Do You Believe The â??biblical Accountâ?�?

[toon]

Said the Lord, â??I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall dieâ? (Gen. 6:17); The phrases â??all flesh â?¦ from under heavenâ? and â??every thing that is in the earthâ? indicate a worldwide destruction of all creatures that lived on land.

Genesis 7:19â??20 states, â??All the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered â?¦ ; and the mountains were covered.â? These verses explicitly state that all of earthâ??s high mountains (â??hillsâ? should read â??mountainsâ? here; Hebrew harim) were covered by the waters.

Genesis 7:21 states, â??All flesh died that moved upon the earth, â?¦ every creeping thing â?¦ every man.â? The phrase â??all fleshâ? refers to all land animals, creeping things, and fowls and all of humanity, with the exception of those in the ark (see Gen. 7:23). Moses is clearly trying to let us understand that the Flood was universal.

Verse 22 states, â??All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.â? Again the term â??allâ? expresses a sum total. The term â??dry landâ? should be read literally here, having reference to the land masses of our planet.

Verse 23 states, â??Every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl.â? Mosesâ?? list of those destroyed by the Flood is inclusive; only Noah â??remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.â?

Genesis 8:5 states, â??In the tenth month â?¦ were the tops of the mountains seen.â? After the flood, the â??waters decreasedâ? until Noah and his group were able to once again see mountaintops.

Verse 9 states, â??The waters were on the face of the whole earth.â? The phrase â??on the face of the whole earthâ? refers to a worldwide flood (see Gen. 1:29; Gen. 11:4, 8, 9).

There couldn't possibly be any other interpretation? This couldn't by symbolic? Poetic license? The author's limited point of view?

But your interpretation is correct. And any other interpretation, and especially those that take into consideration science, is "arm of flesh" thinking. I find that extremely condescending.

[MormonMason]

You know, you don't have to be a "so-called scientist" to realize just how illogical it is to believe that the entire Earth was covered with water and that some guy was able to build a ship to house two of every animal PLUS the food to feed two of every animal.

But I love how you so callously discount men and women who have devoted years of training and research as "so-called scientists".

The thing is, there are many species that one would not need to place aboard the ark. They would still survive. For another thing, many of the species around now did not exist even hundreds of years ago, whereas others did. Darwin's Finches are an example of species which adapted to their surroundings but were not in existence when the islands upon which they lived did not exist.

One also does not need to feed animals that enter into a state of hibernation. Could it be that the Lord who was able to cause a deep sleep to come over Adam could do the same to the animals? I think so.

As to whether it was world-wide or multiply local (too many old cultures have flood stories to discount the idea completely), makes little difference to me. I lean toward global but keep an open mind because I know from the ancient texts that the same words for earth also mean simply land, irrespective of whether local and/or global in intent.

As to scientists, scores of their views change like the wind and that is the nature of things with science. Some scientists can be bought and some are indeed. For myself, I would not place trust in what they say to the detriment of faith. I think science is great but the senses can be fooled and in some cases mere observation can change the outcome of the experiment, particularly in the quantum world. Optical illusions and other perceptual issues also play a part in the man's scientific description of the observable and the knowable.

I cannot count the number of times I have read that scientists have said that one thing or another is impossible over the years, only to find out the polar opposite is the truth. For example, some details of the formation of the moon are now coming into question due to new data that is pouring in from new astronomical data from probes and so forth. Scientific principles involving aerodynamics say that the bumblebee cannot fly--yet it does.

Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. I have learned that in long years dealing with and studying the sciences myself, science cannot deal strictly in absolutes because in most cases absolutes are strictly impossible, given the circumstances in which we learn the science by experimentation and observation. Someday you, too, may learn that salient scientific fact in your journey of life.

[Lightbearer]

It is really interesting if someone dares to defy the prevailing scientific myth or heaven forbid call someone who rejects spiritual truth as believing a scientific theory as "so-called" then you have done that which is unforgivable... but if someone calls a Prophet of God a fraud or a deceiver... oh that is fair criticism.

[thesometimesaint]

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Brochures/What...on_Doctrine.pdf

[Bender]

ightbearer Posted Today, 12:21 PM

It is really interesting if someone dares to defy the prevailing scientific myth or heaven forbid call someone who rejects spiritual truth as believing a scientific theory as "so-called" then you have done that which is unforgivable... but if someone calls a Prophet of God a fraud or a deceiver... oh that is fair criticism. ph34r.gif

You can defy all the scientific theories you want, all we ask is you present your evidence for why you think there wrong.

[Scottie]

...but if someone calls a Prophet of God a fraud or a deceiver... oh that is fair criticism.

Except for the tiny fact that there are hundreds of self proclaimed "prophets of God" out there. What title do YOU give these other men?

You can defy all the scientific theories you want, all we ask is you present your evidence for why you think there wrong.

That's easy. The Bible says so.

[Scottie]

The thing is, there are many species that one would not need to place aboard the ark. They would still survive. For another thing, many of the species around now did not exist even hundreds of years ago, whereas others did. Darwin's Finches are an example of species which adapted to their surroundings but were not in existence when the islands upon which they lived did not exist.

And what is your point? There were many species 100 years ago that do not exist now.

Also, are you actually trying to argue that in the days of Noah that there were so few species on the Earth that they could easily fit into an ark?

One also does not need to feed animals that enter into a state of hibernation. Could it be that the Lord who was able to cause a deep sleep to come over Adam could do the same to the animals? I think so.

As long as we're playing the "God can do anything" card, sure, God can do anything. I can't debate what you envision God might have done with his infinte power.

As to whether it was world-wide or multiply local (too many old cultures have flood stories to discount the idea completely), makes little difference to me. I lean toward global but keep an open mind because I know from the ancient texts that the same words for earth also mean simply land, irrespective of whether local and/or global in intent.

I agree. There are many flood stories, so it certainly would make sense that some kind of flood happened. And, perhaps someone named Noah was able to house a few animals and save them.

As to scientists, scores of their views change like the wind and that is the nature of things with science.

Some sciences are still in their youth. And, yes, these change often. I'm not sure I would place geology in this category...especially when it comes to a global flood. I think someone would have found SOME evidence to indicate it happened?

Some scientists can be bought and some are indeed.

True, but is it fair to say that because some scientists can be bought that we shouldn't trust ANY scientists? Isn't this the same argument that apologists dismiss about the Bible? Since any given verse might be wrong, we have to assume the whole thing is wrong?

For myself, I would not place trust in what they say to the detriment of faith. I think science is great but the senses can be fooled and in some cases mere observation can change the outcome of the experiment, particularly in the quantum world. Optical illusions and other perceptual issues also play a part in the man's scientific description of the observable and the knowable.

I'm not sure geology uses quantum mechanics to determine if there was a global flood. The evidence is pretty straightforward.

I cannot count the number of times I have read that scientists have said that one thing or another is impossible over the years, only to find out the polar opposite is the truth. For example, some details of the formation of the moon are now coming into question due to new data that is pouring in from new astronomical data from probes and so forth. Scientific principles involving aerodynamics say that the bumblebee cannot fly--yet it does.

So you are expecting science to one day conclude that they were wrong and there WAS a global flood???

Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. I have learned that in long years dealing with and studying the sciences myself, science cannot deal strictly in absolutes because in most cases absolutes are strictly impossible, given the circumstances in which we learn the science by experimentation and observation. Someday you, too, may learn that salient scientific fact in your journey of life.

Again, in SOME fields of science, I would agree. So would the scientists of those fields. In other fields, however, we have a pretty firm grasp on what is true and what is not.

[katherine the great]

Science is getting to be so good that they can actually recreate conditions using models to show how certain natural phenomena were formed. For instance (and I think this is really cool), the scablands in Washington State. It looks like a terrain that should have taken millions of years to make. However, a nineteenth century scientist observed it for a long period of time and noticed certain irregularities that simply couldn't be explained through the traditional scientific model of erosion. He came up with the completely shocking and unacceptable idea that it was actually formed almost over night by a catastrophic deluge that happened about ten thousand years earlier. Over time, he garnered some support, but was still mostly dismissed by the scientific community. Now, they can actually prove that the landscape could have been (and almost certainly was) formed when the ginormous glacial Lake Missoula broke through the ice at the end of the last ice age. There are certain huge (and unique) potholes in the landscape that are show to have formed from oxygen bubbles, and huge boulders that are deposited on the tops of hills that are shown to have been pushed there from closer to the source of the flood. They now lie where they came to rest.

If there indeed had been a global flood as described in the Bible, we would see this type of landscape everywhere.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

but I have difficulty believing that he was able to get two of every species of "animal

Garden Girl

Even better...two of every "unclean" and seven of every "clean".

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

no. I believe it was local, The "entire" world was a lot smaller back then. Kind of like when the Romans conquered the "entire" world. It's all about perspective.

Most scientists believe that the earth was one land mass at one time...so maybe it was then and not as big a deal as one might think????

Pa Pa:

Yes. But with the caveat that it was from Noah's perspective only.

That is the best point I have ever heard in this debate...Well done!

[Scottie]

Most scientists believe that the earth was one land mass at one time...so maybe it was then and not as big a deal as one might think????That is the best point I have ever heard in this debate...Well done!

Wasn't this millions of years before man even existed?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Wasn't this millions of years before man even existed?

Yes, unless their timetable is off...way off.

[katherine the great]

Wasn't this millions of years before man even existed?

HUNDREDS of millions of years before...

[Connolly]

It is really interesting if someone dares to defy the prevailing scientific myth or heaven forbid call someone who rejects spiritual truth as believing a scientific theory as "so-called" then you have done that which is unforgivable... but if someone calls a Prophet of God a fraud or a deceiver... oh that is fair criticism.

Another red herring to add to the one you tossed out in post #8.

Tell us please, who called a Prophet of God a deceiver in this thread?

[aspire]

Do I believe the Noah story as it was recorded in the Old Testiment? No.

Do I believe that some real event happened that inspired the myth? Yes.

I agree.

[Tarski]

It is really interesting if someone dares to defy the prevailing scientific myth or heaven forbid call someone who rejects spiritual truth as believing a scientific theory as "so-called" then you have done that which is unforgivable... but if someone calls a Prophet of God a fraud or a deceiver... oh that is fair criticism.

Because there is a difference. A big one.

By the way, according to the Bible, The number Pi is equal to three! Not only rational but an integer! Stupid mathematicians-arm of flesh and all that. LOL

"And he [Hiram] made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one rim to the other it was round all about, and...a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about....And it was an hand breadth thick...." â?? First Kings, chapter 7, verses 23 and 26

[Tarski]

Tarski:

I believe the Bible to be the word of God. Just not everyone's interpretation of it.

OK, but hyper-literalism and inerrantism is so rampant that it is actually making people stupid in a way. Do a google search on the flood and you get mostly pro-fundamentalist pseudo-science at a ratio of at least 100 to one.

So, it's doing more harm than good, especially if you consider religious wars and other effects. The net effect is intellectual confinement and uncritical thinking processes.

My two least favorite phrases:

1. Learnin' of man (said with a backwoods accent).

2. Arm of flesh.

The irony of 2 is that all thought and interpretations exist in the brains of imperfect and often stupid humans. In that sense it's all "arm of flesh" including the Bible itself (a disparate collection of the writings of ancient humans).

[Tarski]

Yes, unless their timetable is off...way off.

250 million years ago. The time table is not off since myriad independent dating methods based on separate well understood processes all zero in on the same story with very good agreement. We can't be off by more than a few percent on the most of the things we are discussing here --we certainly can't be off by orders of magnitude as is being suggested by the literalists here.

[Tchild2]

This account (of Noahâ??s Ark) has been called into question many times here on this board, by those trying to make a point about lack of evidence in support â??Biblical Textâ?. This is usually done when others question the lack of floristic evidence in relation to the BoM. So, my questionâ?¦

Do you believe (on faith) the account of the â??Great Floodâ? and â??Noahâ??s Arkâ? as it is reported in the Bible?

I do

Can't a person "believe" the account of the great flood as a non literal rendering? Is that so hard? The problem isn't the account, it is the stubbornly and dare I say, ignorant reading and interpreting it as literal. It is the literalist's problem, not the authors or the biblical text's issue. Can the ancient authors help it if their message has been grossly misunderstood and taken literally?

[consiglieri]

But I love how you so callously discount men and women who have devoted years of training and research as "so-called scientists".

Back off, man. I'm a scientist.

(I quoted that in Sunday school last week and nobody got it.)

I do not believe the Noah's ark story literally any more than I believe that man was literally created from the dust of the earth.

Brigham Young didn't believe the latter literally, either, for if it were so, as he put it, in the resurrection we would all be an adobe.

To believe the Noah's flood story literally would entail a belief that there is a flood above the firmanent and a flood below the earth that were both broken up so as to deluge the world with water. I think most of us have moved past that rather primitive world view.

Maybe it was just global warming.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[BCSpace]

Do you believe (on faith) the account of the â??Great Floodâ? and â??Noahâ??s Arkâ? as it is reported in the Bible?

Sure. And I believe I can square it with a local flood hypothesis. But tt is LDS doctrine currently that the flood was global. However, I think that possibility is fast receeding unless you accept BY's explaination (found in the OT Institute Manual).

(4-15) Genesis 7:19. How Could the Flood Cover the Entire Earth, Including Mountains? What Was the Significance of This Immersion?

â??I would like to know by what known law the immersion of the globe could be accomplished. It is explained here in a few words: â??The windows of heaven were openedâ?? that is, the waters that exist throughout the space surrounding the earth from whence come these clouds from which the rain descends. That was one cause. Another cause was â??the fountains of the great deep were broken upâ??â??that is something beyond the oceans, something outside of the seas, some reservoirs of which we have no knowledge, were made to contribute to this event, and the waters were let loose by the hand and by the power of God; for God said He would bring a flood upon the earth and He brought it, but He had to let loose the fountains of the great deep, and pour out the waters from there, and when the flood commenced to subside, we are told â??that the fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained, and the waters returned from off the earth.â?? Where did they go to? From whence they came. Now, I will show you something else on the back of that. Some people talk very philosophically about tidal waves coming along. But the question isâ??How could you get a tidal wave out of the Pacific ocean, say, to cover the Sierra Nevadas? But the Bible does not tell us it was a tidal wave. It simply tells that â??all the high hills that were under the whole heaven were covered. Fifteen cubits upwards did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.â?? That is, the earth was immersed. It was a period of baptism.â? (John Taylor, in Journal of Discourses, 26:74â??75.)

Orson Pratt declared:

â??The first ordinance instituted for the cleansing of the earth, was that of immersion in water; it was buried in the liquid element, and all things sinful upon the face of the earth were washed away. As it came forth from the ocean floor, like the new-born child, it was innocent; it rose to newness of life. It was its second birth from the womb of mighty watersâ??a new world issuing from the ruins of the old, clothed with all the innocence of this first creation.â? (In Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, 4:20.)

Of course one can still accept BY's explaination scientifically when one realizes that BY is simply pointing out that there are other water sources mentioned that we don't know of. Sodom and Gomorrah were "bombed", as it were, by fire and brimestone. The earth might have been "bombed" by water.

It's a start, I suppose, for those who want to defend the global flood. However, I still trend to a local flood.

[Honorentheos]

I have recently become curious how a belief in a local flood, or a "water bombing" of the earth (described above as a possiblity) relates to the notion that the earth, as a being, was "baptised" at the time of the flood, and will be sanctified in the burning at the second coming to then become a celestial sphere?

Can a local event be reconciled with broader theology regarding the significance of the flood?

[mnn727]

Do you believe (on faith) the account of the â??Great Floodâ? and â??Noahâ??s Arkâ? as it is reported in the Bible?

No

[thesometimesaint]

Tarski:

Let's face it. People are illogical, irrational, prone to make mistakes of every type imaginable. And just every once in a while we actually get things right.

In my view while science is very useful, believe me I truly enjoy its contributions, like the computer I'm using right now. It doesn't fill this deep seated need in me for the expression of something greater than myself. That sense of awe I feel when I look up at the stars on clear night.

For the first twenty years of my life I was essentially Agnostic. My "God" was in the reagent bottle of my chemistry lab(I was doing college level chemistry in the 5tth Grade), and by 14 had built my own lab. Then I I took a psychology class and fell in love. On a invite from one of my Mormon friends I started to go to Institute classes. Its been 37 years, and countless wonderful Spiritual experiences. I am happy.

[hordak]

Most scientists believe that the earth was one land mass at one time...so maybe it was then and not as big a deal as one might think????

You mean pangea. I'm not talking about the world being smaller in a physical sense but in the available knowledge to Noah. His world, as a guy who traveled on foot could have been the size of New York city depending on the geography and how adventurous he was.

.