Jump to content

Archived

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

Bill "Papa" Lee

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

Recommended Posts

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.

Someone needs to pass that memo to Donald W. Perry, the editors of the Ensign and those who sign off the content of the Ensign as doctrinal church teachings. Poor guy, still towing the party line, and stated on the cusp of the 21st century no less.

From the article:

we Latter-day Saints believe that Noah was an actual man, a prophet of God, who preached repentance and raised a voice of warning, built an ark, gathered his family and a host of animals onto the ark, and floated safely away as waters covered the entire earth. We are assured that these events actually occurred by the multiple testimonies of Godâ??s prophets
Looks like Brother Perry is telling good LDS what their beliefs are. As it ought to be! :P

Share this post


Link to post
Back off, man. I'm a scientist.

--Consiglieri

That was funny!

:P

What does it say about us that you quoted it and I got the reference? High culture indeed!!

Share this post


Link to post
Back off, man. I'm a scientist.

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

--Consiglieri

Sometimes I really think you and your ward don't mix. funny

Share this post


Link to post

You don't look like a scientist.

More like a gameshow host.

But it someone asks you if you're a god, the answer is yes. :P

Edited to add: This made me go look for the awesome old computer video game we played of this movie as kids. Turns out there is a new version on the way! Wow, did the 80's come back with a vengence or what?

Share this post


Link to post
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

Wrong. You forgot the hand bridth.

Which would give the 0.14....

Share this post


Link to post
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?

Along with my question above, I wanted to add the following from the Parry Atricle of the Ensign-

4. Latter-day prophets teach that the Flood or the total immersion of the earth in water represents the earthâ??s required baptism. Elder John A. Widtsoe of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles explained: â??Latter-day Saints look upon the earth as a living organism, one which is gloriously filling â??the measure of its creation.â?? They look upon the flood as a baptism of the earth, symbolizing a cleansing of the impurities of the past, and the beginning of a new life. This has been repeatedly taught by the leaders of the Church. The deluge was an immersion of the earth in water.â? He writes that the removal of earthâ??s wicked inhabitants in the Flood represents that which occurs in our own baptism for the remission of sins.

5. The destruction of the disobedient at Noahâ??s time anticipates the devastation of the wicked at the time of Christâ??s coming in glory, when the earth will receive its baptism by fire. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught, â??In the days of Noah, God destroyed the world by a flood, and He has promised to destroy it by fire in the last days.â? 14 The prophet Enoch saw in vision Noahâ??s ark, seeing â??that the Lord smiled upon it, and held it in his own hand; but upon the residue of the wicked the floods came and swallowed them upâ? (Moses 7:43). Likewise, the Lord has said that he will smile upon or uphold the obedient in the last days, while at the same time smiting the wicked with his judgments.

Thus, although there are many in our day who consider the accounts of the Flood and tower of Babel to be fiction, Latter-day Saints affirm their reality. We rejoice in the many truths and lessons to be learned from these two accounts, as well as from all the stories of the Old Testament.

So again, how can one reconcile the belief that the Noah story was a local event given the broader LDS theology that includes the flood as a baptism of the earth, and required for it's redemption in it's progress towards exhaltation?

Edited to add the reference to the article- Ensign Article

Share this post


Link to post

Yes. I believe that a world wide flood as described in the Bible took place.

Regards,

Six (The InterChapel Mormon)

Share this post


Link to post
Thus, although there are many in our day who consider the accounts of the Flood and tower of Babel to be fiction, Latter-day Saints affirm their reality. We rejoice in the many truths and lessons to be learned from these two accounts, as well as from all the stories of the Old Testament.

Ensign Article

We do? That's news to me. Kinda off subject but what's our stance on creation? A few weeks back a talk was given about faith and the speaker was talking about a geological site that took millions of years to form.Was that fopax (spelling?)

Share this post


Link to post
Wrong. You forgot the hand bridth.

Which would give the 0.14....

Ya ya. Did I forget my smilie?

But to a Biblical literalist, the perfection of the Bible would imply that the breath of a hand is exactly an irrational number of cubits. LOL

(3.14 isn't PI)

Share this post


Link to post
Yes I do, absolutely without hesitation, and I also believe it to be a "worldwide flood" regardless of what some so-called scientists claim.

"Science" claim the flood to be 10, 000 years ago? and science also makes up most of the other biblical dates well. And science also makes up all the other historical dates on creation of the earth as far as non biblical. either way, people base there personal denials of the flood because of scientific data, not divine data. :P

Share this post


Link to post
This account (of Noah'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 "Biblical Text". 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 "Great Flood" and "Noah's Ark" as it is reported in the Bible?

I do

The belief or lack of belief of any idea on faith alone is a stubborn vexation that we all need to face. Zeal without knowledge is dangerous as well as the opposite. The Bible and especially the flood story is not necessarily to be taken literally and will not damage, hinder, harm or corrupt anyone who doesn't accept the literalness of it. If we do not accept the spiritual nature and lesson gleaned from it will certainly affect our spiritual future. I do not accept the literalness of the flood nor more than I accept the possibility of a talking *** or the sun standing still. Science teaches one thing and the gospel another. I think that we have had the Bible ingrained so much into cultural psyches that we are loath to accept another paradigm when it comes to the Bible. When we cannot adjust to shifts in our thinking due to certain realities we are easily unsettled in our faith or go completely apostate from Mormonism or any and all religious belief and behavior. Accept a rationale that accommodates both the spirit and the science.

Share this post


Link to post
"Science" claim the flood to be 10, 000 years ago? and science also makes up most of the other biblical dates well. And science also makes up all the other historical dates on creation of the earth as far as non biblical. either way, people base there personal denials of the flood because of scientific data, not divine data. :P

Science has never claimed a flood whether it was 10,000 years ago or yesterday nor does it always agree with the standard biblical timeline. What they do agree on is there have been countless regional floods that have had devastating results. BTW, what is "divine data"?

Share this post


Link to post
We do? That's news to me.

I also understand that there are those that view the bible dictionary as a "study aid" and not authoritative, but the entry on Noah is interesting-

The patriarch; son of Lamech (Gen. 5: 29-32). When he was 10 years old, Noah was ordained to the priesthood by Methuselah (D&C 107: 52). He became a preacher of righteousness and declared the gospel of Jesus Christ, even as Enoch, teaching faith, repentance, baptism, and the reception of the Holy Ghost (2 Pet. 2: 5; Moses 8: 19, 23-24). His life was sought by unbelievers, but he was preserved by the power of God (Moses 8: 18, 26). He and his sons Japheth, Shem, and Ham, and their wives, making eight in all, were saved from the flood by the ark they had built at the command of God (Gen. 6 - 8; Heb. 11: 7; 1 Pet. 3: 20). We learn from latter-day revelation that Noah is also the angel Gabriel (HC 3: 386).

The Lordâ??s covenant with Noah affirmed that the earth would never be covered with a flood again (Gen. 9: 1-17; cf. Moses 7: 49-52). Noah, a righteous man, holds the keys of a dispensation and stands next to Adam in authority (HC 3: 386). Other references to Noah are Isa. 54: 9; Ezek. 14: 14, 20; Matt. 24: 37-38; Luke 3: 36; Luke 17: 26-27.

The tradition of a great flood is found in nearly every ancient culture. A Babylonian account closely resembles the record in the Bible, but the biblical account differs from all others in its religious value and the purpose of it. The scriptural account teaches that the flood was sent to cleanse the earth because of the wickedness of the people. Noah and his family were saved because they were righteous (Gen. 6: 9; Moses 8: 27). The authenticity of the Genesis account of the flood is confirmed by latter-day revelation as recorded in Moses 7: 34, 42-43; Moses 8: 8-30. Cf. Ether 13: 2.

So, to put it more broadly, can an LDS faithful honestly believe in a local flood and not have conflicts with the following:

Other, LDS, revelation including scriptures such as the book of Moses and the D&C refers to the flood story as accurate.

Elaborates on the background of Noah.

Expands the role of Noah to become the angel Gabriel who visits Mary and announces the birth of Christ.

And, most importantly, the global flood is used beyond allegory to point to a literal baptism of the earth which is required for it's exhaltation. Either one has to redefine baptism or dismiss this as symbolic. But then, how does one take serious the prophecy that this baptism by water will be followed by a baptism of fire?

At some point you either have to dismiss scientific evidence or revelation. You can't have both.

Share this post


Link to post
The Bible and especially the flood story is not necessarily to be taken literally and will not damage, hinder, harm or corrupt anyone who doesn't accept the literalness of it. If we do not accept the spiritual nature and lesson gleaned from it will certainly affect our spiritual future.

While I agree with this statement, Ron Beron, I disagree that a person can do so and not, to some extent, begin to form their own personal religion out of the cloth of the old.

My reasoning for this is that the flood story, and many other old testiment stories, hold more than allegorical value to the LDS faith. In this case, I point to the notion that the earth was flooded as baptism. It plays a part in the grand scheme of things, and is more than a good story from which we can learn a valuable lesson. LDS theology, as a whole if not for the individual member who chooses otherwise, says that a global flood was real and was required.

Just as a person's baptism was required of them as one of the first ordinances of the gospel.

The earth, like man, fell. It was baptised. It will be redeemed. These three pillars are critical to the LDS faith, are they not?

Share this post


Link to post

'Honorentheos' writes,

While I agree with this statement, Ron Beron, I disagree that a person can do so and not, to some extent, begin to form their own personal religion out of the cloth of the old.

I am uncertain that debating the historicity of an ancient legend which has far earlier "pagan" precedence is forming a personal religion especially when particulars of any given story is not germane to an salvific ordinance such as given by the Articles of Faith, the temple recommend interview or even the more salient tenets of the gospel as presented in the scriptures.

My reasoning for this is that the flood story, and many other old testiment stories, hold more than allegorical value to the LDS faith. In this case, I point to the notion that the earth was flooded as baptism. It plays a part in the grand scheme of things, and is more than a good story from which we can learn a valuable lesson. LDS theology, as a whole if not for the individual member who chooses otherwise, says that a global flood was real and was required.

Not necessarily. I know that two apostles Bruce R. McConkie and Joseph Fielding Smith held to the literal flood. I also know that there hasn't been a canonical view on it. In fact, some leaders of the church have come forward and challenged the literalness of the flood.

John A. Widstoe, an apostle of the Church wrote,

NOTE: PREVIOUSLY POSTED...

Did the Flood Cover the Highest Mountains of Earth?
This question, really of insignificant importance, is a good example of man-made objections to the sacred character of the Bible, and therefore to faith.

The coming of the flood and its extent and duration, are described in the seventh chapter of the Book of Genesis. The account states that "the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were tinder the whole heaven, were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered." (Gen. 7:19-20) . . .

A cubit, an ancient and well-known measure of length, is the distance from a man's elbow to the end of his middle finger. . . . If we employ the largest of these values, 20.61 inches, fifteen cubits would be something less than twenty-six-feet. This, then, was the depth of the flood, according to Genesis.

The suggestion has been made that the flood filled every hollow and valley until the earth was a great sphere of water covering the highest mountain peaks twenty-six feet deep, Mount Ararat, seventeen thousand feet high, "upon the mountains" of which the ark rested, would according to this view have been completely under water. It is doubtful whether the water in the sky and all the oceans would suffice to cover the earth so completely.

Another suggestion is that the earth at that time was so flat that a depth of water of twenty-six feet would cover the highest hill. There is no existing evidence of this supposition; and Mount Ararat did exist then according to the record.

It has also been suggested that a blanket of water twenty-six feet thick lay up and down the sides of every hill, mountain, and valley. This would seem to be in defiance of the law of gravity, though under a long-continued, furious rainfall such a layer, not too thick, might roll down every slope.

The fact remains that the exact nature of the flood is not known. We set up assumptions, based upon our best knowledge, but can go no further. We should remember that when inspired writers deal with historical incidents they relate that which they have seen or that which may have been told them, unless indeed the past is opened to them by revelation.

The details in the story of the flood are undoubtedly drawn from the experiences of the writer. Under a downpour of rain, likened to the opening of the heavens, a destructive torrent twenty-six feet deep or deeper would easily be formed. The writer of Genesis made a faithful report of the facts known to him concerning the flood. In other localities the depth of the water might have been more or less. In fact, the details of the flood are not known to us.

In a recent Dialogue article, Clayton M. White and Mark D. Thomas (On Balancing Faith in Mormonism with Traditional Biblical Stories: The Noachian Flood Story) discusses the obvious dichotomy of the three prevailing thoughts.

Elder Widstoeâ??s statement is remarkable on several accounts. It is

certainly not a traditional view and contradicts the claim that the highest

mountains were under fifteen cubits of water. Hence, he opens the door

to new ways of interpreting the flood. The denial of complete knowledge

regarding the details of the facts of a flood is echoed by Morris Petersen, a

former stake president, who wrote the entry on the flood for the Encyclopedia

of Mormonism.14 â??The Great Floodâ? appears as a subdivision under the

entry â??Earth.â? He acknowledges the lack of empirical data to support a literal,

universal flood and simply cites the same sort of material as Widstoe.

Under the entry on â??Noah,â? Andrew Skinner mentions the flood only in

passing: â??[Noah] became second fatherâ??with Adamâ??of all mankind following

the flood,â? and the remaining page or so of material discusses, as it

should, Noahâ??s importance and role as a prophet.

As I have previously stated the use of Noah as a live, historical character has been used only to promote a deeper philosophical issue. Many church leaders do not make the issue a historical one. White and Thomas continue...

Though many Latter-day Saints have adopted the traditional view ofa universal flood, they have a variety of views on the historical core of the

story, even among the pronouncements of LDS leaders, as we have already

noted. Much of the evidence from the Genesis text and from sermons of

Church leaders is either silent or ambiguous on the factual issues surrounding

the flood. In LDS sermons, Noah is clearly understood to be a

historical character, and the flood is usually assumed to be a historical

event. Other than these two implicit assumptions, rarely are historical

claims about the flood expressed in LDS sermons. LDS leaders have demonstrated

far more interest in the storyâ??s moral, social, and existential symbolism

than in its historical details. The point of these sermons is how to

exercise faith, how to live in a corrupt world about to be destroyed, how to

maintain faith in the LDS Church despite the scoffing of critics, and so

forth. We suspect that current Latter-day Saints will continue to use

Noahâ??s story as a religious and literary model, just as in the past.

The earth, like man, fell. It was baptised. It will be redeemed. These three pillars are critical to the LDS faith, are they not?

Interesting, yes. Critical, no.

Share this post


Link to post

Ron,

Personally, I do not believe that Noah, as described in the old testiment, was a real person who held that name, or had the genesis experience told in teh story. I do, as you point out, find value in the story that is allegorical in nature. But I am agnostic and feel no conflict in doing so.

But I think that there is a broader issue in this example. Historically, the story of the global flood goes beyond the lessons of Noah, obedience to God, and the other points of the story line. It takes on a literal role in LDs theology regarding the need for baptism. I do not think that the flexibilty granted to apologetics has reached the point that one could argue against the importance for actual baptism by immersion as taught within the LDS faith. The examples you cite seem to be, first, from more progressive LDS thinkers who have moved past the historic theological aspects of the Noah account and more into a "faith-based" kind of Joseph Campbell myth version rather than ecclesiastical leaders. Which is fine. Just seems more of synapsi than of the spirit in many ways...

My question is basically, can one really accept that the flood was not a global event without discarding some aspects of LDS theology? Meaning, I think this goes beyond the common thought regarding the propogation of old testiment and early american myths within the restoration and begins to get into actual religion.

Share this post


Link to post
My question is basically, can one really accept that the flood was not a global event without discarding some aspects of LDS theology? Meaning, I think this goes beyond the common thought regarding the propogation of old testiment and early american myths within the restoration and begins to get into actual religion.

Thanks for the clarification and honesty. I personally feel one can marginalize certain accounts of the biblical narrative without discounting LDS theology as a whole. As per the need for the earth to go through baptism was initially a NT teaching it has been brought up from time to time as an indication of Earth's baptism by various leaders in the church. As to my quotes the one major quote was from an earlier church leader skilled in the sciences. I really think that this is not emphasized today because there are such varied beliefs within the church today. Some of these "progressive" thinkers are now in the leadership of the church.

Share this post


Link to post
Thanks for the clarification and honesty. I personally feel one can marginalize certain accounts of the biblical narrative without discounting LDS theology as a whole. As per the need for the earth to go through baptism was initially a NT teaching it has been brought up from time to time as an indication of Earth's baptism by various leaders in the church. As to my quotes the one major quote was from an earlier church leader skilled in the sciences. I really think that this is not emphasized today because there are such varied beliefs within the church today. Some of these "progressive" thinkers are now in the leadership of the church.

I purchased Evidences and Reconciliations about a year after serving a mission. I still have it. Elder Widstoe was quoted in the article I linked to from the Ensign-

Elder John A. Widtsoe of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles explained: â??Latter-day Saints look upon the earth as a living organism, one which is gloriously filling â??the measure of its creation.â?? They look upon the flood as a baptism of the earth, symbolizing a cleansing of the impurities of the past, and the beginning of a new life. This has been repeatedly taught by the leaders of the Church. The deluge was an immersion of the earth in water.â? He writes that the removal of earthâ??s wicked inhabitants in the Flood represents that which occurs in our own baptism for the remission of sins.

Now is there more to this quote? Probably. But at some point I think one has to wonder when religious views become like people. Shed a skin cell here, have a hair fall out there- still looks the same, then five years down the road and no one recognizes it who hasn't watched it "grow up".

Anyway, I was curious about this one since I agree with the scientific views, see members argue both sides, but have never seen anyone from either side of the discussion bring up the theological arguements regarding baptism and the need for the earth to have been baptised. If I still had GospelLink, I would do a search and dump just to see what shakes out from all of the prophets, etc., on the matter to see how progressive these views are. But I gave it to my Dad, and all I have are my books. It would take some time to go through and post the quotes from all of those writings.

Share this post


Link to post
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?

My point is that there likely were fewer species that of necessity would need to go aboard the ark. How big do you think the ark was, Scottie? Are you aware of how many stories and compartments it likely contained? The Bible is silent as to how many species were boarded and is silent as to how they were boarded and placed in their compartments. Without knowing all the details it is a little hard to issue a blanket impossibility statement.

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.

It has nothing to do with God doing anything. That is not what I am saying. If all the animals were placed in a form of suspended animation for forty days and nights or so, and lumped together, you would be surpised as to what would fit and what would not need to be taken. It has nothing to do infinite powers here, it has everything to do with whaat he has done before. And if he can do a thing once he could do it again and again as need arises. Surely the God who was involved in creating life on earth would know how to induce the sleep mechanisms in the creatures' brains to keep them asleep, would he not? :P

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.

Maybe it was just a few species and maybe not. We are told too little to know anything for certainty or to be able to discount it all. We know next to nothing about it all. As I said above, I lean toward global but keep an open mind to local. It is possible that there were many arks around the world in which species were saved. Noah and the writer of Genesis would know precious little to nothing about the rest of the world, only what they observed around them or were told by tradition and/or revelation.

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?

Geology has changed drastically over the years. In fact, new discoveries within the last few months have caused them to adjust their understanding of the configuration of earth's core and the source of its magnetic field. You need to update your information. We are learning new things every day that can and often do change our outlook on things relating to science. As to finding evidence of a global flood, please tell me exactly what we are looking for? Silt deposits all over the place? We have found such things, just not over each and every single piece of land studied. But, is it really necessary? We do not know enough details about the flood to know what to look for in all cases. It was not as if there was a giant flash flood all over the earth. Much of the water rise was gradual. Gradual water rise does not produce the same kinds of results geologically in all cases. So, again, please demonstrate convincingly what it is that we should look for that should be globally relevant?

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?

I never said we could not trust them all. Only that we should not take their word to the point that we abandon faith because science oftne is found to be wrong on numerous matters as we update our knowledgebase. I never assume that the entire Bible is wrong, either. I know that it was rewritten over time. I also know that there are numerous translation errors. So what?

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

Geology does not use quantum mechanics to determine anything much less a global flood of any kind. For all we know it was a globally widespread interconnection of local flood events. But, I gave quantum mechanics as an example of how science can be influenced by observation. Other sciences can be influenced the same way depending on how well the experiments are set up. The evidence is pretty straightforward that there was no global flood? Don't make me laugh! There are many pitfalls in scientific inquiry. I am sorry that you do not understand that and have made science into some sort of religious faith for yourself. What you should do is collect science books. Get your hands on the oldest you can find and pick up some of the latest. Do a comparative reading of them and then pick up a few more in a decade and compare these. You might then understand. No offense intended but, for now, you do not understand.

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

Maybe and maybe not. Stranger things have happened in the world of the sciences.

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.

We are the most ignorant of creatures in the infinite universe. We think we know which way is up but we don't. We as a race are filled with hubris and pride as to what we think we know it true and what is not. Recently there were a number of upheavals in the scientific community over a number of subjects in what are the so-called mature sciences. You obviously have not read some of these latest findings. Geology is one of the fields where new information has caused us to re-evaluate some of what we thought was true. The same goes for Astronomy. But, as I said, you do not understand. One day you might but I am not holding my breath. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
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.

No we wouldn't. The above is an example of a catestrophic event. Not all of the flood was such a catestrophic event in the sense of the above you have stated. The waters rose gradually for much of it. Gradual rises in water levels do not produce the same results as in such catestrophic events as given above. You can experiment with this in your bathtub, if you wish. Produce two platforms of soil with geological features and place one in the bathtub. Make this one the catestrophic event mentioned above. Record the results.

Next, clean up the mess and take your second platform and place it in the bottom of the bathtub. Get a watering can and "turn on the rain" while at the same time gradually filling up the tub. Make sure you do this over several days and not too quickly. Then, slowly drain the tub a cup at a time over several days. Record the results. They will be quite different in how they look, I can assure you. The latter experiment will not display the same details and features that you saw in the first experiment. You will see little to no evidence of "global flooding" and washing of soil on the second model unless you performed the experiment too quickly.

Share this post


Link to post
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

No I do not take it on faith due to lack of evidence. I have no reason to just believe something in the face of both physical and simply logical reasons not to. The only reason people argue this is because it is contained in an ancient book by an unknown author. Why in the world would I accept it on faith? Do you accept that the Sun goes around the earth since Joshua commanded the sun to stand still? Look at Genesis 1:6-8: "God said, 'I command a dome to separate the water above from the water below it.' And that's what happened. God made the dome and named it `Sky'..." The Ancient Hebrews believed a solid bowl or dome was set over the earth and that the high mountains held up the dome or sky like columns (see Job 26:11). The sky was solid to hold back the water above. Rain came down when god opened up the windows of heaven or flood gates in the sky (see Gen. 7:11,12; 8:2; 2 Kings 7:19; Isaiah 24:18; Psalm 78:23). Should I believe (on faith) that there is a dome over the earth held up by the mountains and that it rains when the flood gates are opened no matter what science says? Lev 11:6 mentions that rabbits chew the cud, should I accept that on faith or believe biologists when they say that rabbits do not chew the cud and are rather constantly chewing to wear down their teeth?

Share this post


Link to post

I read an article or something in a book a while ago but cannot for the life of me remember where...it was talking about how very few animals over the size of a sheep would have been on the Ark if we assume - as seems fair - that all came from common ancestors (a wolf-like creature for all dogs, a lion-like creature for all cats, etc.). It certainly made me realize that the event was not as unbelievable as some nay-sayers might suggest.

I believe in a global flood, and it is my understanding that this is what has been taught by LDS leaders.

Share this post


Link to post

Bible is in I Kings 7:23-26

"He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it. Below the rim, gourds encircled it - ten to a cubit. The gourds were cast in two rows in one piece with the Sea. The Sea stood on twelve bulls, three facing north, three facing west, three facing south and three facing east. The Sea rested on top of them, and their hindquarters were toward the center. It was a handbreadth in thickness, and its rim was like the rim of a cup, like a lily blossom. It held two thousand baths. (NIV)"

Share this post


Link to post
I read an article or something in a book a while ago but cannot for the life of me remember where...it was talking about how very few animals over the size of a sheep would have been on the Ark if we assume - as seems fair - that all came from common ancestors (a wolf-like creature for all dogs, a lion-like creature for all cats, etc.). It certainly made me realize that the event was not as unbelievable as some nay-sayers might suggest.

I believe in a global flood, and it is my understanding that this is what has been taught by LDS leaders.

Part of it, minus the discussion of relative sizes of animals, comes from Joseph Fielding Smith, Man, His Origin and Destiny. Where else the above comes from I do not now recall.

Again, in the days before the flood, the land surface of the earth was all in one place. It was not until shortly before the confusion of tongues that the land surface of the earth was divided, and following that time many colonies could have been sent just as the Jaredites were, to inhabit various parts of the earth. The time must come in the restoration of all things, for all the land to come back again to its original place, and the waters to be driven back from whence they came. (D. & C. 133:19-35.) So the difficult problem is easily solved when we have the truth with which to solve it. And, it is not out of order at this point, to call attention to the fact that these highly cultured gentlemen are blaming the Bible and the Church of Jesus Christ as it existed in the beginning with all the errors in theology, doctrine and practices, that crept into the apostate church and which are not believed in, and never were accepted, by the people of God in any age of the world's history. The misinterpretations of the scriptures, the mistakes that crept into them, or were deliberately placed there by scribes and priests who did not understand the truth, cannot be blamed upon the original writers-the prophets who wrote and spoke who had the inspiration of the Holy Ghost.

It has been computed by reliable persons that the ark according to the sacred cubit giving its dimensions, would be as large as one of the largest steamships ever built. Now no one, I suppose, has ever tried to put on one of these great Leviathans or Queen Elizabeths two of every species of animal and seven of the clean kind.

Paul said in truth on Mars Hill:

God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;

Neither is worshiped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;

And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the time before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:

For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

All of the human inhabitants of the earth are descendants of Noah. It is written in the word of the Lord:

And now, after the many testimonies which have been given of him, this is the testimony, last of all, which we give of him: That he lives!

For we saw him, even on the right hand of God; and we heard the voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father-

That by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God.

The world does not know why there are white, black, brown and reddish colored people on the earth-all descendants of Noah, but the Latter-day Saints do. The Lord placed the black skin on the descendants of Cain, and they came through the flood in the family of Ham. We know why the Lamanite is reddish in appearance, and for like reasons other races are so marked, but they had one ancestry. So in the ark was a pair of dogs, a pair of lions, a pair of elephants, and so on through all the animal and bird kingdoms. From these original pairs have come the varieties of dogs, lions, bears, horses, elephants, etc. But they are all brought into the world after their kind. A dog never begets a sheep, nor a horse a cow, an elephant or anything else but its own kind, and so on throughout the whole creation. Now no man has the knowledge, much less the authority, to say that all the original pairs of animals and birds could not be placed on the ark! The word of the Lord says they were placed there, and through the providence of God they were distributed over all the face of the earth after the flood.

We read in the word of the Lord to Moses:

Remember the days of old, consider the years of many generations: ask thy father, and he will shew thee; thy elders, and they will tell thee.

When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.

For the Lord's portion is his people: Jacob is the lot of his inheritance.

Let it be remembered that the Lord set these bounds for the nations according to the number of the children of Israel, and the vast majority of the children of Israel were not yet born! From this we learn that the Lord had a controlling hand in where the nations were to locate, and it was not merely a matter of chance. We know the Jaredites were led and appointed, so were the Nephites and the Mulekites, to the western hemisphere. So likewise the "Lost Ten Tribes," and many others according to the revealed word of the Lord. So we discover that there is no great unsolved, and unsolvable mystery about the kangaroo being in Australia, the sloth in South America with the anteater and the buffalo in the United States. The Lord who gathered them to preserve them also distributed them and this by natural means. The poor sloth was not forced to make the tedious journey across continents and seas to his home in America, neither the kangaroo in Australia.

Another criticism of the universal flood is supposed to be indisputable. This is that there is not enough water in the oceans, rivers and lakes, plus what may be stored in the atmosphere and in the earth to rise and cover the mountains. The account of the flood and from whence the water came is but briefly stated. We have no extensive details. The story is as follows:

In the sixth 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.

The rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights. No man is able to explain just what the Lord meant by the opening of the "windows of heaven." Was water brought for the occasion from some other place above the earth? We do not know; but the true believer in the scriptures having faith in the word of the Lord, has no doubt that sufficient water was supplied. It is an interesting study nevertheless, considering just the condition that exists with the amount of water in the oceans, lakes and in the atmosphere. We receive the information from government sources, gathered by scientific investigation of the following interesting facts:

The land area of the earth is 57,510,000 square miles.

The water area is 139,440,000 square miles.

Circumference at the equator is 24,902 miles.

The figure given for the height of Mt. Everest is 29,002 feet. To make the problem simple we will say Mt. Everest is six miles high and that the circumference of the earth is 25,000 miles at the equator. This would make Mt. Everest 6/25,000 of the earth's surface rising into the air. Charles Babage, the English scientist, said, "The highest ranges of mountains we have are relative to the circumference of the earth's crust infinitely smaller than the puckers on an orange-skin." With nearly two and one half times more water than land, I am sure the Lord with his infinite power could manipulate this immense amount of water to cover the earth. The ocean has an average depth of 13,000 feet and the average height of the land is only about 2,300 feet. The ocean varies in depth from 300 to 400 to about 31,000 feet, so it is about 5.6 times as deep as the average land is high and the ocean area is far more than two times that of the land. Then again, we have learned that the mountains were not as high in the days of Noah as they now are. There were great changes that came to the surface of the earth during the flood. We know from the dynamic force of water a flood of such proportions could not occur without making great changes in the surface of the earth. This the evolutionist does not take into account. Moreover, other great changes came in the day of Peleg when the earth was divided. (Genesis 10:25.) This was the surface of the earth, not the division in relation to the habitations of the people. One fact easily overlooked in the Lord's instruction to Noah, (see Genesis 6:13,) is as follows:

And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

A deluge such as that described in the Bible, it must be admitted, would make great changes in the earth. A small flood can create enormous damage, such as we occasionally have in parts of Utah. Then to think of the terrific force of the flood that would cover the earth we must conclude that the entire face of the earth was changed, so that many of the great geological conditions ascribed by geologists to a time millions of years ago could have taken place suddenly, and evidently did. We know from the record in the Book of Mormon, that at the crucifixion of our Lord, the whole face of the land on the western hemisphere was altered. Mountains arose, others sank, and they were broken into "faults" and crags by the great earthquakes, wherein they were smooth before, and this was not millions of years ago.

(Joseph Fielding Smith, Man, His Origin and Destiny, p.418-422, as cited from LDS Library 2006. Content Version 6.1.0, Program Version 6.1.12.)

Share this post


Link to post

The probable original source of the information for Katherine the Great's above remarks:

The Noachian flood. We see no evidence of a worldwide flood. In fact, we see overwhelming evidence that there was not such a (recent) event. Geologists know the geologic effects of flooding, as for example in the scablands in the state of Washington that resulted from the emptying of Lake Missoula. No such topography is seen on large scale. A possible explanation is that the Flood was a relatively local event.

(David Clark, Of Heaven and Earth: Reconciling Scientific Thought with LDS Theology, p.173, as contained in LDS Library 2006)

See my remarks above regarding the possible reasons why such evidence has not been found including proposed experiments as potential empirical examples.

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.

×