Literalists And The Flood, Etc.

[Ron Beron]

Back into the "firmament" and the "fountains fo the deep," of course!

We are not talking about my recalcitrant toilet here, but billions of gallons of water. That much water couldn't have gone back into aquifer or not many other places either.

[Uncle Dale]

... Mesopotamian/ Sumerian...

this silver model captures what "Noah's Ark" originally looked like in 2900 BC

Archaeologists have determined that Noah's Flood mentioned in the book of Genesis, and dated to the 3rd millennium BC on the basis of the Bible's internal chrononolgy by some Conservative Scholars, is a myth (The Flood being dated to ca. 2348 BC according to Archbishop James Ussher's chronology appearing in King James Bibles) . Excavations in the Near East in Egypt, the Sinai, Canaan, Phoenicia, Syria, and Mesopotamia reveal no universal worldwide flood layer dated to the 3rd millennium BC, some settlements being dated to the Neolithic or New Stone Age period of the 13th millennium BC.

The surprise however, is that there was indeed a 3rd millennium BC "flood layer" found at Shuruppak in Lower Mesopotamia left by a flooding Euphrates river and its canal. This flood is understood by a number of Liberal scholars to be what underlies the biblical event as the "Mesopotamian Noah" (called Ziusudra, Atrahasis and Utnapishtim) lived at Shuruppak.

Clay tablets from Lower Mesopotamia dated as early the 2d millennium BC do mention a worldwide flood. The Mesopotamian "Noah" is called variously Ziusudra (alternately rendered Zi-ud-sura), Atrahasis (Atra-khasis, Atramhasis) or Utnapishtim. He is portrayed as living in the city of Shuruppak on the Euphrates river and its canal. His patron god, Enki (Ea), warns him of the impending flood to be sent by the angry gods to destroy all of mankind, and to save himself, family and animals. He does so by building a boat.

Professors Lambert and Millard on the "absence" of any mention of a World Flood in Mesopotamian texts of the 3rd millennium but its appearance in texts of the 2d millennium BC:

"All the material in list form just described is from the first half of the second millennium BC. So far there is no evidence for this tradition of a great flood among the Sumerians of the third millennium." (p. 16. "Introduction."

W. G. Lambert & A. R. Millard. Atra-Hasis, The Babylonian Story of the Flood. Winona Lake, Indiana. Eisenbrauns. 1969 Oxford University Press. Reprint 1999 by Eisenbrauns)

The details in the Mesopotamian story have been compared to the biblical account and some 17 "correspondences" or "parallels" have been identified by scholars. They have concluded that the Mesopotamian and Biblical accounts are probably two differing versions -polytheistic vs. monotheistic- of the same event !

http://www.bibleorigins.net/NoahsArkillust...nShuruppak.html

d'Unk

.

[Uncle Dale]

We are not talking about my recalcitrant toilet here, but billions of gallons of water.

That much water couldn't have gone back into aquifer or not many other places either.

That much water would have stacked up into the stratasphere and frozen sold in its upper

quarter mile or so. That high, the icey outer layer would have been unprotected from cosmic rays

and sunburst activity -- would have been a death trap for any penguins or polar bears who might

have acclimated and breathed the oxygen depleted, ultra thin air up there.

Think of living atop Everest for the rest of your life -- (but all the earth also being such a wasteland).

Orson Scott Card, where are you?

UD

.

[valkator]

The Biblical account written by the survivors, and drawing on other accounts that were told in the Near East of the flood, might best be located within the context of these other narratives that are recalling a universal, past cataclysmic event that impacted everyone to one degree or another. The below site has a fairly good collection of 'flood stories' from all around the world. Enjoy..

Flood/Deluge Stories From Around the World

[Ron Beron]

The Biblical account written by the survivors, and drawing on other accounts that were told in the Near East of the flood, might best be located within the context of these other narratives that are recalling a universal, past cataclysmic event that impacted everyone to one degree or another. The below site has a fairly good collection of 'flood stories' from all around the world. Enjoy..

Flood/Deluge Stories From Around the World

Good site, but all cultures speak of great local floods (they do occur) not necessarily a great universal flood.

[valkator]

Good site, but all cultures speak of great local floods (they do occur) not necessarily a great universal flood.

True enough -- local floods do happen. I guess we'll have to wait until a planetary-wide cataclysm wipes out most of humanity and, from whatever existence vantage point we will find ourselves in afterwards, argue, again, about where it happened and what the scope of it was.

[Maidservant]

Valkator, hey going by all that (love it!) it would seem at first glance that the flood (whatever that is) IS universal -- what may not be true (by all those stories!) is that Noah and fam being the only survivors!! Ha ha.

[Uncle Dale]

True enough -- local floods do happen. I guess we'll have to wait until a planetary-wide cataclysm wipes out most of humanity and, from whatever existence vantage point we will find ourselves in afterwards, argue, again, about where it happened and what the scope of it was.

For people who believe the Book of Mormon literally, it appears that Noah and the flood

were an historical event: 3Ne 22:9 -- Al 10:22 -- Et 6:7 -- title page (post flood tower), etc.

Nothing there to clarify that the Israelite writers had adopted a Mesopotamian local flood

tradition and "sanitized" it of its polytheistic stuff. In fact, the BoM references seem quite

consistent with a world-wide flood that utterly destroys all humankind (which logically would

wipe out at least the land animals as well).

None of that influences my thinking here -- but for you Mormons, it seems that local floods

are not really the acceptible explanation.

Glad I'm not theologically painted into THAT particular corner.

d'Unk

[Maidservant]

Although not all local floods are universal; all universal floods are (also) local. (Which is what Valkator just said, I think.)

[valkator]

Valkator, hey going by all that (love it!) it would seem at first glance that the flood (whatever that is) IS universal -- what may not be true (by all those stories!) is that Noah and fam being the only survivors!! Ha ha.

...unless the survivors around the world ARE the 'family'...then there's no real disagreement at all...just the 'reference points' have to be expanded. Again, I would say that Noah (Noe=one who knows or has knowledge of 'something) and his family are symbolic, literary figures representing actual, real, people (more than just 2 or 4 or 8, of course) who survived a real, global and universal catastrophe - the memory of such being passed on locally through stories that COULD be interpreted as only 'local and isolated phenomena'.

....or what you said!

[SolarPowered]

For people who believe the Book of Mormon literally, it appears that Noah and the flood

were an historical event: 3Ne 22:9 -- Al 10:22 -- Et 6:7 -- title page (post flood tower), etc.

Nothing there to clarify that the Israelite writers had adopted a Mesopotamian local flood

tradition and "sanitized" it of its polytheistic stuff. In fact, the BoM references seem quite

consistent with a world-wide flood that utterly destroys all humankind (which logically would

wipe out at least the land animals as well).

None of that influences my thinking here -- but for you Mormons, it seems that local floods

are not really the acceptible explanation.

Glad I'm not theologically painted into THAT particular corner.

d'Unk

Unk,

This is where the fact that we are continuing to learn about the scriptures plays out. My impression at this point (and I've just recently starting realizing this) is that world history described in the Book of Mormon is consistent with the Jewish scriptures of ca. 600 BC. That is, it reflects what was on the Plates of Brass. It doesn't appear that the BoM prophets were given any special insight into history that was different from the record of the Plates of Brass.

Which is the same situation that our prophets today appear to be in. For the most part, what they have is the biblical and BoM record; they are not called to receive revelation to correct the scriptural record.

Indeed, that doesn't appear to be how the Lord works. He didn't sit Martin Luther down and reveal to him all the "plain and precious truths" that had been taken from the Bible. Rather, he brought forth another ancient record, the Book of Mormon, to fill in the gaps. And he has promised that there will be additional, hidden scriptures that will come forth in these days.

I note that it appears that even Christ Himself wasn't given corrections to the scriptural record while in mortality. (I wish I remembered the details, but there was a recent thread that discussed things that Jesus talked about, that were in the scriptures he had, that now appear to be mythical in nature.)

So, I have no problem with BoM prophets talking about the flood just as it was described in Genesis, even if perhaps that flood was in reality of a far different in character. The record in Genesis is apparently what they had, and that is what they taught.

[Uncle Dale]

...

So, I have no problem with BoM prophets talking about the flood just as it was described in Genesis, even if perhaps that flood was in reality of a far different in character. The record in Genesis is apparently what they had, and that is what they taught.

Here in this MB forum, your insights will probably "fly" -- we will lend a sympathetic ear, no doubt.

But try to say what you just said, if you are a grey-haired Apostle, speaking from the podium in

a talk at General Conference ---- and see how many irrate little old ladies, from Panguitch to

Paduka will be on the phone complaining, before you get to your "amen and amen."

Uncle "Proceed with caution -- curves ahead" Dale

[Sethbag]

Which is the same situation that our prophets today appear to be in. For the most part, what they have is the biblical and BoM record; they are not called to receive revelation to correct the scriptural record.

Apparently not. Of course, saying "they are not called to receive revelation" is just putting a positive spin on the fact that our modern-day prophets, seers, and revelators have taught as fact, and developed doctrines which are still taught to this very day, things that are actually just mythology.

The $64 question is this: how would this situation be any different if our prophets, seers, and revelators really were just men with no special hotline to or from any God? How would that look?

Indeed, that doesn't appear to be how the Lord works. He didn't sit Martin Luther down and reveal to him all the "plain and precious truths" that had been taken from the Bible. Rather, he brought forth another ancient record, the Book of Mormon, to fill in the gaps. And he has promised that there will be additional, hidden scriptures that will come forth in these days.

And yet the Book of Mormon has its own gaps, right? So God intended for the Book of Mormon to come out discussing a global flood which didn't happen, and you think that's fine because the Plates of Brass, which God would have seen fit to make sure the Nephites had, had contained the inherited Flood mythology that the ancient Israelites picked up from their neighbors, right?

How would this look any different if there really wasn't any revelation from God going on? How would this look any different if the Book of Mormon really were just a modern invention passing off as scripture, and it was written by a guy, or guys, who incorrectly believed in the global flood myth?

I note that it appears that even Christ Himself wasn't given corrections to the scriptural record while in mortality. (I wish I remembered the details, but there was a recent thread that discussed things that Jesus talked about, that were in the scriptures he had, that now appear to be mythical in nature.)

No, apparently Jesus Christ himself wasn't corrected by God the Father when he discussed as fact things that were in fact inherited and evolved regional mythology. As the Dude said before in a similar context, is God just a Jack*** who likes yanking our chain, because it's funny or something?

What it is about this God, who apparently likes to give us brains, and critical thinking, and reason, and rational thought processes, and yet has his prophets, and even his own begotten son Jesus Christ saying things that we, through the arm of flesh, in this modern day would know to be mythologically-based? How would this situation look any different if God didn't really exist, and we'd created him in our own image, and attributed to him, and to Jesus, things that are in fact just made up?

So, I have no problem with BoM prophets talking about the flood just as it was described in Genesis, even if perhaps that flood was in reality of a far different in character. The record in Genesis is apparently what they had, and that is what they taught.

And you have no trouble at all envisioning a loving, caring God, who gave us the ability to develop strong rational and critical thinking skills, and gave us the minds we have and the methods we use to investigate things and come to conclusions about truth versus error, who yet has his deputies on earth, who claim to speak for him, saying things that would undermine their credibility, by showing that they were teaching as fact manmade mythology.

You people who still believe this stuff have mental faculties capable of helping you recognize the mental trap your in, and yet you ignore the promptings of your reason, and the rational centers of your mind, and give yourselves over to the belief in things which are not credible.

It doesn't matter if you think the flood may have been local. It doesn't matter if you think you can argue that the scriptures themselves don't require a global flood, but can be interpreted as being descriptions of a local flood. The reason these things do not matter is that your prophets, seers, and revelators, and apparently even Jesus Christ himself, are on record discussing these things as global in nature, and they are wrong. This an immense blow to their credibility.

[Uncle Dale]

... The reason these things do not matter is that your prophets, seers, and revelators, and apparently

even Jesus Christ himself, are on record discussing these things as global in nature, and they are

wrong. This an immense blow to their credibility.

At least we can get a handle upon what the latter day leaders said in public (and a little of what they

did in private).

The biblical figures are largely beyond our reach, unfortunately -- there is not even any definite

proof that Jesus every existed. We can be pretty sure that there was a John the Baptist and a

James the Just, and a few other NT figures, but just our knowing that they were real people does

not much help us in figuring out all that they said and did -- (or even if they were accurately and

fully quoted in the old texts).

Probably Paul is accurately quoted, in most of his letters. But, if so, that may all add up to a bigger

problem for Christians, than if he himself were just some theologian's invention.

The Jesus Seminar scholars went though the four Gospels and the Coptic Gospel of Thomas, with

their red pens, underlining what they could mostly all agree were actual quotes from Jesus in the

Bible. The results were very unsettling -- perhaps 10% looked like reliable quotes, and another

10% like partially accurate paraphrases. I would hate to have somebody telling the world in some

distant future what Dale Broadhurst said and did, if 80% of what was reported about me was bogus.

Even given all of those problems, I still think it is possible to piece together a certain amount of

what the historical Jesus said and did ---- but, if the method of picking and choosing I am alluding to

is even half-way reliable in its results, we will come out with a Jesus not much like the one promoted

by the Christians --- in fact, a Jewish proto-rabbi who was more interested in showing the hypocrisy

of religious leaders, than he was in living up to messianic expectations.

I sometimes feel that we ought to wipe the slate clean, and start all over again.

Maybe that's what Joseph Smith felt <shudder!!>

UD

[phaedrus ut]

There are a few big problems I see for latter day saints not accepting a literal global flood.

• Moses 8 in the PoGP reinforces the global flood and that god was to "destroy all flesh from off the earth"
  
• D&C 138:8-9 only 8 souls were saved by the water
  
• Abraham 1:23-24 Noah's daughter in law discovers Egypt after the flood waters recede.
  
• In Ether 13:2 Moroni reinforces the global flood "after the waters has receded from off the face of this land . . ."
  
• There have been multiple testimonies from latter day prophets regarding the global flood see Donald W. Parry, The Flood and the Tower of Babel, Ensign, Jan. 1998, 35
  
• And IMO the most compelling reason why latter day saints are compelled to believe in a global flood is if the Garden of Eden was in Missouri then a localized flood could not have carried Noah to Mesopotamia.
  

Phaedrus

[SolarPowered]

There are a few big problems I see for latter day saints not accepting a literal global flood.

• Moses 8 in the PoGP reinforces the global flood and that god was to "destroy all flesh from off the earth"
  
• D&C 138:8-9 only 8 souls were saved by the water
  
• Abraham 1:23-24 Noah's daughter in law discovers Egypt after the flood waters recede.
  
• In Ether 13:2 Moroni reinforces the global flood "after the waters has receded from off the face of this land . . ."
  
• There have been multiple testimonies from latter day prophets regarding the global flood see Donald W. Parry, The Flood and the Tower of Babel, Ensign, Jan. 1998, 35
  
• And IMO the most compelling reason why latter day saints are compelled to believe in a global flood is if the Garden of Eden was in Missouri then a localized flood could not have carried Noah to Mesopotamia.
  

Phaedrus

You make some interesting points there.

I'll point out that D&C 138:8-9 is merely Joseph F. Smith quoting what he read in Genesis that started the thought process that ultimately resulted in his vision of the redemption of the dead. I don't think these verses are really a modern-day ratification of the flood story, so I don't think it belongs in the list with the rest of the items.

Your point about the Garden of Eden being in Missouri is a good point. So how do they get from Missouri to Mesopotamia? The usual LDS explanation is that Noah's Ark carried them there. Obviously, that doesn't work if one identifies the Flood with the flooding of the Black Sea or some similar localized event.

I suppose that it is possible that Adam and his family traveled from the Missouri area to the Middle East at some point during the 1000+ years prior to the Flood. There's certainly more than enough time in there for something like that to take place, but I certainly don't know of any supporting evidence that such a migration actually took place.

[SolarPowered]

Apparently not. Of course, saying "they are not called to receive revelation" is just putting a positive spin on the fact that our modern-day prophets, seers, and revelators have taught as fact, and developed doctrines which are still taught to this very day, things that are actually just mythology.

The $64 question is this: how would this situation be any different if our prophets, seers, and revelators really were just men with no special hotline to or from any God? How would that look?

etc.

Sethbag,

What you've written deserves a well-considered response. I have what seems like a dissertation worth of stuff I want to write on this general subject (which I said a month or two ago that I'd write "in a day or two"), that I haven't had time to sit down and write. Hopefully, I will get to it soon.

--Solar

[T-Shirt]

[*]And IMO the most compelling reason why latter day saints are compelled to believe in a global flood is if the Garden of Eden was in Missouri then a localized flood could not have carried Noah to Mesopotamia.

Phaedrus

Why not? If Noah built his ark on the east coast of the United States and the flood carried him into the Atlantic Ocean, what would have kept him from landing in the Middle East?

T-Shirt

[Beowulf]

Sethbag's $64 question (or $64 billion question... it doesn't really matter the size here, since no one's going to get paid for it anyway... heh) is really related to "what should prophets know about the world around them".

This is interesting, because the answer from people like himself is that they should know approximately what a modern quantum physicist/astronomer knows about the world (and no more or no less, apparently...) If not, it proves that God does not exist.

Quite a leap of logic, in my mind...

Stepping back a moment, to Uncle Dale's musings, I note that he insists that we LDS must believe in a universal flood, because the BofM says so. My first thought was that the BofM says so because that is what Israelites in 600 b.c.e. believed. It was already a VERY OLD story at that time. Sethbag then asserts that this comment proves nothing, because it is also what JS believed. Well, so? The point is that the Noah story is neutral for proving or disproving the Book of Mormon, as is the Tower of Babel story, since both derive from beliefs of the 6th C b.c.e.

(I should add that I think that the Noah story IS universal, in the sense that all of the tales known around the world probably DO derive from a single event. It was such a traumatic event that the tale actually did reach around the entire world, and every race adopted it as their own. And, as I have repeatedly said, it was cosmic in dimension, anyway, with all of that Chaos water springing out from beneath as well as from above.)

But to get back to Sethbag's objection. God, according to him, would not tell a story wrong to people, nor let people string along with false assumptions. I don't think so. I think God let's people work things out for themselves and draw the conclusions that are necessary for that time and space. (If Peter says eight people survived, and that this number has significance, God will let him teach the principle without intervening to say that, actually, many Chinese or Indonesians survived, too...)

To give one trivial example. In D&C20:1, there is a formulaic intro stating that the Church of Jesus Christ is being established exactly 1,830 years after the birth of our Savior. Is this a revelation stating the exact date of Jesus' birth? (My seminary teacher thought so.) But what if the calendar were wrong? (A highly likely possibility, considering man's ability to screw things up...) Should God have intervened and told JS that, "No, this is wrong, it is actually 1,834 years"? What would have been the result? Answer: Bedlam, as everyone in the room gets all excited about this amazing factoid that the calendar is off by four years, and they promptly forget what they were there for: To establish the Church.

The same objection goes for D&C 77, which is NOT a proclamation on the Age of the Earth, as secularists love to make merry about. If God had stated (through JS) that the Earth is actually 4.5 billion years old (in a year when the prevailing scientific opinion about the geologic history of the world did not even extend back one million years) would have completely distracted from the real point of the revelation, as everyone gasps at JS' recondity (or more likely, blow a raspberry... "everyone knows that the universe isn't 4.5 billion years old... how stupid!").

I hope you get my drift...

Beowulf

[BCSpace]

[*]And IMO the most compelling reason why latter day saints are compelled to believe in a global flood is if the Garden of Eden was in Missouri then a localized flood could not have carried Noah to Mesopotamia.

Phaedrus

Why not? If Noah built his ark on the east coast of the United States and the flood carried him into the Atlantic Ocean, what would have kept him from landing in the Middle East?

T-Shirt

Or down to the Gulf of Mexico and out into the Atlantic.

But Noah is many centuries removed from the Fall. What prevents Noah from having lived on or near the Black Sea at the time it flooded (locally)?

[Uncle Dale]

...

I hope you get my drift...

Beowulf

I think we're all adrift on this one...

Uncle "Utnapishtum, how camest thou hence from Zion?" Dale

[SlackTime]

Or down to the Gulf of Mexico and out into the Atlantic.

But Noah is many centuries removed from the Fall. What prevents Noah from having lived on or near the Black Sea at the time it flooded (locally)?

Well, I believe I read that Brigham Young once speculated that the City of Enoch was originally in the Gulf of Mexico. So watch out Cuba and Puerto Rico, when the city returns! Noah's dad lived during that period and must have been not too far away, Let's put him in Florida, just for fun. Who says the Lord can't jerrymander a boundary as well as a Stake Clerk! Of course he woulda known when the city was going to lift off, and that there would likely be some waves when it did, so he takes his family further north into Georgia. Now, Noah, being on a mission for 150 years prior to taking up the occupation of a shipwright preaching repentence to Southerners and New Englanders (No wonder he never converted anyone!) He would naturally migrate to Texas before starting his boat, Texas is so much more accessible for the gathering of animals from all over. So obviously he took off during the flood from Corpus Christi, TX!

Now that I've revealed the particulars to y'all you can stop wonderin'!

-SlackTime

[SolarPowered]

The point is that the Noah story is neutral for proving or disproving the Book of Mormon, as is the Tower of Babel story, since both derive from beliefs of the 6th C b.c.e.

I'm mostly very much in agreement with what you've written here. I think you expressed the position quite well. I did want to point out, however, that the BoM isn't neutral about the Tower of Babel, because the Book of Ether starts out with a record of people who where actually there at the Tower of Babel.

[cinepro]

There are a few big problems I see for latter day saints not accepting a literal global flood.

• Moses 8 in the PoGP reinforces the global flood and that god was to "destroy all flesh from off the earth"
  
• D&C 138:8-9 only 8 souls were saved by the water
  
• Abraham 1:23-24 Noah's daughter in law discovers Egypt after the flood waters recede.
  
• In Ether 13:2 Moroni reinforces the global flood "after the waters has receded from off the face of this land . . ."
  
• There have been multiple testimonies from latter day prophets regarding the global flood see Donald W. Parry, The Flood and the Tower of Babel, Ensign, Jan. 1998, 35
  
• And IMO the most compelling reason why latter day saints are compelled to believe in a global flood is if the Garden of Eden was in Missouri then a localized flood could not have carried Noah to Mesopotamia.
  

Phaedrus

While there are members of the Church that might privately believe in a local or allegorical take on the story of Noah's Flood, there has never been an acknowledgment of this possibility in any Church publication or discourse. Ever. Not in 178 years. Not in conference. Not in the Ensign. Not in any lesson manual. Not nowhere, not nohow.

The subject of Noah's flood has been taught thousands upon thousands of times, and an entire class is devoted to it (and the Tower of Babel) every four years in gospel doctrine. Each and every time, the flood is taught as a literal event that covered the entire globe, with nary a mountaintop peeking through. There has never been any wavering on this matter. Ever.

I beg of someone-anyone! to prove me wrong by producing a single quote from anywhere on the Church website. But it is not there. Only iteration upon reiteration of the global flood that killed every human and animal except those few that were floating in Noah's ark. This is always viewed as a fact just as historical as the pioneers crossing the plains or Columbus making landfall in 1492. This was last taught worldwide and apparently uniformly in the lesson manual for the 2006 Gospel Doctrine, as shown here:

â??Noah â?¦ Prepared an Ark to the Saving of His Houseâ?

So, while I may not label them as "apostate", I would certain suggest that those who adopt a local or allegorical interpretation of Noah's Flood are taking a radical, unsupported and unprecedented departure from Official Mormon Doctrine.

And I say "Official Mormon Doctrine", because whatever your definition of the term might be, the doctrine of a literal, global flood has to meet it.

[Beowulf]

Yes I am aware that the Book of Ether actually begins with the Tower of Babel.

However, I think the premise still stands, since the Book of Ether was written perhaps 1500 years after (and maybe more), and then edited by yet another person (Mormon) who lived another 1000 years later. It is a VERY OLD story when it finally arrives in the Book of Mormon.

To clarify what I think: The Tower of Babel really happened (and therefore Jared and his Brother and friends really existed), and people engaged in that worthy project (heh) DID have their language confounded. It does not follow, though, that no other languages existed in the world before that time. But the story would grow as it was spread around the world (like the Flood story).

As for timing: I have noticed that Year 1 in the Mayan calendar is around 3,000 bce. Is it possible that this is dated from Jared's encounter with the Tower of Babel? (Just speculation)

Beowulf