection with the narrative material."[16] However, according to Catholic Encyclopedia, the attribution of the Torah to Moses dates as back to the Bible itself, noting the fact that several books of the Bible, reference the Torah as the Book of Moses, Law of Moses, etc,[17] and can also be found in the New Testament.[17] Deuteronomy 31:9 and Deuteronomy 31:24-26 describe how Moses writes "torah" (instruction) on a scroll and lays it beside the ark of the Covenant.[18] The attribution of the Torah to Moses is also expressed by the early Roman historian Josephus Flavius. Statements implying belief in Mosaic authorship of the Torah are contained in Joshua,[19] Kings,[20] Chronicles,[21] Ezra[22] and Nehemiah.[23]

The rabbis of the Talmud (c. 200-500 CE) discussed exactly how the Torah was transmitted to Moses. In the Babylonian Talmud Gittin 60a it is written "Said R' Yochanan, the Torah was given in a series of small scrolls," implying that the Torah was written gradually and compiled from a variety of documents over time. Another opinion there that states that the entire Torah was given at one time. Menachem Mendel Kasher points to certain traditions of the Oral Torah that showed Moses quoting Genesis prior to the epiphany at Sinai. Based on a number of Bible verses and rabbinic statements, he suggests that Moses had certain documents authored by the Patriarchs that he made use of when redacting that book.[24] According to Moses Maimonides, the 12th Century rabbi and philosopher, Moses was the Torah's author, receiving it from God either as divine inspiration or as direct dictation in the Hebrew year 2449 AM (1313 BCE).[25][26]

Later rabbis (and the Talmudic rabbis as well - see tractate Bava Basra 15a) and Christian scholars noticed some difficulties with the idea of Mosaic authorship of the entire Torah, notably the fact that the book of Deuteronomy describes Moses' death; later versions of the tradition therefore held that some portions of the Torah were added by others - the death of Moses in particular was ascribed to Joshua. The Talmud explains this by saying that Moses wrote it tearfully, in anticipation of his death; another tradition is that Joshua added these words after Moses died (the next book is the Book of Joshua which, according to Jewish tradition, was written by Joshua himself), and that the final verses of the book of Deuteronomy read like an epitaph to Moses.

Mosaic authorship was accepted with very little discussion by both Jews and Christians until the 17th century, when the rise of secular scholarship and the associated willingness to subject even the Bible to the test of reason led to its rejection by mainstream biblical scholars. The majority of modern scholars believe that the Torah is the product of many hands, stretching over many centuries, reaching its final form only around the 6th and 5th centuries BCE.

Many contemporary secular biblical scholars date the completion of the Torah, as well as the prophets and the historical books, no earlier than the Persian period (539 to 334 BCE).[9] Scholarly discussion for much of the 20th century was principally couched in terms of the documentary hypothesis, according to which the Torah is a synthesis of documents from a small number of originally independent sources.[10]

According to the most influential version of the hypothesis, as formulated by Julius Wellhausen (1844 - 1918), the Pentateuch is composed of four separate and identifiable texts, dating roughly from the period of Solomon up until exilic priests and scribes. These various texts were brought together as one document (the Five Books of Moses of the Torah) by scribes after the exile.

The Jahwist (or J) - written c 950 BCE.[10] The southern kingdom's (i.e. Judah) interpretation. It is named according to the prolific use of the name "Yahweh" (or Jaweh, in German, the divine name or Tetragrammaton) in its text.

The Elohist (or E) - written c 850 BCE.[10] The northern kingdom's (i.e. Israel) interpretation. As above, it is named because of its preferred use of "Elohim" (a generic title used to describe a god, God, or gods).

The Deuteronomist (or D) - written c 650-621 BCE.[10] Dating specifically from the time of King Josiah of Judah and responsible for the book of Deuteronomy as well as Joshua and most of the subsequent books up to 2 Kings.

The Priestly source (or P) - written during or after the exile, c 550-400 BCE.[10] So named because of its focus on Levitical laws.

The documentary hypothesis has been increasingly challenged since the 1970s, and alternative views now see the Torah as having been compiled from a multitude of small fragments rather than a handful of large coherent source texts,[27] or as having gradually accreted over many centuries and through many hands.[28] The shorthand Yahwist, Priestly and Deuteronomistic is still used nevertheless to characterise identifiable and differentiable content and style.

The 19th century dating of the final form of Genesis and the Pentateuch to c. 500-450 BCE continues to be widely accepted irrespective of the model adopted,[29] although a minority of scholars known as biblical minimalists argue for a date largely or entirely within the last two centuries BCE. David Hubbard's 1956 thesis on the Kebra Nagast notes that the few quotations that appear to be from a pre-Hilkiah Deuteronomic source are either from a lost 10th centery written version or an oral tradition.

Wow. You are very good at cutting and pasting.

Well, I guess we don't KNOW who wrote Genesis, although there are many who believe it was written by Moses; consider Deut 31:24, 26

24 ¶ And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished

26 Take this abook of the blaw, and put it in the side of the cark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there for a dwitness against thee.

The cross refrences in the footnotes of 26

a TG Scriptures, Preservation.

b 1 Kgs. 8: 21.

21 And I have set there a place for the ark, wherein is the acovenant of the Lord, which he made with our fathers, when he brought them out of the land of Egypt.

c TG Ark of the Covenant.

d Ex. 25: 21.

21 And thou shalt put the amercy seat above upon the ark; and in the ark thou shalt put the btestimony that I shall give thee.

So it apears that Moses did write some book, and it was preserved. Although "scholars" don't really believe this...

Hm, I guess once again if we aproach the authorship with an open mind, there is no way to make a definative statement such as "none of whom ever met the Savior", once again rendering your statement a fallacy.

Well, I guess we really need to look at the last of the source materials; the book of Moses.

An extract from the translation of the Bible as revealed to Joseph Smith the Prophet, June 1830—February 1831

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

Wait a minute, who wrote this? Was it Joseph Smith? Well, I guess you could say he never met the Savior, but then you'd be denying the first vision, which would seem to undermine Joseph Smith's authority as a prophet and make his fruits (the Book of Mormon) false.

Now you might well argue that as it is an extract of the bible as revealed to Joseph Smith that he didn't "write" it, but seeing as how your earlier argument was that the one who "wrote" the books was the one who put pen to paper, well, I think it's safe to say that Joseph Smith "wrote" the book of Moses.

Well?

Edited December 27, 2009 by Snow

[bytor2112]

What about the judgments to be poured out on the world? When Christ returns...........separate the wheat from the tares, cleanse the earth, etc. Book of Revelations stuff...... a bid Old Testament sounding.

[bert10]

Because of wickedness we have had floods and we shall continue to have more and even greater. The reason is that men now call Good what is evi.

The Flood in the days of Noah was total and it was the earth first cleansing by water. Or if you will will it was the earth Baptism by water. No matter how wicked men become the Lord will not use the flood to cleanse the entire earth. There will be floods that will be great but never like in the days of Noah. We have the promises of God that there shall never such a flood again. However, please note...that God said nothing about fire at that time

The next cleansing of the earth is by fire.The earth shall be baptized by fire. I tell you the truth...the Holy City that is in heaven cannot come down until the earth has had it baptism of water and fire. The millennium will begin just after this baptism. Until the wicked and those who oppose the kingdom of God on the earth are removed...the Lord cannot establish His Kingdom...for the kingdom of God shall not be established by Force. And Love, humbleness, and meekness, mercy, heavenly peace etc cannot flourish generally in men's heart until those who oppose those things either by wickedness or being deceived by Satan the effects on the kingdom are the same...they shall be removed. When men are able to externalize the kingdom that is within them, without opposition, then shall the kingdom of God be on the earth.

PEace be unto you

bert10

The larger picture is that God bless obedience and curses disobedience. Whether the flood was truly global or confined to "the known world," the lesson is clear--let's please God, and be thankful He will not bring this particular curse upon us again.

Edited December 26, 2009 by bert10

[Snow]

Because of wickedness we have had floods and we shall continue to have more and even greater. The reason is that men now call Good what is evi.

The Flood in the days of Noah was total and it was the earth first cleansing by water. Or if you will will it was the earth Baptism by water. No matter how wicked men become the Lord will not use the flood to cleanse the entire earth. There will be floods that will be great but never like in the days of Noah. We have the promises of God that there shall never such a flood again. However, please note...that God said nothing about fire at that time

The next cleansing of the earth is by fire.The earth shall be baptized by fire. I tell you the truth...the Holy City that is in heaven cannot come down until the earth has had it baptism of water and fire. The millennium will begin just after this baptism. Until the wicked and those who oppose the kingdom of God on the earth are removed...the Lord cannot establish His Kingdom...for the kingdom of God shall not be established by Force. And Love, humbleness, and meekness, mercy, heavenly peace etc cannot flourish generally in men's heart until those who oppose those things either by wickedness or being deceived by Satan the effects on the kingdom are the same...they shall be removed. When men are able to externalize the kingdom that is within them, without opposition, then shall the kingdom of God be on the earth.

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!

[andersbranderud]

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.”