Jump to content

Archived

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

Tramper

The Flood Story

Recommended Posts

Oddly, you don't seem to be defending the Bible, or modern Church leaders' statements.

I agree with you that the Bible is probably wrong about the flood, and that modern leaders have been mistaken when they state it was a literal, worldwide event. So there's not much to debate on that subject. We agree. My disagreement is with those who believe there was a literal, worldwide flood, or those who would argue that the idea of a local flood is compatible with the Genesis account (including God's rainbow covenant).

I'm open to future evidence for a local or worldwide flood, and until that evidence presents itself, I'll go with the most likely explanation that the Bible story is nothing more than a superstition meant to explain where rainbows come from. Hopefully, the geologists and apologists in the Church can get word to SLC about this, so they can correct the CES manuals and clarify past statements (maybe even an OD3).

You can look at it like I am not defending the Bible (that is because I am not - as stated previously, there are WAY too many inconsistencies for the book to be taken Literally), but I am defending modern Church leader's statements by saying that they are speaking for themselves, and not necessarily for the Church. The only person that can do that is the Prophet.

Modern revelation is a wonderful thing.

I think that maybe it would be along the lines of OD4 (or maybe 5). Have to keep in mind other statements like the Proclamation to the World among others. There are so many (lol), it's hard to keep straight. But, again that's the beauty of modern revelation. It's an ongoing conversation witht the Lord.

Share this post


Link to post
Modern revelation is a wonderful thing.

I think that maybe it would be along the lines of OD4 (or maybe 5). Have to keep in mind other statements like the Proclamation to the World among others. There are so many (lol), it's hard to keep straight. But, again that's the beauty of modern revelation. It's an ongoing conversation witht the Lord.

It is a wonderful thing. A declaration regarding the limited (or mythical) scope of the flood would be right up there with potential future revelations regarding women getting the priesthood, Adam and Eve not being the first humans, the return of the earthly practice of polygamy, the Book of Mormon not being historical either, and so many other wonderful lines of celestial conversation that God could open with His prophets.

I can hardly wait.

Share this post


Link to post
It is a wonderful thing. A declaration regarding the limited (or mythical) scope of the flood would be right up there with potential future revelations regarding women getting the priesthood, Adam and Eve not being the first humans, the return of the earthly practice of polygamy, the Book of Mormon not being historical either, and so many other wonderful lines of celestial conversation that God could open with His prophets.

I can hardly wait.

Neitehr can I. I can't wait to hear exactly what God has to say about all of the questions that we have for Him. It is one of those things that I look forward to most.

Till then, it's fun discussing the relative merits of both sides, isn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Neitehr can I. I can't wait to hear exactly what God has to say about all of the questions that we have for Him. It is one of those things that I look forward to most.

Till then, it's fun discussing the relative merits of both sides, isn't it?

I don't think we need revelations, what we need is a firm statement that what we know is actual true. A possible subject for revelation could be that God doesn't hide evidence and don't twist facts. In other words. We can safely rely on science. God didn't take away all evidences of the flood. The flood just didn't happen. The supporters of the local flood theory has then to explain the tsunami in Thailand. According to the covenant it should never have happened.

Share this post


Link to post
I don't think we need revelations, what we need is a firm statement that what we know is actual true. A possible subject for revelation could be that God doesn't hide evidence and don't twist facts. In other words. We can safely rely on science. God didn't take away all evidences of the flood. The flood just didn't happen. The supporters of the local flood theory has then to explain the tsunami in Thailand. According to the covenant it should never have happened.

If you look back and actually read what I said, you will notice that I did not say the things you are alluding to here. I never said that God hid anything, I just said that WE don't know for sure what happened. You act as if God and science are mutually exclusive, that's fine. I said before that I believe science is the "technical" how to of what God does. You have your belief, I have mine. Each are equally plausible, according to our individual belief's.

If you beleve that the only way God could actually exist is if He answered each and every one of your, or mine, questions no matter how many times we ask them (and no matter how many times he answers them) well, more power to ya. I don't like to limit my belief in God to acting through solely "supernatural" agents. I believe that He can, and does, act often through the use of the "natural" world.

Again, you can believe what you want, I am going to believe what I want. Just don't try to put words into my mouth, please.

Share this post


Link to post

LDS members and other Christians alike that disbelieve the flood as a literal global event lack faith. They lack faith in the almighty God. They lack faith in the word of God. I have never once disbelieved the flood even though at times I marveled about how sucha catastrphe could of ever taken place. I started asking real questions though and started getting real plausible answers.

Today I have the confirmation neede to believe the flood "because" of the evidence and not just off of faith. In fact, the evidence is so overwhelming, I now look at the majority of learned scholars as being duped and gyped by the learning system. They got screwed! People are generally like sheep- they will just follow the flow even if it leads away from the truth. The greatest proof we have of a worldwide flood is the geologic column and the fossil record. That right there is the absolute proof the deluge happened, and happened on a worldwide scale.

The evidence of the column as found in the Grand Canyon and four corners region alone should be enough to convince the masses that the great deposits- uniform in nature, could not of been deposited in any other way or method except by great watery catastrophe.

What can I say though- science always turns a blind eye to the truth- even when it stares us right in the face.

Open your eyes folks, the evidence and testimony of the flood is everywhere. Stop trusting in the arm of man and put your faith back into God!

Share this post


Link to post

I would be very hesitant to say something along the lines where questions show a lack of faith. It is through our questions that we find and receive answers.

I as a LDS believe that it is almost a sacred duty to ask questions. After all, if Joseph Smith never asked the question that he did, we as Mormon's would not be here. Questions can be very good things, as long as we are able to be open to the answers that we may receive, no matter what that answer may be.

Share this post


Link to post

lwyatt:

We DO have a Sacred obligation to ask questions "If any lack knowledge". Is still part of our Scriptures. But that does not necessitate God giving that answer right away. "You took no thought" is there also. :P

Share this post


Link to post

I agree with you 100%.

I never said that we had to have the answers rightaway. In fact, I believe that we are often required to search as diligently as we can, which means that in the process we learn a whole lot more than we would ever have though previously.

Share this post


Link to post
Open your eyes folks, the evidence and testimony of the flood is everywhere. Stop trusting in the arm of man and put your faith back into God!

I have lots of faith in God. I still don't believe in a global flood.

Share this post


Link to post
LDS members and other Christians alike that disbelieve the flood as a literal global event lack faith.

Faith in what? The flood? The scriptures say faith involves the EVIDENCE of things not seen. Where's the evidence for the 'global' flood? Therefore, those not believing in it are BY DEFINITION *not* lacking in faith. They are lacking in blind belief in a literal (and, in my opinion, inappropriate) interpretation of the scriptures.

They lack faith in the almighty God.

Please explain. I don't see how you can come up with this opinion and expect anyone to agree.

They lack faith in the word of God.

I don't lack faith in the word of God. I also don't believe the Bible is some inerrant, literally factual account of history, or science, or even of revelation. I think it's pretty close on that last one, but still, flawed. Those to whom God has revealed 'truth' will understand that last one, I'm sure. Truly, our only hope to understand is the assistance of the Holy Ghost.

I have enjoyed this thread. :P

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.

The Genesis story did happen just as it was said. Answers in Genesis answers many questions on this (www.answersingenesis.org).

Share this post


Link to post
The Genesis story did happen just as it was said. Answers in Genesis answers many questions on this (www.answersingenesis.org).

And for another Christian perspective, see: www.answersincreation.org, and their page on the flood. Or for those who are not faint of heart, http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/...

chimp_ss.gif

Share this post


Link to post
The evidence of the column as found in the Grand Canyon and four corners region alone should be enough to convince the masses that the great deposits- uniform in nature, could not of been deposited in any other way or method except by great watery catastrophe.

What can I say though- science always turns a blind eye to the truth- even when it stares us right in the face.

Have you even been to the Grand Canyon?

This is thoroughly discussed at aswersincreation.

Here are the rock layers:

grandcanyon_strat.gif

Chronologically, here is what must happen for the Noahâ??s Flood model to explain the Grand Canyon.

The first eleven layers, which are tilted, are said to be creation week or pre-flood, thus they can be ignored for the purposes of this discussion.

The rains from Noahâ??s flood start, in the 600th year of his life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month (Gen. 7:11). It rained for forty days, and then stopped. The waters were dried from the land in the 601st year, the second month, on the twenty-seventh of the month. That means the water was on the earth a total of 370 days (some figures vary by 1-2 days). Of course, we couldnâ??t start laying the beds down until the water was high enough, but Iâ??ll ignore that. So if we have 370 days, and 17 layers (counting unconformities) to put down, that gives us 21.7 days per layer. (Keep in mind this is only using the Grand Canyon rocks. There are many more layers above the Grand Canyon that must also be accounted for by the Flood.

Here are the major inconsistencies with the young earth model:

*

Transgression/Regression - Constantly changing shorelines and depositional environments meant that rock types were interlayered with each other. This occurred hundreds of times in the rock sequence we examined. If an actual count would be accomplished, would probably have been in the thousands.

*

No reptile, plant, mammal, or dinosaur fossils in the Grand Canyon. They should have been rapidly buried first, but they appear much farther up the stratigraphic column

*

Freshwater fish appear in freshwater deposits, at a time that there would be no freshwater. If they were able to survive, then we would also see saltwater fossils, but in the locations discussed, there are only freshwater varieties

*

Corals appear in the fossil record about 1,500 feet from the start of the flood. As corals are not mobile, and could not flee the flood, they appear where they grew. The slow-growing corals testify that the layers below them are not flood-deposited

*

Terrestrial plant fossils appear for the first time 3,000 feet up the stratigraphic column. As plants would be buried where they grew, they testify that the rocks below them are not flood rocks

*

Three wind-blown, desert sandstones appear. Deserts could not form in the middle of Noah's Flood, if the flood were global

*

Midway up the column are many evidences of shorelines, streams, jungles, swamps, and massive plant growth (coal deposits). This is all at a time that young earth creationists claim is the middle of the flood

*

Shallow water limestones at a time of the Flood

*

Land-locked terrestrial lake deposits during the Flood

*

Terrestrial silt deposits during the Flood

*

All dinosaur fossils, including traces that they were alive at the time (poop, footprints, nest sites) appear in the same layers, starting 8,000 feet above the start point of the flood. In the young earth model, they were alive and well, walking around on land right in the middle of Noah's Flood

http://www.answersincreation.org/stratigraphy5.htm

If you can provide an alternate theory that better explains the formation of these layers involving a global flood, you would get the Nobel prize in geology. If there is no Nobel prize for geology, they would invent one just for you.

Share this post


Link to post
This in no way addresses how two different types of limestone layers could form with a toroweap formation, lavas, sandstone, shale, a nankoweap formation, quartzite, and a supai group between them.
Easy for you to say...

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...