Noah's Flood

[Anddenex]

12 hours ago, Lost Boy said:

It is a good thing that they had hundreds of cattle and a ranch hand to feed them on the ark.   What did the lions and tigers and bears eat?  where was all this food stored.  cattle go through hey like there was no tomorrow.  What did they drink?  did they have a desalinization plant onboard?  Many animals have very unique diets...  such as the great panda.  Did Noah go out and get fine cuisine for the pandas on board?

What did Noah eat after he got off the ark?  And what did the animals eat?  The vegetation would have been destroyed by the floods.  It would have been months before there was vegetation for the animals to eat and those lions and tigers and bears are getting mighty hungry... 

I would assume with all your pretended knowledge you also would say, "Scientific analysis defies the ability to make a few loaves of bread and fish to feed thousands -- ergo -- this miracle never happened." I know of no scientific proof or evidence that says two fish and a few loaves of bread could feed thousands. So this story must be fictitious also.

It is truly amazing to me how members are willing to believe in a God who has all power, and yet deny his power.  Remember, at some point lions will be eating straw -- not meat -- so all that "diet" you talk about is would be in error -- again.

But as long as you trust in the arm of the flesh, these are the things people will say to try to prove points, " God:  Noah, what did you go and feed the jackalopes to the lions for? Now all we have to remember them by are these dumb post cards." If a lion will eventually eat straw, and God has the ability to multiply food sources that would typically only feed a large family to feeding thousands -- you don't think God could have provided food for the animals by his power? OK, you keep denying the power of God. I will keep extending faith in  his ability and power.

[Lost Boy]

8 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

Let's review what "Lost Boy" thinks in relation again to what God actually has said (I will share it again since you missed it the first time),

 

In relation to a person seeking a sign, the Lord instructs us that he has left signs which will entice our moral agency to make a choice. The Lord has said, the scriptures, prophets, all things on the face of the earth, the motion of all the planets are witnesses, evidence and proof, of his existence.

Proof is not the enemy of faith. If you think so, you clearly misunderstand faith. Even with proof people can reject it. The Pharisees had plenty of proof of who Christ was, and they rejected him out of their faith in what they understood the scriptures to mean. Jesus (their God) corrected them, and yet they still rejected him, because of their lack of faith and correct understanding in true and virtuous principles. They had their God before them, what greater proof can you have of his existence, and yet by faith and the lack thereof (their belief in false principles) they rejected their God who stood before them.

God indeed did create this earth in an orderly manner. This goes without saying as he is a God of order, not of chaos.

I say it does not deny "scientific analysis" because when you have all the correct principles and understanding of what occurred "scientific analysis" will back it up. What I actually said is the that arm of flesh and it's limited understanding currently defies it. Evidence is in your previous post regarding Mount Ararat, and now you can't use it anymore, so you say "Nevermind that anymore..." What I am for sure of, is that science, better said, the scientists who keep saying things will one day again put their foot in their mouth because they did not have all the right facts and knowledge to make such a declaration as you are now, because of your trust in the arm of flesh.

Just look at dinosaurs, and all the science. Dinosaurs, when I was in my youth did not have hair. Now dinosaurs do (some). Why? Because further information has been given. Stop pretending "science analysis" defies it. Stop pretending our limited knowledge of what actually existed defies it. When you have all the facts, all the knowledge, then come and show me the evidence/proof that "scientific analysis" defies it.

You clearly do not understand the difference between evidence and proof.  The pharisees did not have proof, they had evidence. They did not reject Jesus out of their faith. They rejected him for lack of faith. 

 what is written in the Book of Mormon is evidence not proof. If it were proof, everyone would believe. Scratch that. Everyone would know that there is a  God. that certainly is not the case. 

You can keep believing there is some science that backs up the flood, but you will be as wrong on that as you are with your understanding of evidence. 

I believe God leaves us plenty of evidence, but it still requires faith to believe in him. Proof removes the need for faith. But you are unwilling to understand this. 

[Lost Boy]

8 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

I would assume with all your pretended knowledge you also would say, "Scientific analysis defies the ability to make a few loaves of bread and fish to feed thousands -- ergo -- this miracle never happened." I know of no scientific proof or evidence that says two fish and a few loaves of bread could feed thousands. So this story must be fictitious also.

It is truly amazing to me how members are willing to believe in a God who has all power, and yet deny his power.  Remember, at some point lions will be eating straw -- not meat -- so all that "diet" you talk about is would be in error -- again.

But as long as you trust in the arm of the flesh, these are the things people will say to try to prove points, " God:  Noah, what did you go and feed the jackalopes to the lions for? Now all we have to remember them by are these dumb post cards." If a lion will eventually eat straw, and God has the ability to multiply food sources that would typically only feed a large family to feeding thousands -- you don't think God could have provided food for the animals by his power? OK, you keep denying the power of God. I will keep extending faith in  his ability and power.

You seem to think I deny the power of God. I do not. Not in the least. You have not grasped a thing I have said. 

I said God uses mostly natural means to accomplish his miracles. This is not denying his power. In fact it speaks volumes about his power. And to me all the more impressive. 

I don't have a scientific explanation for feeding the masses. Perhaps one of the few times that there isn't a natural means behind the miracle. But consider this. The people that partook of the food did not view this of proof that Jesus is the christ. Most only came back the second time for the free food. 

Miracles don't prove to us there is a God. We still have to have faith. 

I doubt that you will accept any of this, but whatever. 

I deny the flood not because I don't think God has the power. I deny it because it does not make any sense. Like Santa. 

[Anddenex]

10 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

You seem to think I deny the power of God. I do not. Not in the least. You have not grasped a thing I have said. 

I said God uses mostly natural means to accomplish his miracles. This is not denying his power. In fact it speaks volumes about his power. And to me all the more impressive. 

I don't have a scientific explanation for feeding the masses. Perhaps one of the few times that there isn't a natural means behind the miracle. But consider this. The people that partook of the food did not view this of proof that Jesus is the christ. Most only came back the second time for the free food. 

Miracles don't prove to us there is a God. We still have to have faith. 

I doubt that you will accept any of this, but whatever. 

I deny the flood not because I don't think God has the power. I deny it because it does not make any sense. Like Santa. 

I am sorry, your posts and your trust in the arm of flesh give "evidence" to your denying the power of God. It doesn't make sense that a couple fish and a few loaves of bread fed thousands of people, which doesn't make sense, which was done by the power of God. Not like Santa (this statement is evidence to your denying the power of god -- if it doesn't make sense to you.)

Edited May 15, 2018 by Anddenex

[zil]

30 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

" God:  Noah, what did you go and feed the jackalopes to the lions for? Now all we have to remember them by are these dumb post cards."

[Grunt]

2 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

I am sorry, your posts and your trust in the arm of flesh give "evidence" to your denying the power of God.

I think you’re partly correct.  He, and others, like to wordsmith.  Words mean something.  If you choose them carefully you can argue against the power of God philosophically, yet turn and say “but look, I technically said the opposite”.  

 

[Lost Boy]

3 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

I am sorry, your posts and your trust in the arm of flesh give "evidence" to your denying the power of God.

I can't help you there. At some point hopefully you will understand a bit more about how God operates. But until then you can think of me as you wish. 

[Anddenex]

2 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

I can't help you there. At some point hopefully you will understand a bit more about how God operates. But until then you can think of me as you wish. 

So now you know how God operates although you deny his power because what he does doesn't make sense to you. OK, you keep telling yourself that.

[Guest Scott]

With science -- all that limited knowledge -- they change with more information granted.

Doesn't religion, including our Church do that as well?

If you disagree, I'd highly recommend reading our Church history.

[Rob Osborn]

41 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

You clearly do not understand the difference between evidence and proof.  The pharisees did not have proof, they had evidence. They did not reject Jesus out of their faith. They rejected him for lack of faith. 

 what is written in the Book of Mormon is evidence not proof. If it were proof, everyone would believe. Scratch that. Everyone would know that there is a  God. that certainly is not the case. 

You can keep believing there is some science that backs up the flood, but you will be as wrong on that as you are with your understanding of evidence. 

I believe God leaves us plenty of evidence, but it still requires faith to believe in him. Proof removes the need for faith. But you are unwilling to understand this. 

By this same standard then there is no proof that the flood didn't happen.

I think it takes the same requirement of faith that the flood didn't happen.

[Lost Boy]

23 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

So now you know how God operates although you deny his power because what he does doesn't make sense to you. OK, you keep telling yourself that.

So because I don't believe the flood story nor the creation story, you think I deny his power?  

I can live with that. I do believe God created the universe. I don't know exactly how, but I am pretty sure it was not over the course of a few days.  That too would not make any sense. 

Edited May 15, 2018 by Lost Boy

[Anddenex]

11 minutes ago, Scott said:

 

Doesn't religion, including our Church do that as well?

If you disagree, I'd highly recommend reading our Church history.

Never said it didn't, did I now? I fully believe in Article of Faith #9. But this isn't what we were talking about now were we.

[Anddenex]

3 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

I do believe God created the universe. I know exactly how,

I am assuming the bolded part was written incorrectly, if not, you're full of yourself.

[Lost Boy]

2 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

By this same standard then there is no proof that the flood didn't happen.

I think it takes the same requirement of faith that the flood didn't happen.

Faith that it didn't happen? No, it doesn't take faith to believe it didn't happen. 

Consider this. God does not lie. The evidence abounds that there was no global flood.  If there was, there would be plenty of evidence. As there isn't any either there was no flood or God covered it up. To me, covering it up is akin to lying. 

[Lost Boy]

6 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

I am assuming the bolded part was written incorrectly, if not, you're full of yourself.

Sorry, I don't know exactly how...  I wish I did. That will have to wait. Went back and fixed it. 

Edited May 15, 2018 by Lost Boy

[Anddenex]

1 minute ago, Lost Boy said:

Sorry, I don't know exactly how...  I wish I did. That will have to wait. 

Thank you, I redact then my statement of you being full of yourself.

[Lost Boy]

3 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

Thank you, I redact then my statement of you being full of yourself.

You don't need to redact.  I am pretty full of myself. 

Edited May 15, 2018 by Lost Boy

[Rob Osborn]

8 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

Faith that it didn't happen? No, it doesn't take faith to believe it didn't happen. 

Consider this. God does not lie. The evidence abounds that there was no global flood.  If there was, there would be plenty of evidence. As there isn't any either there was no flood or God covered it up. To me, covering it up is akin to lying. 

There is evidence, you just do not understand it.

[Lost Boy]

4 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

There is evidence, you just do not understand it.

Right...  

[Rob Osborn]

9 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

Right...  

It's kind of like looking at an optical illusion of the hidden face for hours and being determined the answer isn't there, they made a mistake, and then someone shows you the answer and you say "wow, how did I miss that?" It's just a matter of seeing it different than what your brain keeps trying to see.

This is the same for the evidence for the flood. If our minds are trained to view the evidence only one way we will never see it. It's interesting because when my mind finally flipped to see it different I couldn't not stop seeing evidence everywhere for the flood.

[Lost Boy]

7 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

It's kind of like looking at an optical illusion of the hidden face for hours and being determined the answer isn't there, they made a mistake, and then someone shows you the answer and you say "wow, how did I miss that?" It's just a matter of seeing it different than what your brain keeps trying to see.

This is the same for the evidence for the flood. If our minds are trained to view the evidence only one way we will never see it. It's interesting because when my mind finally flipped to see it different I couldn't not stop seeing evidence everywhere for the flood.

Sigh.....

[Rob Osborn]

27 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

Sigh.....

You are in that mindset of being completely 100% against the global flood I believe.

[Traveler]

18 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

I think the nail in tge coffin for me is the multiple accounts in scripture testifying of the need to sanctify the earth before life comes out of it.

 

Trying to follow - you may have a point but what do you mean by sanctify?  If the earth is corrupt (not sanctified) life cannot come out of it?  Do you believe the earth is, at this moment sanctified?  In essence; is the lone and dreary world sanctified?  Also, could the world be sanctified while Satan remains on it?

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

40 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

It's kind of like looking at an optical illusion of the hidden face for hours and being determined the answer isn't there, they made a mistake, and then someone shows you the answer and you say "wow, how did I miss that?" It's just a matter of seeing it different than what your brain keeps trying to see.

This is the same for the evidence for the flood. If our minds are trained to view the evidence only one way we will never see it. It's interesting because when my mind finally flipped to see it different I couldn't not stop seeing evidence everywhere for the flood.

 

This is a good understanding but I wonder - In your mind, what evidence should be be looking for as evidence for a global flood?

 

The Traveler

[Lost Boy]

10 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

You are in that mindset of being completely 100% against the global flood I believe.

There is no reputable evidence for it.  And the holy spirit has not given me confirmation of it, so I am left to believe it didn't happen.  This does not deny the power of God, but does say that the bible may have some fictitious parts to it.