Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Tramper

The Flood Story

Recommended Posts

AZ_RM:

I'm no geologist, nor do I play one on TV. But there is NO EVIDENCE for a world wide flood during mans living on earth.

Does anyone know of localized evidence? Obviously the animal part of the story is a farce, but perhaps there was a small scale flood caused by glacial retreat that spawned the story?

Share this post


Link to post

Oh goody! Now I don't have to fear a world wide destruction by fire. Just a localized one,like in California. There goes another prophecy.

Share this post


Link to post
Tramper

My short question is this: Can a member in good standing really claim that the Flood of Noah was worldwide?

This may answer that question LDS.org

Share this post


Link to post

Wait. A global destruction by fire is not that hard to envision given an impact with a comet or asteroid. Even a nuclear holocaust is conceivable. Its just that water business that is impossible. I just love it when people talk about 200,000,000 years as if it were yesterday. They throw around millions of years like the government throws around billions of dollars.

Share this post


Link to post
This may answer that question LDS.org

Ouch! The outright dismisal of geology is stunning.

I wonder if this stance by the church implies a disregard to evolution as well?

Share this post


Link to post

As I have monitored and participated in this discussion I have become quite curious. There are strong opinions here, even beyond opinion to the brink of faith. One side of this debate may even accuse the other of blind faith and vice versa. I'm sure most of you realize through monitoring these posts that I am no stranger to science, however, I too have a very strong opinion and faith. I lean very heavily toward the science of catasrophism. It is real. We witness it daily. Uniformitarianism on the other hand cannot be witnessed by humans in the same way.

My curiosity is in this: Many of you, those who adhere to uniformitarianism and evolution, you obviously discount the flood story from ancient texts, the Bible included, and now it appears that you discount the probability of Adam and Eve as outlined throughout written human history also including the Bible. How many of you who adhere to uniformitarianism are LDS or EV?

Share this post


Link to post
Does anyone know of localized evidence? Obviously the animal part of the story is a farce, but perhaps there was a small scale flood caused by glacial retreat that spawned the story?

One of the most popular books about a local flood is by William Ryan and Walter Pitman called "Noahâ??s Flood: The New Scientific

Discoveries about the Event that Changed History." A Sunstone article by Duane Jeffrey of BYU has and excellent article about this book and other theories in Sunstone magazine, published in October 2004. I cannot remember all the details, but basically it has something to with a major event where the Black Sea broke through a mountain barrier and flooded some villages about 5,000 years ago. The hypothesis is that this event eventually grew into the myth of Noah and also the earlier flood story in Gilgamesh (I may have spelled that wrong). I also saw a program on either the History Channel or the Discovery Channel about Noah's Flood where the hypothesis consists of a major flooding of a middle eastern town from a river that may have grown into the myth of Noah's Flood. The film believes that it is possible that the character of Noah may have been real in that someone who was a boat merchant carrying supplies and animals could have survived. This is certainly going out on a limb, but it is far more plausible than a world wide flood.

Share this post


Link to post
There are enough indicators to safely assume there wasn't a worldwide catastrophic flood that killed all humans and animals outside the ark around 2500BC. The worldwide flood is most definitely a theory that can be tested scientifically, and it is taught in Chuch. The Church has made many, many official statements in the scriptures and Church publications and manuals regarding the literal reality of the worldwide flood. There has never been any middle ground. It is possible to reject the worldwide flood without becoming an apostate (as many on this board have demonstrated). I don't think a local flood story makes sense, but some seem happy with that idea.

I recall the flood being around 3500 BC. I need to look it up though. Anyway the deteriation on the sphinx is left to water damage and not sand storm activity. Also there is a water ring mark about halfway up the Great Pyramid.

CFR: "The Great Pyramid, Lost Legend of Enoch" by Ken Klein productions

Share this post


Link to post
The flood story is a true geological account that really happened. Just as the story of Christ, his death, and miraculous resurrection into eternal life is real, so is the story of Noah and the flood. Nobody here questions on if Christ was really resurrected. The same bodies of modern scientific institution telling us the flood was a myth is that same institution telling us that resurrection is impossible. Why do we discard one belief over another? Is it because we must believe in Christ because it pertains to our eternal identity as resurrected beings?

For those believeing in the flood there is ample evidence, just as there is ample evidence of Christ and the creation for those who follow after Christ. No prophet to date has discounted any part of the flood story as mythical. To do so would be like saying the resurrection is not for real.

Must we believe in a global worldwide flood catastrophe? We must! The prophets have warned us against being scoffers not believeing the ancient happenings of the earth including specifically that the world that then was, was destroyed being covered by the flood waters!

Because the evidence for the flood is so noticable, it is almost entirely overlooked!!! Is it of no accident that watery laid sediments lay fragmented all over the earth? Is it also no accident that every major mountain chain is an upthrust of watery laid sediments containing millions of fossils?

Finally, Is it no accident that even Christ himself testified of the magnitude of the flood? Is Christ a liar?

Mr. Osborn, me and you have gone the rounds on this before, I assume it will be no different this time. For one you are wrong about no one here questioning the resurrection. Yet Katherine is right, there is no way to really test the resurrection, unlike the flood. Although there is no real evidence such an event like the resurrection occured.

You claim that we must believe in the flood because of the prophets. Then tell me why scientists that teach at Church owned BYU also do not believe in a global flood and are yet allowed to teach there. Just read Sunstone's issue in October 2004 by Duane Jeffrey of BYU. Why is this unbeliever still allowed to teach if believing in the silly flood is so important?

Since evidence for the flood is "so noticable," why has every geologist at every accredited university across the US, Canada, and in Europe all missed it? Yet Rob Osborn hasn't missed the evidence. You could become a major force in the world if you could just demonstrate to all these scientists this overwhelming evidence that they have all missed. I say you go for it.

Share this post


Link to post
CFR: "The Great Pyramid, Lost Legend of Enoch" by Ken Klein productions

I hope that this was a joke...

Share this post


Link to post
Well our geological record goes far beyond that! Wonder what it says about the matter? Any geologists in the crowd?

I guess I don't understand what you are getting at. We are discussing the flood story as told in the scriptures.

Share this post


Link to post
I guess I don't understand what you are getting at. We are discussing the flood story as told in the scriptures.

I just went back to check and sure enough, I didn't read the question correctly. He asked about how long human history was and I thought he had asked about geological history.

Share this post


Link to post
I hope that this was a joke...

I'm afraid it wasn't.

Share this post


Link to post

The observed erosion on the Great Sphinx that appears to be due to water damage is consistent with rainfall, not with being submerged. (And far, far more than 40 days and 40 nights of rainfall, as well.)

There doesn't appear to be a Flood tie-in there.

The proposed theory is that the Sphinx was already in existence at the time the the Giza Plateau had a much wetter climate, around 9,000 years ago.

(I'm not saying that I buy the theory, but if we're going to discuss fringe theories, lets at least get the theory straight.)

Share this post


Link to post

I believe there was a worldwide flood. The scriptures are clear on this. The flood could not have been a local flood given God's promise that he would never allow the earth be flooded again. There have been many local floods since that time.

I have studied geology quite extensively and know that we know far less about the records of the earths history contained in the rocks than we like to believe. It seems to me the whole science is befuddled with circular arguments.

Alan

Share this post


Link to post

Alan:

"take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it (Job 38:12-13)

Last I looked a ball doesn't have edges.

1 Kings 7:23 "He made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about." Circumference = Pi() x Diameter, which means the line would have to have been over 31 cubits. In order for this to be rounding, it would have had to overstate the amount to ensure that the line did "compass it round about."

Lev 11:20-21: "All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you." Fowl do not go upon all four.

Lev 11:6: "And the hare, because he cheweth the cud..." Hare do not chew the cud.

Deut 14:7: " "...as the camel, and the hare, and the coney: for they chew the cud, but divide not the hoof." For the hare this is wrong on both counts: Hare donâ??t chew the cud and they do divide the "hoof."

Jonah 1:17 says, "...Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights" Matt 12:40 says "...Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly..." whales and fish are not related

Matt 13:31-32: " "the kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed whichâ?¦is the least of all seeds, but when it is grown is the greatest among herbs and becometh a tree." There are 2 significant errors here: first, there are many smaller seeds, like the orchid seed; and second, mustard plants don't grow into trees.

Matt 4:8: " Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them." Unless the world is flat, altitude simply will not help you see all the kingdoms of the earth.

Share this post


Link to post

The article by Donald W. Parry is an example of what religion should not be about. He makes questionable interpretations of what the Bible may once have contained and he both ignores and dismisses science without any closer examination. The article I referred to from Dialogue is in my view a good summary of this problematic issue.

Why then this approach from Professor Parry? Well, the documented findings of the Earths history are a tremendous challenge for LDS theology. In his article he presents these challenges very well. Not only is the Bible in question. So are the Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price and the modern prophets in the Church.

Professor Parry simple urges us to come to the following conclusion. There was a worldwide flood. The almighty God however intervened immediately after the flood and restored the Earth as if the flood never happened. Therefore it is not surprising that all signs discovered by scientists contradict the religious narrative. Remember an Almighty God can do whatever he pleases. One canâ??t stop wondering though why God took away all the evidences. Why did he want to play with the sincere seekers?

I do agree with the Russian Queen on this forum that the Bible and the Book of Mormon are inspired words from God. When we ponder on these mythical narratives we can learn great wisdom. This wisdom is not dependent on the question of historicity.

Share this post


Link to post
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints claims to have the truth, and Mormon theology claims that there are perfect harmony between science and true religion. The only conflicts exist in the minds of men.

My short question is this: Can a member in good standing really claim that the Flood of Noah was worldwide?

The article below (see the link) may be a helpful introduction of this issue: http://www.dialoguejournal.com/content/wp-.../4003-White.pdf

The background for my question is this. Recently my bishop made a firm statement on this issue. He said that the Devil repeatedly attacks the Bible stories trying to persuade the faithful to abandon the true revealed stories that are important for our understanding of our salvation and the salvation of our entire planet.

No. I do not think that the scriptures are compatible with a worldwide flood. To accept both requires a non-literal reading of the scriptures. This may work for the Bible. But the BoM and PoGP and D&C self-destruct. They are 19th Century 'revelations' re-affirming bronze-age myth. They cast the flood, tower of Babel, and the creation myth in modern concrete.

So which bits of the scripture are myth, or non-literal, and which bits are to be taken seriously. Who decides?? Some of these bits are, like, important for our salvation!

This was a major problem for me when I reached an age to think through things for myself. I was comfortable with the Bible being an imperfect record. But it seemed that the flakiest bits of the bible just got reiterated in the BoM, PoGP and D&C. If you accept these scriptures at all, then these books are inerrant. All of them. Not just some of them.

Share this post


Link to post

I can't even believe people are arguing over this.

Forget looking at the fossil and geological record. Nine people could not gather hundreds of thousands of animals from every corner of the planet, put them on a ship, feed, water, and clean up after them for forty days, and then return them all to the places where they found them.

That simply did not happen, and I can't believe anyone would be dense enough to say it did.

Share this post


Link to post
I can't even believe people are arguing over this.

Forget looking at the fossil and geological record. Nine people could not gather hundreds of thousands of animals from every corner of the planet, put them on a ship, feed, water, and clean up after them for forty days, and then return them all to the places where they found them.

That simply did not happen, and I can't believe anyone would be dense enough to say it did.

What's more, they probably would have built aquariums for most, if not all, of the fish. Saltwater fish cannot survive in freshwater and vice versa. The waters in the flood would likely have diluted the saltwater enough to make it unliveable for the saltwater fish, but still too salty for the freshwater fish. Now, who here thinks Noah could have constructed an aquarium large enough to fit two of each species of whale?

Edited to add: he would have also had to had the aquariums temperature controlled as tropical fish surely cannot live in water of the same temperature as fish living in the arctic.

Furthermore, what would have happened to all of the oceanic vegetatation? The changes in salinity would have wreaked havoc on them as well.

Share this post


Link to post
I can't even believe people are arguing over this.

Forget looking at the fossil and geological record. Nine people could not gather hundreds of thousands of animals from every corner of the planet, put them on a ship, feed, water, and clean up after them for forty days, and then return them all to the places where they found them.

That simply did not happen, and I can't believe anyone would be dense enough to say it did.

I guess if you put in God in the equation anything is possible. God could easily have restored all lost animals that Noah was not able to bring with him on the Arch. As an almighty God he took away all evidences making all scientists and every other geek confused. This is a real problem for the Church to deal with. The inability for Church leaders to clarify the Church position on this matter leads to separations within families when members go inactive. Professor Parry has by his writings brought more misery than good to the Church. My question is: Can Professor Parry still be considered to be a member in good standing even though he has been found preaching what is not true?

Share this post


Link to post

1. Do you believe in God, the Eternal Father, in his Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost; and do you have a firm testimony of the restored gospel?

2. Do you sustain the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the prophet, seer, and revelator; and do you recognize him as the only person on the earth authorized to exercise all priesthood keys?

3. Do you sustain the other General Authorities and the local authorities of the Church?

4. Do you live the law of chastity?

5. Is there anything in your conduct relating to members of your family that is not in harmony with the teachings of the Church?

6. Do you affiliate with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or do you sympathize with the precepts of any such group or individual?

7. Do you earnestly strive to do your duty in the Church; to attend your sacrament, priesthood, and other meetings; and to obey the rules, laws, and commandments of the gospel?

8. Are you honest in your dealings with your fellowmen?

9. Are you a full-tithe payer?

10. Do you keep the Word of Wisdom?

11. Have you ever had a divorce that has not been cleared by appropriate priesthood authorities, where required?

12. If you have ever been divorced or separated, are you presently fulfilling your obligations for the support and maintenance of your family?

13. If you have received your temple endowment -- (a) Do you keep all the covenants that you made in the temple? (cool.gif Do you wear the authorized garments both day and night?

14. Has there been any sin or misdeed in your life that should have been resolved with priesthood authorities but has not?

15. Do you consider yourself worthy in every way to enter the temple and participate in temple ordinances?

I don't see one single question about The Flood; Where the Garden of Eden may have been; How old the earth is, or a host of other non-gospel

related questions.

So Yes, if a person can honestly answer those questions. I would consider them a member in good standing.

Share this post


Link to post
Mr. Osborn, me and you have gone the rounds on this before, I assume it will be no different this time. For one you are wrong about no one here questioning the resurrection. Yet Katherine is right, there is no way to really test the resurrection, unlike the flood. Although there is no real evidence such an event like the resurrection occured.

You claim that we must believe in the flood because of the prophets. Then tell me why scientists that teach at Church owned BYU also do not believe in a global flood and are yet allowed to teach there. Just read Sunstone's issue in October 2004 by Duane Jeffrey of BYU. Why is this unbeliever still allowed to teach if believing in the silly flood is so important?

Since evidence for the flood is "so noticable," why has every geologist at every accredited university across the US, Canada, and in Europe all missed it? Yet Rob Osborn hasn't missed the evidence. You could become a major force in the world if you could just demonstrate to all these scientists this overwhelming evidence that they have all missed. I say you go for it.

I bring up the resurrection in perspective in the willingness to believe something only if it pertains specifically to our eternal well being. A resurrection, speaking from a scientific standing defies all the physics of what we know about modern biology. Modern biology cannot ever explain just how and why the resurrection is plausible and yet it exists and obeys the very laws of physics we try to analyze. So then, if we know that the resurrection is a fact and does exist, and obeys the very laws of nature we have that exist around us, can that same logic be used in the justification for believing in a worldwide flood aknowledging that once again modern science just cant possibly fathom the very operations of nature around them?

For instance- we have no way of truly dating rocks and the fossils found in them. We have a speculative system for making a platform to jump off and start scientific research, but we have no solid footing as to what exactly happened and the laws of nature governing such processes. Most of our scientific research is built upon the "observation" part of the experiment. The problem with researching the plausibility of a global flood is that we have nothing in "real time" to observe. We just can't go back into time to see it happen or not see it happen and then make scientific reasonings based off of our observation.

All we are truly left with then is the evidence. Does the evidence, minus scientific inaccuracies (dating of rocks, etc), point to a worldwide deluge? Yes, very much so! For starters, fossils do not naturally form in rock under normal circumstances. Almost every modern documentation of buried alive animals (the kind that turn into fossils) in nature is the direct result of a watery flood event. Because the fossil and rock record is spread out over the entire earth, and has been shown to be the same on every continent we can conclude quite positively that the geologic column is made up of sediment laid down almost entirely under water! There is no disputing that fact! So the question really is this- Did the geologic column, found at different parts of the earth form at the same time under water or at different times under water? The question isn't "if" it formed under water, but when and under what circumstances was it formed?

If we attribute it to small localized floods, we can and should discount the entire record of the geologic column in time frames as we cannot specifically know at what point the inundation occured. For instance- if it was all localized buryings, then we cannot know at what point a fossil truly became extinct and where another started. This means that trying to date rocks by the fossils contained in them is very circular reasoning based off their own logic! Sedimentary rocks cannot be dated by themselves with current scientific methods- that is a fact. Sedimentary rocks are almost exclusively dated by the fossils found in them. The problem is however that there is no sure way to date the fossil either, especially when you apply the logic that the same species over an entire globe will all not go into extinction at the same time.

In fact, "living fossils" like the coelocanth fish has baffled biology labs for decades now. How is it possible that something like this fish which was supposed to go extinct millions and millions of years ago suddenly reappear in a fishermans net basically unchanged, alive and doing well? The fact is this- the evolutionary trees we have drawn from the geologic column are not represented by the facts and evidence! So then what is the geologic column? The geologic column in proper historical reference is the "flood column". This flood column was created in a short series of catastrophic events begining with the events leading up to the flood event, and culminated many years later as the flood waters retreated off the land due mostly to the quick and yet violent uplift of the land.

I have talked to several of the professors at byu explaining my discontent for their views. Apparently, the Brethren are divided on the situation and are at odds somewhat as to what to teach. The truth will come though- the flood is true, evolution is false and basic scientific beliefs will turn out to be tom-foolery.

Share this post


Link to post

Rob, if you don't mind me asking for clarification, do you believe that all the fossils we find now are the result of the flood?

Share this post


Link to post

Rob Osborn:

The irony here is delicious. Using the Internet(which at best is highly theoretical) to dismiss other equally valid theories.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...