Noah's Flood

[Guest Scott]

Quote

So now you know how God operates although you deny his power because what he does doesn't make sense to you. 

Do you believe the account in the Bible concerning the flood is 100% literal?  For example, the reference to the windows  of heaven was made because the ancient Hebrews believed that the windows of heaven were literal (very often referred to in the OT) and that the waters in the firmament occupied the sky just beyond the sun and stars.   When the windows of heavens opened (along with the fountains of the earth), the flood happened.

If that is what you believe, that's OK.   If you don't find that 100% literal, are you denying the power of God?  Where do you draw the line?  

Along the same lines, which one of these versus should I take literally without denying the power of God?   Which verse should one believe without denying the power of God?   Are they both 100% literal?   Please explain.  Or do you deny the power of God?

Isaiah 13:13

Therefore I will shake the heavens, and the earth shall remove out of her place, in the wrath of the Lord of hosts, and in the day of his fierce anger.

Psalm 96:10
 

Say among the heathen that the Lord reigneth: the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved: he shall judge the people righteously.
 

 

Edited May 15, 2018 by Scott

[Anddenex]

3 minutes ago, Scott said:

Do you believe the account in the Bible concerning the flood is 100% literal?  For example, the reference to the windows  of heaven was made because the ancient Hebrews believed that the windows of heaven were literal (very often referred to in the OT) and that the waters in the firmament occupied the sky just beyond the sun and stars.   When the windows of heavens opened (along with the fountains of the earth), the flood happened.

If that is what you believe, that's OK.   If you don't find that 100% literal, are you denying the power of God?  Where do you draw the line?  

Along the same lines, which one of these versus should I take literally without denying the power of God?   Which verse should one believe without denying the power of God?   Are they both 100% literal?   Please explain.  Or do you deny the power of God?

Isaiah 13:13

Therefore I will shake the heavens, and the earth shall remove out of her place, in the wrath of the Lord of hosts, and in the day of his fierce anger.

Psalm 96:10
 

Say among the heathen that the Lord reigneth: the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved: he shall judge the people righteously.
 

I have already provided an answer to this type of thinking. Here it is again, "Is God able to build a rock that he can't jump over? If not, is he all powerful?" If I say God cannot build a rock he can't jump over, am I denying his power? This neither specifies I am denying or believing in the power of God. The question already begins with the wrong premises, 100% literal, and if not, I am denying the power of God.

First, I am not an ancient Hebrew, so if they believed in such, they believed in such. In our Bible we have Satan as a dragon. Do I believe Satan as a dragon is 100% literal? No. If you want to pick and choose literal translation in comparison to symbolism, in comparison to modern revelation and current teachings of the Church we can do so all day long. This has nothing to do with denying the power of God.

I believe the account in the Bible is correct. The Church currently teaches this is correct (as has already been shared with multiple quotes specifying the waters covered the earth).

Second, I do not know what is meant by the windows of heaven. Whatever the windows of heaven are, and where they are, and what was meant is what was meant. I believe in what was meant. People are welcome to their literal interpretation or their vague interpretation. If their literal or vague interpretation currently goes against the teachings the Church, I know which side I would side on. I am assuming you know which side you would side on.

Third, if we are making statements that certain things could never happen -- because it doesn't make sense to us -- then yes, we in fact do deny the power of God. If we are using the Ark and food on the Ark as an example that the global flood could not have happened, and yet we have God feeding a prophet by birds in the Old Testament. We have Christ feeding thousands by two fish and loaves of bread, and we have scriptures that specify God is able to change the "diet" of animals (i.e. lions) but say he could not nor is it possible or plausible that he could have provided means for food for the animals and Noah and his family, then yes, we are denying the power of God.

Fourth, no where did I say a literal interpretation means you are or are not denying the power of God.

Fifth, in reference to the scriptures, whatever the Lord meant through Isaiah and David for the highlighted words, is what was meant. If the Church comes out and specifies this is what was meant, and then I say, "That is wrong. There is no way it is possible because it doesn't make sense to me. There is no way that is possible because our current scientific analysis says it is not possible." Yes, I am indeed denying the power of God, and placing God in my human limited mind box. 

Sixth, if I say Christ did not feed thousands with two fish and loaves of bread that would have only fed a large family due to scientific analysis or that it doesn't make sense to me. Yes, indeed I am deny the power of God.

[Lost Boy]

9 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

I have already provided an answer to this type of thinking. Here it is again, "Is God able to build a rock that he can't jump over? If not, is he all powerful?" If I say God cannot build a rock he can't jump over, am I denying his power? This neither specifies I am denying or believing in the power of God. The question already begins with the wrong premises, 100% literal, and if not, I am denying the power of God.

First, I am not an ancient Hebrew, so if they believed in such, they believed in such. In our Bible we have Satan as a dragon. Do I believe Satan as a dragon is 100% literal? No. If you want to pick and choose literal translation in comparison to symbolism, in comparison to modern revelation and current teachings of the Church we can do so all day long. This has nothing to do with denying the power of God.

I believe the account in the Bible is correct. The Church currently teaches this is correct (as has already been shared with multiple quotes specifying the waters covered the earth).

Second, I do not know what is meant by the windows of heaven. Whatever the windows of heaven are, and where they are, and what was meant is what was meant. I believe in what was meant. People are welcome to their literal interpretation or their vague interpretation. If their literal or vague interpretation currently goes against the teachings the Church, I know which side I would side on. I am assuming you know which side you would side on.

Third, if we are making statements that certain things could never happen -- because it doesn't make sense to us -- then yes, we in fact do deny the power of God. If we are using the Ark and food on the Ark as an example that the global flood could not have happened, and yet we have God feeding a prophet by birds in the Old Testament. We have Christ feeding thousands by two fish and loaves of bread, and we have scriptures that specify God is able to change the "diet" of animals (i.e. lions) but say he could not nor is it possible or plausible that he could have provided means for food for the animals and Noah and his family, then yes, we are denying the power of God.

Fourth, no where did I say a literal interpretation means you are or are not denying the power of God.

Fifth, in reference to the scriptures, whatever the Lord meant through Isaiah and David for the highlighted words, is what was meant. If the Church comes out and specifies this is what was meant, and then I say, "That is wrong. There is no way it is possible because it doesn't make sense to me. There is no way that is possible because our current scientific analysis says it is not possible." Yes, I am indeed denying the power of God, and placing God in my human limited mind box. 

Sixth, if I say Christ did not feed thousands with two fish and loaves of bread that would have only fed a large family due to scientific analysis or that it doesn't make sense to me. Yes, indeed I am deny the power of God.

Like to twist words do you? 

I never said God couldn't do something because it didn't make sense.  I he didn't do it. Huge difference, but I think you want to paint me in a bad light. If that helps you sleep at night, I am fine with it. 

The regular orbits of the planets speak to God's existence. There are so many things in nature that point to God's existence. So why didn't he leave evidence of a flood?  Perhaps because he does not try to deceive. 

[Guest Scott]

Quote

The Church currently teaches this is correct (as hasalready been shared with multiple quotes specifying the waters covered the earth).

True, but is it official doctrine?  

Current teaching (in whichever current time you happen to believe in) does change over time.  Anyone who doesn't believe this only has to read the Journal of Discourses or History of the Church for confirmation.

Anyway, saying that the flood really wasn't world wide isn't denying the power of God; this is where we disagree.

If I say "I watched the sun set last night", am I lying?  Or am I just telling you what I saw happen from my perspective?  Technically the sun didn't set; it was the earth spinning on its axis that caused it to appear that way.  Just because I didn't layout every scientific or spiritual detail doesn't mean that I was lying.  I simply said that I watched the sunset.  The same is true of many scripture stories.

 

 

Edited May 15, 2018 by Scott

[Anddenex]

15 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

Like to twist words do you? 

I never said God couldn't do something because it didn't make sense.  I he didn't do it. Huge difference, but I think you want to paint me in a bad light. If that helps you sleep at night, I am fine with it. 

The regular orbits of the planets speak to God's existence. There are so many things in nature that point to God's existence. So why didn't he leave evidence of a flood?  Perhaps because he does not try to deceive. 

Nope, and I sleep just fine at night.

Here are your words, " 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."

Ok, so you didn't say something you said. I am not painting you in any light. If something does not make sense you deny it. This is what you said.

Why isn't their more evidence of the Book of Mormon? If the Book of Mormon is true, wouldn't there be more evidence? (at least this is what all the anti-Mormons tell me) We agree God doesn't deceive. Because something doesn't add up to you, doesn't mean God is deceiving. Because the evidence is not yet known, doesn't mean God is deceiving.

How in the world God multiplied two fish and a few loaves of bread, I have no clue. There is no evidence for it either. There is no scientific analyis that would say that is possible also. There would probably be a lot of scientific analysis against it happening also. God isn't hiding anything and not trying to deceive. I simply don't deny his power, and I don't place my trust in the arm of flesh to determine what happened and is correct in the Bible.

Edited May 15, 2018 by Anddenex

[Guest MormonGator]

Just now, Anddenex said:

Nope, and I sleep just fine at night.

I told you a shot of whiskey before bedtime helps. You are welcome. 

[Anddenex]

1 minute ago, MormonGator said:

I told you a shot of whiskey before bedtime helps. You are welcome. 

Ha - dude you were right! I could never thank you enough!

[Rob Osborn]

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

 

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

To "sanctify" in this sense means to blessand set apart for holy purpose. This is similar to when we bless and "sanctify" the bread and water. We set it apart for a holy use. In tge case of sanctifying the earth it means that God set it apart for holy use. In this case the holy use was the formation and placement of life on the earth.

[Anddenex]

23 minutes ago, Scott said:

True, but is it official doctrine?  

Current teaching (in whichever current time you happen to believe in) does change over time.  Anyone who doesn't believe this only has to read the Journal of Discourses or History of the Church for confirmation.

Anyway, saying that the flood really wasn't world wide isn't denying the power of God; this is where we disagree.

If I say "I watched the sun set last night", am I lying?  Or am I just telling you what I saw happen from my perspective?  Technically the sun didn't set; it was the earth spinning on its axis that caused it to appear that way.  Just because I didn't layout every scientific or spiritual detail doesn't mean that I was lying.  I simply said that I watched the sunset.  The same is true of many scripture stories.

The last paragraph reminds me of the psychology question, "Is my yellow shirt really yellow"? Then all who said "yes" (which it is by the way), the professor would say, "No, it is not yellow, it is a combination of colors." (which by the way makes yellow).

If you watched the sunset, and said I watched the sunset. I have no reason to disbelieve you. What you described is what we call a sunset. This isn't a very good example, because both explain the sunset. Were you lying because you didn't share every detail, and go into a scientific explanation of the sunset -- haha -- no. Really?

If I wore a green shirt yesterday and told you I wore a green shirt, am I lying?

Anyway, saying that the flood really wasn't world wide isn't denying the power of God; this is where we disagree.

This isn't what I said now was it? There are people on here who do not believe in a global flood (I am fine with this). If you don't believe in a global flood then you don't believe. Now if you start telling everyone:

1) That the flood did not happen because it doesn't make sense to you.

2) The flood did not happen because the arm of flesh can't provide evidence or proof for it, and that the arm of flesh provides evidence against it

3) The flood did not happen because if it did there would be tons (tons: my words from what I am reading) of evidence (despite knowing there is no proof or evidence of the Book of Mormon and anyone who tries to say there is the arm of flesh always says, at least not from reputable sources),

4) The flood did not happen despite current Church teachings (which they put in manuals to share with all members and for further study on gospel topics)

5) If you say the flood did not happen because it is beyond human understanding and denies all "logic" when we know God does plenty of things beyond human understanding and what is now considered logical - and in every argument I have been in when someone uses "it defies all logic and all human understanding" they are implying you are dumb, despite all that God has done that defies all human logic and understanding (already provided one example)

Then yes you are indeed denying the power of God.

 

[Rob Osborn]

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

 

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

Well, since none of us has ever witnessed a global flood (this includes scientists) we have no general marker. But, we have all witnessed localized floods and thus on a small scale know several things about flood geology. We know for instance that flooding waters are extremely destructive, probably the most destructive force in nature. Erosion rates with floods are thousands of times greater as rushing waters exponentially gain in power the deeper and faster they run. Erosion creates sediment to be carried and deposited. In normal circumstances like in rivers, streams, etc, depositing sediment on lake or sea beds in small and uniform is observed, these deposits happen generally in cycles either several times a year or once a year. Their deposits annually form what geologists call "varves". Varves are not thick and not relatively uniform over great areas as lake and sea beds are not generally flat to begin with. Fossil layers are not found in varves either. Flooding events though create sediment layers vastly different. The sediment created from flooding is thousands of times in magnitude as the erosion is vastly enhanced. As such, the sediment layers in flood events are more uniform in thickness, vastly deeper per layer by as much as tens of thousands as compared with varve layers, and will contain within their layers the trapped remains of living plants and animals that die and get buried rapidly. Understanding these principles of observable localized flooding helps us build a bigger picture of what we should look for with a flood of global catastrophic proportion.

Thus, in putting together the picture of a global deluge we should see evidence of vast and thick layers of sedimentary rock all over the world. We should see signs where rapid burial happened in the rock evidence trapping living plants and animals which would later become fossils. We should see evidence of erosion events that happened rather quickly after tge flood as the sediments were still soft and easily eroded. We should see evidence of mountain uplift. We should see evidence of strata layers in upthrusts in all the major mountain chains. We should see sedimentary layers from the upthrust rock to be bent and distorted or broken. We should expect to see vast deposits of chalk and limetone. We should expect to see entire forests buried so fast with sediment that the fossilized trees extend through several sediment layers in tge rock. We should see evidence of very large animals like dinosaurs to be buried completely in one layer of the sediment, not through a hundred varve layers. 

Those are just some of the main things. We see all of that. The evidence for a massive catastrophic flood is found on every continent. Whats interesting about this is that nowhere in the world are these same geologic events being created today. The slow erosion we get from rivers and streams do not carry the necessary amount of sediment to create what we see in the evidence of the rocks. And not by just a little but by magnitudes of difference. Understanding varves and how annual and semi annual layers form on lake and sea beds is important because those layers we see exposed such as in the Grand Canyon are not slow anuual deposits of sediment. Some of those layers individually are hundreds of feet thick and spread over thousands and thousands of square miles. Thick layers of sediment only form in catastrophic flooding situations. Otherwise its just varves which are very thin and not uniform over great areas. 

Once one begins to understand this principle of real geology he must conclude that the tale of the rocks point to catastrophic flooding events (notice I said it in plural). The flood itself was just one of several geologic catastrophes that happened around the flood. Flooding actually was still occuring for probably hundreds of years after the flood as trapped portions of water were escaping off the uplifting landscape. We see evidence of this also all over the world. Other events wuld have been present also such as earthquakes and volcanos. We see evidence of this also with sediment layers tilted and other parallel layers on top. We see lava beds inbetween and disrupting strata layers. This is evidence that volcanos were present as should be as massive pressures of tge earth crust were being uplifted and pressed down and forcing the magma to vent.

Tgis is just a start but tge more you look tge easier it is to see the hidden face. After much study you see tge hidden face first and tge other face disappears.

[Lost Boy]

5 hours ago, RemnantofJoseph said:

It's fascinating to see the LDS appeal to science, geologic "evidence," etc.   How can anyone possibly put any limitations on Jesus Christ, by whom ALL things were created?

As always, we must turn to the Book of Mormon:

"Yea, behold at his voice do the hills and the mountains tremble and quake.
And by the power of his voice they are broken up, and become smooth, yea, even like unto a valley.
Yea, by the power of his voice doth the whole earth shake;
Yea, by the power of his voice, do the foundations rock, even to the very center.
Yea, and if he say unto the earth—Move—it is moved!
Yea, if he say unto the earth—Thou shalt go back, that it lengthen out the day for many hours—it is done;
And thus, according to his word the earth goeth back, and it appeareth unto man that the sun standeth still; yea, and behold, this is so; for surely it is the earth that moveth and not the sun.
And behold, also, if he say unto the waters of the great deep—Be thou dried up—it is done.
Behold, if he say unto this mountain—Be thou raised up, and come over and fall upon that city, that it be buried up—behold it is done."  (Helaman 12)

God needs only speak and the elements obey His command. He can stop the earth's rotation, raise up and flatten mountains, and dry up the seas by the power of His voice. 

At Bountiful:

"Behold, that great city Zarahemla have I burned with fire, and the inhabitants thereof.  And behold, that great city Moroni have I caused to be sunk in the depths of the sea, and the inhabitants thereof to be drowned. And behold, that great city Moronihah have I covered with earth, and the inhabitants thereof, to hide their iniquities and their abominations from before my face, that the blood of the prophets and the saints shall not come any more unto me against them. And behold, the city of Gilgal have I caused to be sunk, and the inhabitants thereof to be buried up in the depths of the earth;  Yea, and the city of Onihah and the inhabitants thereof, and the city of Mocum and the inhabitants thereof, and the city of Jerusalem and the inhabitants thereof; and waters have I caused to come up in the stead thereof, to hide their wickedness and abominations from before my face, that the blood of the prophets and the saints shall not come up any more unto me against them.  And behold, the city of Gadiandi, and the city of Gadiomnah, and the city of Jacob, and the city of Gimgimno, all these have I caused to be sunk, and made hills and valleys in the places thereof; and the inhabitants thereof have I buried up in the depths of the earth, to hide their wickedness and abominations from before my face, that the blood of the prophets and the saints should not come up any more unto me against them..."  (3 Nephi 9)

This all happened within minutes.

Also, recall that Abinidi relayed God's commandments to Noah and his court and dropped an interesting tidbit:

"And now, ye remember that I said unto you: Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of things which are in heaven above, or which are in the earth beneath, or which are in the water under the earth."  (Mosiah 13:12 - This, too, confirmed by scientists:  "Water-rich gem points to vast 'oceans' beneath Earth's surface, study suggests")

Covering the entire earth with water is small potatoes for God.   He only need command the elements and crack the ocean floor and it is done. 

"In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened."

We also have to consider that the antediluvian land masses were dramatically different than they are now.

I recommend the following:

“Is Genesis History?” - Available on Netflix.  A segment of the film deals particularly with the Flood account.
“Symbols of an Alien Sky” - via YouTube  ("The scriptures are laid before thee, yea, and all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator." - Alma 30)
LDS writer Anthony Larson’s “And the Earth Shall Turn to Blood”

Get familiar with catastrophism.  The Grand Canyon, for example, is the result of a catastrophic event (either the flood or a plasmic discharge) - the same kind of event that took place at Christ’s death -- not uniformitarianism.  The earth underwent a MASSIVE geologic and geographic change in a matter of minutes, both during the flood and the crucifixion. 

It will undergo further dramatic, catastrophic transformation before returning to its Edenic state.

Ultimately, we must decide whether we believe God or "Science."  God is a God of Truth and cannot lie.

 

 

 

 

It isn't about believing in God or science. It is about believing the account in the Bible. 

Do I believe God has the power? Yes. Do I believe he flooded the entire planet? No. There are far too many holes in the the story. 

[Rob Osborn]

9 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

It isn't about believing in God or science. It is about believing the account in the Bible. 

Do I believe God has the power? Yes. Do I believe he flooded the entire planet? No. There are far too many holes in the the story. 

Let's look at it from a standpoint of scripture without the science part- 

Noah had 120 years to warn everyone a flood was coming and they would be destroyed. Certainly some would move far away and be safe if it we're just a localized event right?

Why build such a vastly large ship if you are just saving the animals in your neighborhood? Wouldn't it be easier for Got to just have Noah migrate them?

What about God's promise that he would never flood the whole earth again?

What about all the races of men descending from Noah?

Why is the flooding of the earth in scripture likened to baptism by complete immersion?

 

[BJ64]

12 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

 

Why is the flooding of the earth in scripture likened to baptism by complete immersion?

 

Where is this found?

[Lost Boy]

1 minute ago, Rob Osborn said:

Let's look at it from a standpoint of scripture without the science part- 

Noah had 120 years to warn everyone a flood was coming and they would be destroyed. Certainly some would move far away and be safe if it we're just a localized event right?

Why build such a vastly large ship if you are just saving the animals in your neighborhood? Wouldn't it be easier for Got to just have Noah migrate them?

What about God's promise that he would never flood the whole earth again?

What about all the races of men descending from Noah?

Why is the flooding of the earth in scripture likened to baptism by complete immersion?

 

First...  If I believed Noah, I would change my ways and not move away.  

Next...  Did Noah save any fish?  I don't think so.  Fresh water fish die in salt water.  And salt water fish die in fresh water.  There are very few that can exist in both.

So if Noah didn't have to save fish, why in the heck did he have to save any animals in the first place?

How about the millions of different insects, worms, etc?  Did he save them?

There were mountains before the flood.  It rained so much that it covered the mountains.  Where did the water come from?  Where did it go?  If God just "poofed" the water into existence,  why make it rain at all?  

There is no indication in the bible that God changed the lay of the land during the flood.

What the tens of thousands of animals eat for the 1+ years they would have been on the ark?  What did they eat after they got off the ark?  How did 8 people care for tens of thousands of animals?  It might have been a big boat, but it was not big enough to store a years worth of food for the worlds animals.  and where would Noah have gotten all of the diverse foods the animals eat?  Ant eaters, pandas, tigers, etc...

You can postulate that God changed the animals so they could eat a uniform food, or that they didn't have to eat, etc...  but if he changed the animals, why not just give them gills and let them swim for a year?  

Why kill all of the animals in the first place?

 

 

[Grunt]

15 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

First...  If I believed Noah, I would change my ways and not move away.  

Next...  Did Noah save any fish?  I don't think so.  Fresh water fish die in salt water.  And salt water fish die in fresh water.  There are very few that can exist in both.

So if Noah didn't have to save fish, why in the heck did he have to save any animals in the first place?

How about the millions of different insects, worms, etc?  Did he save them?

There were mountains before the flood.  It rained so much that it covered the mountains.  Where did the water come from?  Where did it go?  If God just "poofed" the water into existence,  why make it rain at all?  

There is no indication in the bible that God changed the lay of the land during the flood.

What the tens of thousands of animals eat for the 1+ years they would have been on the ark?  What did they eat after they got off the ark?  How did 8 people care for tens of thousands of animals?  It might have been a big boat, but it was not big enough to store a years worth of food for the worlds animals.  and where would Noah have gotten all of the diverse foods the animals eat?  Ant eaters, pandas, tigers, etc...

You can postulate that God changed the animals so they could eat a uniform food, or that they didn't have to eat, etc...  but if he changed the animals, why not just give them gills and let them swim for a year?  

Why kill all of the animals in the first place?

 

 

You didn't answer his questions.  I'm interested in hearing them.

[Lost Boy]

34 minutes ago, Grunt said:

You didn't answer his questions.  I'm interested in hearing them.

I didn't answer his questions because I don't think it happened.  At least not a global flood anyway.

His questions would be to me akin to saying "So we know that 2+4 is 5 so what is 8+14?"

If I don't believe the story, how can I reasonably answer the questions?

[Grunt]

3 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

I didn't answer his questions because I don't think it happened.  At least not a global flood anyway.

His questions would be to me akin to saying "So we know that 2+4 is 5 so what is 8+14?"

If I don't believe the story, how can I reasonably answer the questions?

Because his questions directly relate to issues with scripture and doctrine that appear if you DON'T believe the story.  Unless you're saying the Bible is false.  If that's the case, then we're easily done here.

[Lost Boy]

Just now, Grunt said:

Because his questions directly relate to issues with scripture and doctrine that appear if you DON'T believe the story.  Unless you're saying the Bible is false.  If that's the case, then we're easily done here.

Your statement above is unclear to me what you are asking.  

But to put it in no uncertain terms...  I don't believe the flood covered the entire Earth.  I think it covered the part that Noah could see.  Do I believe that the bible got things wrong?  Yes.   I don't believe the 6 day creation story either.  I believe through God's power the Earth was created, but in six days? no.

And if you dislike talking with me because I believe this way, that is on you, not me.

[Grunt]

7 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

Your statement above is unclear to me what you are asking.  

But to put it in no uncertain terms...  I don't believe the flood covered the entire Earth.  I think it covered the part that Noah could see.  Do I believe that the bible got things wrong?  Yes.   I don't believe the 6 day creation story either.  I believe through God's power the Earth was created, but in six days? no.

And if you dislike talking with me because I believe this way, that is on you, not me.

I'm asking you to answer his questions.  If you believe the Bible to not be scripture, you aren't LDS.  If you believe the Bible to be scripture, but not literal, then answer his questions to explain the discrepancies between your position and other areas of doctrine.

And if your beliefs are opposite LDS teachings, that is most definitely on you, not me.

Edited May 17, 2018 by Grunt

[Lost Boy]

2 minutes ago, Grunt said:

I'm asking you to answer his questions.  If you believe the Bible to not be scripture, you aren't LDS.  If you believe the Bible to be scripture, but not literal, then answer his questions to explain the discrepancies between your position and other areas of doctrine.

I believe parts not to be literal.

Why build such a vastly large ship if you are just saving the animals in your neighborhood? Wouldn't it be easier for Got to just have Noah migrate them?

      First we really don't know how big the ark was.  Two, I think gathering the animals was a form of symbolism and that is why I think God had him do it.  Similarly to Abraham sacrificing his son.  Symbolic...  

What about God's promise that he would never flood the whole earth again?

     Mistranslation perhaps....   

What about all the races of men descending from Noah?

      Unlikely, the scripture is vague.  It could mean that the decedents of Noah spread across the Earth.

Why is the flooding of the earth in scripture likened to baptism by complete immersion?

      Where is this stated in scripture.

[zil]

19 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

Two, I think gathering the animals was a form of symbolism and that is why I think God had him do it.  Similarly to Abraham sacrificing his son.  Symbolic...

Interesting.  Symbolic of what?

[Lost Boy]

Just now, zil said:

Interesting.  Symbolic of what?

Taking care of those around us..  protecting them from the flood of evil...  

[Rob Osborn]

2 hours ago, Lost Boy said:

I believe parts not to be literal.

Why build such a vastly large ship if you are just saving the animals in your neighborhood? Wouldn't it be easier for Got to just have Noah migrate them?

      First we really don't know how big the ark was.  Two, I think gathering the animals was a form of symbolism and that is why I think God had him do it.  Similarly to Abraham sacrificing his son.  Symbolic...  

What about God's promise that he would never flood the whole earth again?

     Mistranslation perhaps....   

What about all the races of men descending from Noah?

      Unlikely, the scripture is vague.  It could mean that the decedents of Noah spread across the Earth.

Why is the flooding of the earth in scripture likened to baptism by complete immersion?

      Where is this stated in scripture.

We do know the relative size of the ark. The dimensions were given in scripture. It was 300 cubits in length, 50 cubits in width and 30 cubits in height (450 × 75 × 45 ft or 137 × 22.9 × 13.7 m) with three floors inside. That is a very large boat. It makes absolutely no sense if God commands him to build a ship this size if we are speaking of a relatively small localized flood.

Theres no mistranslation with Gods promise to never flood the earth again unless of course you discount latter day revelation and scripture. How do you reconcile-

50 And it came to pass that Enoch continued his cry unto the Lord, saying: I ask thee, O Lord, in the name of thine Only Begotten, even Jesus Christ, that thou wilt have mercy upon Noah and his seed, that the earth might never more be covered by the floods.

51 And the Lord could not withhold; and he covenanted with Enoch, and sware unto him with an oath, that he would stay the floods; that he would call upon the children of Noah; (Moses 7: 50-51)

And what about this scripture stating all of us come directly from Noah?

45 And it came to pass that Enoch looked; and from Noah, he beheld all the families of the earth; and he cried unto the Lord, saying: When shall the day of the Lord come? When shall the blood of the Righteous be shed, that all they that mourn may be sanctified and have eternal life? (Moses 7:45)

Here the scripture likening the flood with baptism-

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: (1 Peter 3:18-21)

Im of the belief that you will discount all of these scriptures.

 

[Rob Osborn]

4 hours ago, BJ64 said:

Where is this found?

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:

[Lost Boy]

16 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

We do know the relative size of the ark. The dimensions were given in scripture. It was 300 cubits in length, 50 cubits in width and 30 cubits in height (450 × 75 × 45 ft or 137 × 22.9 × 13.7 m) with three floors inside. That is a very large boat. It makes absolutely no sense if God commands him to build a ship this size if we are speaking of a relatively small localized flood.

Theres no mistranslation with Gods promise to never flood the earth again unless of course you discount latter day revelation and scripture. How do you reconcile-

50 And it came to pass that Enoch continued his cry unto the Lord, saying: I ask thee, O Lord, in the name of thine Only Begotten, even Jesus Christ, that thou wilt have mercy upon Noah and his seed, that the earth might never more be covered by the floods.

51 And the Lord could not withhold; and he covenanted with Enoch, and sware unto him with an oath, that he would stay the floods; that he would call upon the children of Noah; (Moses 7: 50-51)

And what about this scripture stating all of us come directly from Noah?

45 And it came to pass that Enoch looked; and from Noah, he beheld all the families of the earth; and he cried unto the Lord, saying: When shall the day of the Lord come? When shall the blood of the Righteous be shed, that all they that mourn may be sanctified and have eternal life? (Moses 7:45)

Here the scripture likening the flood with baptism-

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: (1 Peter 3:18-21)

Im of the belief that you will discount all of these scriptures.

 

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.