Noah's Ark.....i know call me crazy.

[Marginal Gains]

Global, literal flood - no

Ron Wyatt - hell no

Nigerian Prince letter - slightly more credible than Ron Wyatt

 

The Church teaches a literal, global flood around 2,300 BCE, following which the only life on the planet was eight humans and some animals who had all resided on a single boat for a number of months. Think about the genocide that would have accompanied such an event, and think about God inflicting that genocide on men, women, children, babes in arms etc. Is that the kind of God you believe in? Really?

Edited April 17, 2018 by Marginal Gains

[mnn727]

39 minutes ago, cinepro said:

How would it look to a prophet that was taken up in a vision and shown the entire planet and its history?

Y'all probably don't want to hear my thoughts about the Book of Abraham and the Book of Moses.

[The Nehor]

40 minutes ago, cinepro said:

How would it look to a prophet that was taken up in a vision and shown the entire planet and its history?

Depends on the elevation of the angelic guided tour. I have said before that the creation story in Genesis would be a pretty good description of the earth developing as seen from someone standing or floating above the surface. Makes less sense if they viewed it from the moon.

[katherine the great]

3 hours ago, ksfisher said:

According to wikipedia Ron Wyatt has discovered the following:

• Christ's blood in an "earthquake crack" beneath the crucifixion site, the DNA of which, according to Wyatt, contained 24 chromosomes, rather than 46^[15]

I think this one's my favorite. He definitely is "the greatest archaeologist ever"! Not much of a biologist though.  

[rongo]

27 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

Global, literal flood - no

Ron Wyatt - hell no

Nigerian Prince letter - slightly more credible than Ron Wyatt

http://www.stearns.org/fun/nigerian-email-conference.htm

[snowflake]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

If the mountains of Ararat is the epicenter of all modern life, not only would expect to find the remains of a ship, but we would along with that expect to see fossil remains of every kind of animal/insect life there, including indigenous species to North America, the tropical jungles of south east Asia, and the deserts of Africa and Australia.  We should see fossil of kangaroos from Turkey to Australia.  As soon as someone finds a kangaroo fossil or a North American Bison fossil, or a red-eyed Amazonian tree frog fossil around the area of Turkey, then give me a call.

Why would you expect to see all of these fossilized? 

[The Nehor]

In any civilized society Ron Wyatt would be pelted with thrown mud and rotten vegetables anywhere he went.

[Sevenbak]

41 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

Think about the genocide that would have accompanied such an event, and think about God inflicting that genocide on men, women, children, babes in arms etc. Is that the kind of God you believe in? Really?

Um, yes.  And he's explained himself quite well on the matter.    He didn't do it without weeping, or knowing the cost and consequences.   I don't think anyone thinks he's the kind of God you're making him out to be.  

 

Moses 7:

33 And unto thy brethren have I said, and also given commandment, that they should love one another, and that they should choose me, their Father; but behold, they are without affection, and they hate their own blood;

34 And the fire of mine indignation is kindled against them; and in my hot displeasure will I send in the floods upon them, for my fierce anger is kindled against them.

35 Behold, I am God; Man of Holiness is my name; Man of Counsel is my name; and Endless and Eternal is my name, also.

36 Wherefore, I can stretch forth mine hands and hold all the creations which I have made; and mine eye can pierce them also, and among all the workmanship of mine hands there has not been so great wickedness as among thy brethren.

37 But behold, their sins shall be upon the heads of their fathers; Satan shall be their father, and misery shall be their doom; and the whole heavens shall weep over them, even all the workmanship of mine hands; wherefore should not the heavens weep, seeing these shall suffer?

38 But behold, these which thine eyes are upon shall perish in the floods; and behold, I will shut them up; a prison have I prepared for them.

39 And that which I have chosen hath pled before my face. Wherefore, he suffereth for their sins; inasmuch as they will repent in the day that my Chosen shall return unto me, and until that day they shall be in torment;

40 Wherefore, for this shall the heavens weep, yea, and all the workmanship of mine hands.

Edited April 17, 2018 by Sevenbak

[katherine the great]

6 minutes ago, snowflake said:

Why would you expect to see all of these fossilized? 

Strictly speaking, fossilization usually implies mineralization. But even in science we often informally refer to ancient bones as fossils whether they are petrified or not.

[snowflake]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

God told me it is his word. That's all I need. And you call that disrespect?

How can anyone know that Jesus even existed without God telling him that He is the savior of mankind?

How can you possibly know the Bible is the word of God without God telling you so?

You just believe anybody that they are a prophet?

Interesting that all of your questions here are answered in the Bible. If you would read the Good Book there are clear answers to believers and those who are yet to "believe". 

In the Bible God tells us it is his word (2 Timothy 3:16)

The entire Bible screams out Yeshua, plus eye witness accounts and the 4 Gospels.

There are several tests for a prophet, Deuteronomy 13, 18, Galatians 1 8-9.

 

[snowflake]

48 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

The Church teaches a literal, global flood around 2,300 BCE, following which the only life on the planet was eight humans and some animals who had all resided on a single boat for a number of months. Think about the genocide that would have accompanied such an event, and think about God inflicting that genocide on men, women, children, babes in arms etc. Is that the kind of God you believe in? Really?

God also explains himself in Genesis 6;

⁵ And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

⁶ And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

⁷ And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

[snowflake]

13 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

Strictly speaking, fossilization usually implies mineralization. But even in science we often informally refer to ancient bones as fossils whether they are petrified or not.

I thought fossilization required rapid burial, via mud slide, volcano or ......flood. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

What do you do with JST (Book of Moses) and BoM passages that perpetuate the "mistaken notion of primitive people" explanation, though? Why did God perpetuate the myth in translated scripture?

If the original prophets wrote the text with that belief, why wouldn't the beliefs be translated/transmitted along with their experiences, feelings, etc by JS?

 

[Marginal Gains]

8 minutes ago, snowflake said:

God also explains himself in Genesis 6;

⁵ And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

⁶ And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

⁷ And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

Sounds like a good justification for drowning an entire planet of humans, including all their babies...

[katherine the great]

2 minutes ago, snowflake said:

I thought fossilization required rapid burial, via mud slide, volcano or ......flood. 

To meet the requirements of a very ancient, mineralized fossil, yes.  This is similar to using the term "theory" in a strict, scientific sense v. "theory" in common, everyday speech.

[pogi]

33 minutes ago, snowflake said:

Why would you expect to see all of these fossilized? 

Because that would be the epicenter of all modern life. 

[mnn727]

19 minutes ago, snowflake said:

Interesting that all of your questions here are answered in the Bible. If you would read the Good Book there are clear answers to believers and those who are yet to "believe". 

In the Bible God tells us it is his word (2 Timothy 3:16)

The entire Bible screams out Yeshua, plus eye witness accounts and the 4 Gospels.

There are several tests for a prophet, Deuteronomy 13, 18, Galatians 1 8-9.

 

You cannot use something as proof of itself.

You're not LDS are you?

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, snowflake said:

I thought fossilization required rapid burial, via mud slide, volcano or ......flood. 

https://www.livescience.com/37781-how-do-fossils-form-rocks.html

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

How would it look to a prophet that was taken up in a vision and shown the entire planet and its history?

That assumes that Genesis 6-7 was written by Moses. I think the evidence is pretty strong that it had multiple authors. But I do think it worth asking how a primitive person who was shown clips of major events would interpret them. Nibley used to talk about the spectator model of reading scripture. I think it's a worthwhile endeavor. Anyway, I think the "entire planet and history" is a bit of hyperbole. I doubt he saw in depth the life story of every person. So we should take some caution first off in terms of what we attribute to Moses but more importantly what of Moses survived to end up in Genesis through Deuteronomy when they were compiled centuries later after the exile by uninspired scribes. 

Edited April 17, 2018 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

What do you do with JST (Book of Moses) and BoM passages that perpetuate the "mistaken notion of primitive people" explanation, though? Why did God perpetuate the myth in translated scripture?

Isn't this exactly the same as asking why there's human infused scripture at all? Why not just have God dictate things with no human involvement except transcription?

The usual answer is tied to the idea of the plan of salvation and making it easy to doubt God. That is this life to be the testing ground it is must make God doubtable. That means no infallible dictated answer for everything.

[rongo]

47 minutes ago, Calm said:

If the original prophets wrote the text with that belief, why wouldn't the beliefs be translated/transmitted along with their experiences, feelings, etc by JS?

Because Joseph Smith's translation process isn't simply rendering what was "in the original" into current English (mechanical translation, or what we would consider to be "scholarly translation). When he has the Genesis expansion, or Moroni (in Ether) refer to a global flood, he is conveying that there was or was going to be a global flood --- not merely that Moses or Moroni or whoever saw the world that way, when there was really just a local flood.

The allegorizing or condescending vantage point (awww, those cute little people thousands of years ago. We know better today!) is really just a thing among some LDS who discuss things online. Most active Mormons (including anything that has ever come out from the Church, which includes General Authorities) read the scriptures literally with regard to the Exodus, the Creation (not six earth days, but periods of time), literal Adam and Eve, the invasion of Canaan, the Flood,  Abraham and Moses being real people, rule of the judges, Daniel and Nebuchednezzar, Job, Esther, etc. While I know and respect LDS who don't want to believe these people or things really existed or happened, and who take the position that the Bible is just myths from Sumerians and Semitic tribesmen up until Jesus Christ, that doesn't work at all for me. 

If the powerful stories didn't literally happen, they lose most of their power for me. There's no point. If, for example, the literal priesthood lineages in the Pearl of Great Price and the Doctrine and Covenants are a complete myth, it would be similar to if there were actually no Nephites or Lamanites, and trying to insist that it doesn't matter if Moroni ever existed (and an angel Moroni appeared to and taught Joseph Smith) --- because what is really important is the truth or inspiration from what Joseph Smith published as the Book of Mormon. 

There is really very little point to it all if the stories aren't true. Then, we're just another group with some feel-good stories with some potential to encourage people to live better lives. But the power and magic and romance and thrilling, soaring inspiration is gone. The point is that, as we testify but often don't think about, "these things are true." That is the really powerful thing. 

[rongo]

9 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Isn't this exactly the same as asking why there's human infused scripture at all? Why not just have God dictate things with no human involvement except transcription?

The usual answer is tied to the idea of the plan of salvation and making it easy to doubt God. That is this life to be the testing ground it is must make God doubtable

I would put it in terms --- not of God wanting to make it hard for us to believe, so it's a test --- but more that there is value for us in our growth and progression because we have to see through a glass darkly and have to discern our own thoughts, and the Spirit without 100% accuracy. There is growth and progress potential in that that is absent if God gave us 100% undeniable scripture.

. That means no infallible dictated answer for everything.

Yes, but I find in my experience that those who stress fallibility do so to a fault, to the point where nothing is really reliable (especially as history or faithful representation of how things actually happened or were). That leads to LDS who don't believe that any of the stories actually really happened (except for the resurrection and atonement, or they wouldn't be Christians or Mormons), and who get embarrassed and annoyed by those who want to believe or do believe that they did. Both extremes (complete infallibility, and complete fallibility of scripture or leaders) are bad, and like B.H. Roberts said, "I pause in doubt as to which extreme would be worse."

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, snowflake said:

Interesting that all of your questions here are answered in the Bible. If you would read the Good Book there are clear answers to believers and those who are yet to "believe". 

In the Bible God tells us it is his word (2 Timothy 3:16)

The entire Bible screams out Yeshua, plus eye witness accounts and the 4 Gospels.

There are several tests for a prophet, Deuteronomy 13, 18, Galatians 1 8-9.

 

I am surprised I have to point this out to you.

If the bible is NOT the  word of God, might it INCORRECTLY tell us  it  is, while lying  doing  so?

Have you heard of a circular argument?

Would it  not  then also give qualifications for "prophets" which were incorrect simply to mislead us- or by innocent error?

Would you like references to other scriptures from other cultures which tell us they are the word of God?   Which have all the historicity the bible does and yet which Christians do NOT accept as the word of God?

The Book of Mormon also tells us it is the word of God- why do you not accept THAT based on its own assertions?

Your position is illogical.

MY position is not based  on  a book  telling  me what  it is or  is  not-  it  is based on what I believe God tells me, and there is no other alternative than to believe my own sense of what is true and false- my own conscience.

I am surprised you are not understanding the  argument.   I will make it simple.  Suppose those statements in the bible are lies??

(I don't believe they are- I believe they are the truth- but your reasoning does not include that as a possibility while mine does)

This is where  the typical EV gets confused and will not  reply, or replies with an argument about historicity- essentially that we know where the Bible lands are.  We also know where Chinese religious writings come from- does that make them the word of God?

I am trying earnestly to get you to think this through and not give in to the tendency gloss over this important point     I am not being disrespectful- I believe in the bible as you do.

 

[DJBrown]

4 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

The Church teaches a literal, global flood around 2,300 BCE, following which the only life on the planet was eight humans and some animals who had all resided on a single boat for a number of months. Think about the genocide that would have accompanied such an event, and think about God inflicting that genocide on men, women, children, babes in arms etc. Is that the kind of God you believe in? Really?

If you consider the purpose for mortal life and the conditions at the time of Noah, it does make sense.  What hope would a innocent baby have of living the gospel of Christ- learning and doing those things and receiving those ordinances that lead to exaltation and salvation?  Not much in my opinion.

I believe it was merciful of God to end human lives on earth in the context of those moral conditions- pervasive violence and sexual corruption.  Maybe God just started over to provide a greater opportunity for His children.  

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

Sounds like a good justification for drowning an entire planet of humans, including all their babies...

Would you rather be raised by parents who are incredibly evil and abusive or die young and be spared the pain and enter into God's kingdom without that suffering?

I have worked with enough abused children to know which route I would prefer.

Edited April 18, 2018 by The Nehor