Noah's Flood

[BJ64]

27 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

1st Peter 3

 

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

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

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

21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

It doesn’t exactly say anything about the earth being baptized. 

[Rob Osborn]

5 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

Sorry, but a cubit is not set in stone.  Pulling something off of wikipedia does not make it so.

In verse 50, it refers to "the floods"  hmmm  what does that mean?  Could it mean that there were multiple floods and not just one big massive one?

Don't have a response for 45.  But still don't think all people descended from Noah.  Perhaps grafted in such as gentiles joining the house of Abraham..

You pulled a switch a roo here.  you at first mentioned the complete immersion.  and now you have changed it.  Either way this verse likens the saving of these 8 souls by water to that of being saved by baptism.   Doesn't say the Earth needs baptism.

Perhaps you should Google "cubit". I did some research on it years ago and it's relatively pretty correct. the plural in floods we're that it was flooding from multiple sources in multiple places all contributing to one catastrophic flood.

Ignorance with geneology is king in flood disbelievers. You have to throw out the entire scriptures to believe all men didn't originate from Noah's loins and from him back to Adam.

[Rob Osborn]

5 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

It doesn’t exactly say anything about the earth being baptized. 

It acts as the type of symbol.

[Lost Boy]

6 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Perhaps you should Google "cubit". I did some research on it years ago and it's relatively pretty correct. the plural in floods we're that it was flooding from multiple sources in multiple places all contributing to one catastrophic flood.

Ignorance with geneology is king in flood disbelievers. You have to throw out the entire scriptures to believe all men didn't originate from Noah's loins and from him back to Adam.

That is still an estimate.  Now assume it is about 450 ft long.  That is a big ship, but certainly not large enough to handle multiples of all animals.  The largest livestock ship in the world can handle 20k head of cattle.  The ark was much smaller..  basically hold 8600 head of cattle.  A ship would only hold enough food for 5-6 weeks.  The ark would have needed to hold enough for nearly a year.  There there is the issue of sanitation, clean water, fresh air, etc.  You might be able to deal with about 1000 animals on an ark.  Remember, most big animals had 7 pair, not 1.   You ever try and shovel crap for that number of animals?  Good luck.

That is one take on the flood, but it is certainly not clear.  It says floods.  Not one flood.  You are reading into it what you want, but don't want me to deviate from what other scriptures propose.....  hmmm.

And no you don't have to toss the entire scriptures to believe not all men came from Noah.  What do you think about the bible telling slaves to obey their masters?

[Lost Boy]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

It acts as the type of symbol.

No, it specifically says the 8 people being saved by water, not the earth.  They were saved from the evils of the Earth.

[Rob Osborn]

7 hours ago, Lost Boy said:

That is still an estimate.  Now assume it is about 450 ft long.  That is a big ship, but certainly not large enough to handle multiples of all animals.  The largest livestock ship in the world can handle 20k head of cattle.  The ark was much smaller..  basically hold 8600 head of cattle.  A ship would only hold enough food for 5-6 weeks.  The ark would have needed to hold enough for nearly a year.  There there is the issue of sanitation, clean water, fresh air, etc.  You might be able to deal with about 1000 animals on an ark.  Remember, most big animals had 7 pair, not 1.   You ever try and shovel crap for that number of animals?  Good luck.

That is one take on the flood, but it is certainly not clear.  It says floods.  Not one flood.  You are reading into it what you want, but don't want me to deviate from what other scriptures propose.....  hmmm.

And no you don't have to toss the entire scriptures to believe not all men came from Noah.  What do you think about the bible telling slaves to obey their masters?

I think you still have to account for the size of the ship. That's your biggest obstacle. Why on Earth would God command Noah to build a ship that large? I don't know if you have built boats or not. I have built two with my brothers. They were small and took along time to build. They were 20 ' long. A ship that size no doubt took many years to build, perhaps decades. Why waste so much time to build a ship of such mammoth proportions if it just flooded a little portion of the world?

[Lost Boy]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

I think you still have to account for the size of the ship. That's your biggest obstacle. Why on Earth would God command Noah to build a ship that large? I don't know if you have built boats or not. I have built two with my brothers. They were small and took along time to build. They were 20 ' long. A ship that size no doubt took many years to build, perhaps decades. Why waste so much time to build a ship of such mammoth proportions if it just flooded a little portion of the world?

Why make Abraham wait till he is an old man before giving him a son?  To prove his faithfulness. 

[Rob Osborn]

Just now, Lost Boy said:

Why make Abraham wait till he is an old man before giving him a son?  To prove his faithfulness. 

So, Noah is commanded to build an unnecessarily large boat just to prove his faithfulness? That's laughable.

[Lost Boy]

7 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

So, Noah is commanded to build an unnecessarily large boat just to prove his faithfulness? That's laughable.

So Abraham is supposed to wait till he is ancient before he gets a kid? Same thing.  Made the Israelites wander the wilderness for 40 years. 

[Rob Osborn]

29 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

So Abraham is supposed to wait till he is ancient before he gets a kid? Same thing.  Made the Israelites wander the wilderness for 40 years. 

Yeah, I'm not buying it. It's like you just make it up as you go- any excuse to discount the need for a boat that size. What about the 120 year warning? What story you have for that?

[Lost Boy]

6 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Yeah, I'm not buying it. It's like you just make it up as you go- any excuse to discount the need for a boat that size. What about the 120 year warning? What story you have for that?

Honestly, I don't believe that they lived that long back then. 

But the fact remains that the ark was not nearly big enough to house 2+from every species, nor was the crew size adequate to care for that number of people, nor would there have been room for enough food and water.. 

So why build a boat that wasn't sufficient in size and not have enough people to man it? 

[Grunt]

I'm just amazed at the level of "meh, I just don't believe the Bible" that exists in this thread.

[Lost Boy]

1 hour ago, Grunt said:

I'm just amazed at the level of "meh, I just don't believe the Bible" that exists in this thread.

Do you believe the universe was created in 6 days? 

[Grunt]

6 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

Do you believe the universe was created in 6 days? 

Absolutely, I believe the Earth was created in 6 days.

Edited May 18, 2018 by Grunt

[Lost Boy]

Just now, Grunt said:

Absolutely.

I guess you would be put off then.  Do you believe slaves should obey their masters?

[Grunt]

1 minute ago, Lost Boy said:

I guess you would be put off then.  Do you believe slaves should obey their masters?

I'm not playing the "let me quiz you until I find something you can't answer" game.  I'm not an expert on doctrine.

[MrShorty]

9 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

I think you still have to account for the size of the ship.

At the risk of adding to the "meh, I just don't believe the Bible" trend, how about the possibility that Noah's boat was not really as large as the Bible says because some later scribe/editor decided that the real account wasn't "big" enough. Does one have to be a Biblical Literalist to "believe the Bible"? I don't know if this applies to Noah's account, but it is the easiest way for me to gloss over the genocides in Joshua's "conquest narrative" -- they didn't really happen but are an embellishment added by a later scribe/editor. If it could have happened with Jonah's narrative, why not Noah's?

To Grunt's point -- what does it mean to "believe the Bible"? Is it possible to "believe the Bible" without believing that "the Holy Spirit chose every word of the Bible" as Pastor James McDonald said a monthish ago? Can one "believe the Bible" and believe that some of it (like maybe Job or Jonah) is fictional? Can one "beleive the Bible" and believe that the flood account is more historical myth than historical fact? It probably deserves its own thread, but I have long wrestled with what it means for something to be scripture and what our model of "revelation to ancient prophets -> record revelation -> transmit revelation down through many generations (original copies get lost, so we only have copies of copies) -> us kind of scripture" really is.

[person0]

7 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

some of it (like maybe Job or Jonah) is fictional?

Quote

Scriptures confirm the fact that Job was an actual man by listing him among the prophets. For example, the three great men the Lord mentions to Ezekiel are Noah, Daniel, and Job. (See Ezek. 14:14, 20.) James also refers to Job. (See James 5:11.) Latter-day scriptural confirmation of Job’s existence is Doctrine and Covenants 121:10 [D&C 121:10], where the Lord refers to Job in answer to a plea of the Prophet Joseph Smith.
(Job - Ensign Mar. 1982)

Quote

Modern revelation confirms the existence of the man Job.
(Old Testament Seminary Teacher Manual)

You can believe whatever you want, but even more than rejecting certain aspects of the biblical text, I am more concerned that people are rejecting the confirmation by modern leaders of the Lord's Church that certain passages, histories, etc, are actually true.  It's one thing to suggest the Bible has errors, it is another thing to reject the modern prophets who have indicated that what some people thing are errors, fallacies, or fictions, are in fact true.

[Lost Boy]

2 minutes ago, Grunt said:

I'm not playing the "let me quiz you until I find something you can't answer" game.  I'm not an expert on doctrine.

I am sure you don't want to answer that one.

The bible has a varied history.  The old testament wasn't really assembled until about 200 b.c..  Which means you are taking a history of 2-3000 years that much was handed down word of mouth and tradition.  Even the gospels that recount the life of Christ weren't written until 40-80 years after Christ's death and mostly from oral tradition.   To me that leaves a lot of room for some traditions of men to creep into the scriptures.  

Some people can accept the scriptures as true they way they are.  Some question things and doubt things.  I am the later, but does that mean I am any less a follower of Christ?  Are the hangups that I have really that important in an eternal perspective?  Some people think that if you reject some of the bible, then you have to reject the whole thing.   I don't buy into that.

Would it surprise you and make you sad to find out that some general authorities have had similar hang ups that I have?

[Grunt]

1 minute ago, Lost Boy said:

I am sure you don't want to answer that one.

The bible has a varied history.  The old testament wasn't really assembled until about 200 b.c..  Which means you are taking a history of 2-3000 years that much was handed down word of mouth and tradition.  Even the gospels that recount the life of Christ weren't written until 40-80 years after Christ's death and mostly from oral tradition.   To me that leaves a lot of room for some traditions of men to creep into the scriptures.  

Some people can accept the scriptures as true they way they are.  Some question things and doubt things.  I am the later, but does that mean I am any less a follower of Christ?  Are the hangups that I have really that important in an eternal perspective?  Some people think that if you reject some of the bible, then you have to reject the whole thing.   I don't buy into that.

Would it surprise you and make you sad to find out that some general authorities have had similar hang ups that I have?

It's not that I don't want to.  It's that I can't.  I've never studied it.  

You're rude, condescending, and speaking out against the teachings of the church.  I'd say I'm on pretty solid ground.  That doesn't "make me sad" at all.  

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Grunt said:

It's not that I don't want to.  It's that I can't.  I've never studied it.  

You're rude, condescending, and speaking out against the teachings of the church.  I'd say I'm on pretty solid ground.  That doesn't "make me sad" at all.  

He's taken the moniker of "Lost Boy" for a reason.

[Lost Boy]

1 minute ago, Grunt said:

It's not that I don't want to.  It's that I can't.  I've never studied it.  

You're rude, condescending, and speaking out against the teachings of the church.  I'd say I'm on pretty solid ground.  That doesn't "make me sad" at all.  

I certainly have a different take than you on the scriptures.  You are able to believe a literal reading of the scriptures.  I am not.  I don't think that makes me any better or worse than you.

I am not trying to tell you to believe the way I do.  It would be nice to have some understanding of why I believe the way I do.  Many members have wrestled with the same issues.  That doesn't mean our faith in Christ is any different.  We don't deny his power.  We just believe some of the history may be incorrect.  Is that really wrong?  I don't know the answer to that.

I am not really sure how I was rude or condescending to you, but if I was, I apologize.

[Grunt]

Just now, Lost Boy said:

I certainly have a different take than you on the scriptures.  You are able to believe a literal reading of the scriptures.  I am not.  I don't think that makes me any better or worse than you.

I am not trying to tell you to believe the way I do.  It would be nice to have some understanding of why I believe the way I do.  Many members have wrestled with the same issues.  That doesn't mean our faith in Christ is any different.  We don't deny his power.  We just believe some of the history may be incorrect.  Is that really wrong?  I don't know the answer to that.

I am not really sure how I was rude or condescending to you, but if I was, I apologize.

I'm not trying to tell you to believe anything.  I'm pointing out that what you are espousing directly conflicts with the teaching of the Church.  I believe it's important to do so because investigators come here to learn about the Church.  Someone like you speaking the opposite is damaging.   So while I support your right to your own religion, I feel the need to call you out when you try to warp mine and make it your own.

[estradling75]

I know you asked the following of @Grunt

 

1 hour ago, Lost Boy said:

I guess you would be put off then.  Do you believe slaves should obey their masters?

Since his response was

 

28 minutes ago, Grunt said:

It's not that I don't want to.  It's that I can't.  I've never studied it.  
 

I'd like to take a stab at it then.

I am not put off by that passage of scripture...  Using it is designed to provoke "presentism" and current understandings that are misleading.

Today Slavery is directly linked to treating people as objects and subhuman, for understandable reasons.

However when ever God speaks on the issue of Slavery he has to things to say depending on whom he addresses.  To the Slaves he does indeed say "Obey"  He does so consistently.   To the Masters he says in various ways.  Treat your slaves as people with respect and dignity.  You know like people.  By so doing God renders the current understanding of Slavery to a non issue.  Also note that Joseph Smith and the Church in the time that Slavery was legal had the same position.  Joseph Smith's answer to the issue of Slavery wasn't for them to revolt.  It was for them to be bought by the government and then freed. 

Do you know what we today call a rich person who gains the services of a poorer person in exchange for the things the poor person needs?  We call it employment, we call it welfare, we call it a GOOD thing.

Can it be abused, was it abused??... certainly many things are.  But just because the system could be abused does not mean the system itself was evil.

Edited May 18, 2018 by estradling75

[Lost Boy]

1 minute ago, Grunt said:

I'm not trying to tell you to believe anything.  I'm pointing out that what you are espousing directly conflicts with the teaching of the Church.  I believe it's important to do so because investigators come here to learn about the Church.  Someone like you speaking the opposite is damaging.   So while I support your right to your own religion, I feel the need to call you out when you try to warp mine and make it your own.

Perhaps it does.  But I don't think they are in conflict with any real important teachings.  Nor have I said that what I believe is fact.  I have stated that I have prayed about it multiples times and just have not gotten a testimony of Noah and the flood.  The spirit has testified to me regarding many parts of the scripture, but not Noah.  Does that mean I have my own religion?  I don't think so.

I think being able to have discussions about topics like this is important.  And if an investigator sees, so what?  I am not the only one that questions this stuff.  Many on the forums do as well.  Many members I know also struggle with this.  You would like everything all nice pretty clean and neat.  I would like that as well, but it isn't.  I don't think it behooves us to hide that from investigators.  Let them see the truth.