Noah's Flood

[zil]

21 minutes ago, Grunt said:

The first verses of Genesis 6 always raised questions with me.  However, I've never had formal teaching on them so there may be an easy explanation.  

https://www.lds.org/manual/old-testament-student-manual-genesis-2-samuel/genesis-4-11-the-patriarchs?lang=eng#title10

FWIW.

4 minutes ago, Grunt said:

I find all of Genesis odd.  In Chapter 1 He creates man and woman and sends them out to multiply.  In Chapter 2 He discusses Adam and Eve and puts them in Eden.  Is Chapter one just a Reader's Digest version of Genesis?  Are the men in Chapter one different than Adam and Eve?  In chapter 6 it's discussed how the sons of God marry the daughters of man.

https://www.lds.org/manual/old-testament-student-manual-genesis-2-samuel/genesis-1-2-the-creation?lang=eng

...might be useful.

[Rob Osborn]

4 hours ago, Traveler said:

This is not at all what you said – but let’s move on.  Recently I visited the Vasa museum in Sweden.   This involves the recovery of a ship sunk 300 years ago that until recently was under water.  I learned that carbon dating pinpointed the exact time the ship was sunk that corresponds exactly with records kept – Thus we have conclusive empirical evidence that being under water will not change the carbon dating process.  I think you have claimed that being under water changes carbon dating.   What empirical evidence do you have that carbon dating is not accurate?

I am also very interested in any empirical evidence concerning the flood or the origins of man that you think science is ignoring. 

 

The Traveler

Empirical? The only way it could be impirical is to know the exact thing you are aging in it's historical context. Carbon dates are thrown out if it is assumed in the wrong timeframe. How is that empirical?

[Rob Osborn]

4 hours ago, BJ64 said:

I would suppose that either no one has had sufficient faith, or the need hasn’t been sufficiently great for such a miracle. 

I will agree. The crutch of technology diminishes our faith.

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, Grunt said:

I find all of Genesis odd.  In Chapter 1 He creates man and woman and sends them out to multiply.  In Chapter 2 He discusses Adam and Eve and puts them in Eden.  Is Chapter one just a Reader's Digest version of Genesis?  Are the men in Chapter one different than Adam and Eve?  In chapter 6 it's discussed how the sons of God marry the daughters of man.

All easily explained. Chapter one is more of a creation of the earth and preparing it for life. But, no actual life is placed on the earth yet. Then, on day seven, in chapter two we read God causes it to rain for the first time. Life begins and Adam and Eve are created and placed on the earth. In chapter 6 the "sons of God" we're the covenant portion of the generations of Adam. The "daughters of men" we're the worldly people not in the covenant. Compare with Moses-

13 And Noah and his sons hearkened unto the Lord, and gave heed, and they were called the sons of God.
            14 And when these men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, the sons of men saw that those daughters were fair, and they took them wives, even as they chose.
            15 And the Lord said unto Noah: The daughters of thy sons have sold themselves; for behold mine anger is kindled against the sons of men, for they will not hearken to my voice (Moses 8:13-15)

[Traveler]

11 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Empirical? The only way it could be impirical is to know the exact thing you are aging in it's historical context. Carbon dates are thrown out if it is assumed in the wrong timeframe. How is that empirical?

 

As an amateur archaeologist I have visited many active research sites throughout the world and have personally reviewed raw data on several projects to which I have personal interest.  In all my experience I have never encountered – ever - any attempt to “throw out” any data – including carbon dating regardless of how it fits into any theoretical context.  It is my experience that there is great competition in professional archaeological circles such that if there was proof of raw data manipulation and exclusion – dozens of archaeologists – let alone would-be so called or self-called experts would jump at the opportunity to expose the deception to make a name for themselves.  I have never encountered any such deception.  I am also well aware of serious and ever bitter debate over interpretation of data and how it is applied into a historical context – even little things like an error in calling of historical verses pre-historical (something few outside of archaeologic circles would understand per definition).

In short if you have personal knowledge of any official archaeological publication that has ignored carbon dating data – I would be most interested.  As a side note here I am aware that there have been conditions where there seems to be varied differences in carbon dating – especially when there has been contamination of samples which has required more samples or if additional samples are not available the results are published as unknown or conflicting – never the elimination (throwing out) of data.  One possible example is the Shroud of Turin that had some mixed carbon dating results because of contamination that caused some doubt but not enough to validate the artifact as fitting into the time line of Christ.

But you used the exact phrase of “thrown out”.  So, I would be very interested in the case you know of and how exactly you came to know the deception and have validated that case.  Hopefully, you have not put all your eggs in a basket with some “religious nut-job” trying to make a name for themselves through some charlatan web site of deception on the internet.

I would say one more thing – I am aware that some information is kept from publication and I can and would be happy to provide example and context.  Just not carbon dating data.  And in all such context I have explerienced and know of - it has been because of religious bias (Traditional Christian to be exact) not scientific or anti religious.

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

11 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

All easily explained. Chapter one is more of a creation of the earth and preparing it for life. But, no actual life is placed on the earth yet. Then, on day seven, in chapter two we read God causes it to rain for the first time. Life begins and Adam and Eve are created and placed on the earth. In chapter 6 the "sons of God" we're the covenant portion of the generations of Adam. The "daughters of men" we're the worldly people not in the covenant. Compare with Moses-

13 And Noah and his sons hearkened unto the Lord, and gave heed, and they were called the sons of God.
            14 And when these men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, the sons of men saw that those daughters were fair, and they took them wives, even as they chose.
            15 And the Lord said unto Noah: The daughters of thy sons have sold themselves; for behold mine anger is kindled against the sons of men, for they will not hearken to my voice (Moses 8:13-15)

 

One possible problem is in assumptions.  Many think Genesis is about initial creation.  This can be problematic.  First because of translation form ancient language.  Some within the LDS community (myself included) have concluded that rather than think in terms of “initial creation” that the concept of “bringing order to” is much more appropriate understanding Genesis.   I would submit that “bringing order to” applies not so much as you imply just to physical things but as pertaining to the spiritual and preparation – not just of life but the specific establishment of the plan of salvation and the associated covenant of salvation.  Thus, all that may have been chronologically before would not be “ordered” or of the same order as the covenant plan of salvation.

 

The Traveler

[MrShorty]

14 hours ago, Grunt said:

I find all of Genesis odd.  In Chapter 1 He creates man and woman and sends them out to multiply.  In Chapter 2 He discusses Adam and Eve and puts them in Eden.  Is Chapter one just a Reader's Digest version of Genesis?  Are the men in Chapter one different than Adam and Eve?  In chapter 6 it's discussed how the sons of God marry the daughters of man.

I don't know whose hackles this may raise (I know that it can be a controversial possibility), but the Documentary Hypothesis provides and interesting possibility (and the opening chapters of Genesis are a common example given). What if the OT is a mish mash conglomeration of different sources/accounts/narrators?

[goor_de]

On 5/4/2018 at 12:10 AM, Lost Boy said:

Glaubst du, dass eine Flut die ganze Erde bedeckte? Ich konnte das nie akzeptieren. Ich konnte akzeptieren, dass Noah in einer Flut war und fand sich in die See gefegt, aber eine Flut, die die ganze Erde bedeckt? Nein.

Was ist dein Gedanke dabei?

The Flood covered the whole earth, but it found around 4000 BC. instead of.
around 4000, noah landed on the mountain ararat. the first high cultures originated around 3000, the settlement began from 4000.agyptus the granddaughter Ham

Edited October 5, 2018 by goor_de