Jump to content
snowflake

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

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, rongo said:

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.

Yup.

4 hours ago, rongo said:

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."

I don't think that's true. I bet most apologists are fallibilists for instance. Typically the inclination is to try and keep as much of the narrative as possible. So, for instance, with the Noah story rather than just reject it as a myth you have Noah living in the Carolinas facing a giant hurricane taking Noah across the ocean. Slight errors of the sort you'd find in the New Testament.

My experience is that those who reject everything as myth tend to do so more out of political/cultural inclination. It's not due to fallibilism.

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, JAHS said:

 

Edited by sunstoned

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours 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.

 

So the book is true because the book says it's true.  That is begging the question and circular logic.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

...With the Noah story rather than just reject it as a myth you have Noah living in the Carolinas facing a giant hurricane taking Noah across the ocean. Slight errors of the sort you'd find in the New Testament.

My experience is that those who reject everything as myth tend to do so more out of political/cultural inclination. It's not due to fallibilism.

 

 

If you're referring to how people treat LDS teachings, you may want to acknowledge that the church teaches that there was no ocean near North Carolina at the time of Noah. It would have been butted up to N. Africa somewhere. The division of the continents didn't occur until a couple hundred years after Noah, per correlated teachings.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Sevenbak said:

If you're referring to how people treat LDS teachings, you may want to acknowledge that the church teaches that there was no ocean near North Carolina at the time of Noah. It would have been butted up to N. Africa somewhere. The division of the continents didn't occur until a couple hundred years after Noah, per correlated teachings.

I don't think that's in any current materials although older materials unfortunately adopted the ideas from a Seventh Day Adventist creationist text - I think they even made it into the D&C Institute manual if I recall.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

Thus entire thread makes me chuckle - so many Mormons arguing for sprinkling instead of immersion.

What good Catholics we would make.

Maybe when the earth is baptized by fire and celestialized that will be local too, a local sea of glass.  And some of the earth will be left terrestrial and some telestial.  

Yeah, that's the ticket.  I think Australia can be the terrestrial kingdom, but where shall we put the telestial hell?  New Jersey?

Edited by JLHPROF
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
33 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Thus entire thread makes me chuckle - so many Mormons arguing for sprinkling instead of immersion.

What good Catholics we would make.

Maybe when the earth is baptized by fire and celestialized that will be local too, a local sea of glass.  And some of the earth will be left terrestrial and some telestial.  

Yeah, that's the ticket.  I think Australia can be the terrestrial kingdom, but where shall we put the telestial hell?  New Jersey?

:lol: Your post made me chuckle, in a good way. You are right on the money. 

Share this post


Link to post
59 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I don't think that's in any current materials although older materials unfortunately adopted the ideas from a Seventh Day Adventist creationist text - I think they even made it into the D&C Institute manual if I recall.

My head is spinning. It was actually in the Institute manual? Pangaea began splitting up over 200 million years ago. I was so thrilled when President Hinckley announced that we need to leave science to the scientists from now on.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

I don't think that's in any current materials although older materials unfortunately adopted the ideas from a Seventh Day Adventist creationist text - I think they even made it into the D&C Institute manual if I recall.

No, the current manuals teach this...   D&C  manual, old testament manual (multiple times),  bible dictionary, topical guide, all reference the division as a physical separation.   Then there are many prophetic statements sprinkled throughout curriculum as well,  including those by Joseph Smith.

 The argument that this is not a current correlated teaching doesn’t work.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

I don't think that's in any current materials although older materials unfortunately adopted the ideas from a Seventh Day Adventist creationist text - I think they even made it into the D&C Institute manual if I recall.

What makes you think that the manuals "adopted the ideas from a Seventh-day Adventist creationist text?" What text would that be?

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, The Nehor said:

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.

When you say “die young” you mean “be drowned at birth”. You’re advocating drowning kids at birth on the off chance that their parents might not do so good a job. And before you go down the “well God knew what lives they would have” route, doing so would mean God removing agency from a planet of people - you know, the whole reason behind sending people to earth in the first place.

Are you advocating that abused children are better off being drowned than being adopted by, say, a loving gay couple?

Edited by Marginal Gains

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, Sevenbak said:

No, the current manuals teach this...   D&C  manual, old testament manual (multiple times),  bible dictionary, topical guide, all reference the division as a physical separation.   Then there are many prophetic statements sprinkled throughout curriculum as well,  including those by Joseph Smith.

 The argument that this is not a current correlated teaching doesn’t work.

It's still scriptural- days of Peleg etc.  Scripture still represents official doctrine of the Church doesn't it?

Edited by JLHPROF
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Thus entire thread makes me chuckle - so many Mormons arguing for sprinkling instead of immersion.

What good Catholics we would make.

Maybe when the earth is baptized by fire and celestialized that will be local too, a local sea of glass.  And some of the earth will be left terrestrial and some telestial.  

Yeah, that's the ticket.  I think Australia can be the terrestrial kingdom, but where shall we put the telestial hell?  New Jersey?

Since Costner said Iowa was heaven, then I think New Jersey might be a little close for Telestial Hell.  ;)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
18 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

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.

 

Thanks for you response and I will do my best to respond here with several points and I do respect your opinion on this forum MFB.

Help me understand why the LDS don't fall into this circular argument as well. When I look at the Moroni challenge, it just reminds me of the "Christian" faith healers. Their game is: that if you have enough faith and send us your money you will get (whatever you want riches, children, spouse, healing..etc).  The faith healer promises that if you have enough faith you will get your answer......and if you don't get your answer....all the fault falls on the believer that didn't have enough faith. 

This is exactly what the Moroni challenge is. We all know it is true (LDS Leadership) , but if you don't have enough faith, with total trust in God then you have failed (either with a sin in your life, or not confessing something....etc). So please help me to distinguish the difference between the faith healer and the moroni challenge....and why isn't the moroni challenge circular reasoning? 

I think what you are trying to tell me (and I can be a little slow) is that because you get a feeling...burning in the bosom....emotional response....etc.. you trust in your self conscience that satisfies you as an "answer" that is why it isn't circular reasoning? 

Again, I know you are well versed in Philosophy and I appreciate you dumbing it down for me. 

Also I know that many different LDS sects rely on the moroni challenge to determine "truth"....are they falling into my fallacy too?  Thanks MFB!

 

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Thus entire thread makes me chuckle - so many Mormons arguing for sprinkling instead of immersion.

What good Catholics we would make.

Maybe when the earth is baptized by fire and celestialized that will be local too, a local sea of glass.  And some of the earth will be left terrestrial and some telestial.  

Why does the earth need to be baptized by immersion in water to be celestialized?  It is not human, why assume the same rules apply identically?

Will the sun and moon be celestialized as well?  Just curious as to how you see what will happen.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
23 hours ago, mnn727 said:

I don't believe it as given -- ie a world-wide flood that killed everyone. or that Noah saved a pair of every animal on the planet.

I believe there was a large but localized flood, or perhaps a tsunami that flooded a large region. You could explain the 40 days of rain and the flood by a meteor or comet strike in the ocean throwing up enormous amounts of water in the air which would have to come down as rain along with a tsunami sweeping the ark out to sea. 

To a primitive people without modern satellite and weather radar, I'm sure it appeared like the entire world was under water. 

There was certainly something big. Every culture in the world has a “flood myth”. 

I tend to agree with the above view.  Noah was likely commanded to save critical species.  Obviously, since there are tens of thousands of species not all were on the ark, nor could all not on the ark have been destroyed. 

There is a place in the Amazon basin called Marañon where a big river converges with the Amazon. Translated this word is called sea or not.  Because the early explorers did not know if they had reached an inland sea since they couldn’t see any shore.

Edited by mrmarklin
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

It's still scriptural- days of Peleg etc.  Scripture still represents official doctrine of the Church doesn't it?

 Peleg scripture in the Bible is not always interpreted as land division.  As far as I can tell that is a relatively recent interpretation with young earth creationists.  The Jews interpreted it as division of nations.

" It is more likely that Peleg's name anticipates the division of languages at Babel in the following chapter. (Note that palag appears in Psalms 55:9 to refer to a division of languages.)"

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Question:_Does_the_biblical_story_of_Peleg_describe_the_separation_of_the_continents%3F

I personally find it highly unlikely that splitting of continents (assuming God did it with minimal disturbance so as to leave no geological record or destruction...because mass destruction like what happened to Noah and sudden destruction like happened to Jericho and others would surely be noted) would not merit simply four words without any description of the impact based on how other catastrophic events are handled.  Even if there was no destruction, people would be separated from their families, trade routes cut off, national or tribal alliances destroyed.  The social and economic turmoil would have been tremendous.

If one believes there weren't enough people yet to make it that big of a social deal, it was still a massive change to their environment, even more drastic than it getting buried in water, but relatively unchanged after the water disappeared except for less people.  Something that never happened before or happened again on that scale...And it gets 4 words?

Otoh, there are endless chapters about the social divisions by nation, etc.  That context fits perfectly where it is written and is explained well by that context.  The world is being divided among all the descendants of Noah.

The last verse of the chapter makes this clear...the land is divided nationally:

"These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations, in their nations: and by these were the nationsdivided in the earth after the flood."

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/gen/10.25?lang=eng#25

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, mrmarklin said:

There was certainly something big. Every culture in the world has a “flood myth”. 

I tend to agree with the above view.  Noah was likely commanded to save critical species.  Obviously, since there are tens of thousands of species not all were on the ark, nor could all not on the ark have been destroyed. 

The is a place in the Amazon basin called Marañon where a big river converges with the Amazon. Translated this word is called sea or not.  Because the early explorers did not know if they had reached an inland sea since they couldn’t see any shore.

Do you think the text itself is wrong? because the bible is pretty clear that it was a global flood and that all flesh perished except what was on the ark. 

Share this post


Link to post
On 17/04/2018 at 5:36 PM, JAHS said:

I don't believe in the Russel Crow version of Noah with the stone giants helping him. 

stone.jpg.d86cb00892a30d8cd61037c5a88ac331.jpg

Yeah, I found it pretty much unwatchable.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
On 17/04/2018 at 5:52 PM, rongo said:

I'm a global floodist. :) 

I'm pretty sure President Nelson is, too. :) 

I guess I'm a local floodist, but I'm not rabid about it.

Edited by Stargazer

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, snowflake said:

Do you think the text itself is wrong? because the bible is pretty clear that it was a global flood and that all flesh perished except what was on the ark. 

Yes, its wrong. if you sail on a cruise ship, once you're out of sight of land, it appears there is no land. Now add that fact to the fact that Noah had never see that the Earth is a globe and never had satellites or weather radar and keep in mind that this account was written much much later from oral accounts. 

Its obvious something happened, too many cultures have a flood myth, but there is zero geological or zoological evidence of a worldwide flood that wiped everything and everybody out.

I don't turn my brain off when I walk into Church.

 

Edited by mnn727
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Maybe when the earth is baptized by fire and celestialized that will be local too, a local sea of glass.  And some of the earth will be left terrestrial and some telestial.

You don't know the scriptures.  The Earth was baptised only at the time of Noah's flood (it was global in scale by water with full immersion).  At the time of Jesus' 2nd Coming, the earth will be burned.  This will be analogous to the Confirmation and Membership in God's Kingdom (thus transforming Earth back to its previous Terrestrial Glory).  There will be another burning at the End of the Millennium that will be hotter and more fervent.  It has been indicated that this will be the gift of the Endowment (in order to make the earth Celestialized).  The fervent heat will transform the earth into a crystal globe (NOT partially done in a few places on earth).

D&C 77:1   Q. What is the sea of glass spoken of by John, 4th chapter, and 6th verse of the Revelation?   A. It is the earth, in its sanctified, immortal, and eternal state.
D&C 130:7 But they reside in the presence of God, on a globe like a sea of glass and fire, where all things for their glory are manifest, past, present, and future, and are continually before the Lord.   8 The place where God resides is a great Urim and Thummim.   9 This earth, in its sanctified and immortal state, will be made like unto crystal and will be a Urim and Thummim to the inhabitants who dwell thereon, whereby all things pertaining to an inferior kingdom, or all kingdoms of a lower order, will be manifest to those who dwell on it; and this earth will be Christ’s.   10 Then the white stone mentioned in Revelation 2:17, will become a Urim and Thummim to each individual who receives one, whereby things pertaining to a higher order of kingdoms will be made known;

Share this post


Link to post
49 minutes ago, Calm said:

Why does the earth need to be baptized by immersion in water to be celestialized?  It is not human, why assume the same rules apply identically?

 

Just to be clear, who do you think is speaking in Moses 7?

Quote

48 And it came to pass that Enoch looked upon the earth; and he heard a voice from the bowels thereof, saying: Wo, wo is me, the mother of men; I am pained, I am weary, because of the wickedness of my children. When shall I rest, and be cleansed from the filthiness which is gone forth out of me? When will my Creator sanctify me, that I may rest, and righteousness for a season abide upon my face?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Just to be clear, who do you think is speaking in Moses 7?

 

Does that make the earth human simply because it has a spirit and consciousness?

I am asking if the rules of sanctification have to be identical for nonhuman beings.  Is there anything in the scriptures that indicate this?

Perhaps a proxy baptism might be applied.

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

When you say “die young” you mean “be drowned at birth”. You’re advocating drowning kids at birth on the off chance that their parents might not do so good a job. And before you go down the “well God knew what lives they would have” route, doing so would mean God removing agency from a planet of people - you know, the whole reason behind sending people to earth in the first place.

Are you advocating that abused children are better off being drowned than being adopted by, say, a loving gay couple?

If you believe the story of Noah’s Ark literally and the diagnosis of the spiritual condition of the people in the story literally there were no loving gay couples to adopt them. It was not an “off chance” they would get it wrong. Also, God knowing the future does not destroy agency.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×