Implications Of Noah's Flood Not Being Global

[charity's child]

It is prima facie what the ancients believed and what they didn't. For one they had no concept of a Copernican concept of the solar system nor did they accept the round earth theory. While there might have been some understanding of a correct view of the universe by the ancients such as Abraham, there is nothing directly written by them to confirm this. If so, you would have posted it. Since there is virtual agreement on what the ancients believed why do you hold to such an untenable position?

Sorry, prima facie's a copout. Prima facie evidence suggested that millions of years of erosion created the coulees in Eastern Washington, but modern geologists accept that the first view was incorrect. Just because your father thought something was true, doesn't make it so. Provide sources or give first hand evidence, don't say it is so becuase you see it that way.

[Deborah]

I just listened to the BYU scholarly panel discussing Old Testament. Interestingly they address this very issue and said unequivocably the flood covering the earth was real and that God truly destroyed all life but that on the arc. They refer to Book of Mormon references to this, including 3 Nephyi 22: 9 "For this, the waters of Noah unto me, for as I have sworn that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth, so have I sworn that I would not be wroth with thee."

Also Alma 10:22 "Yea, and I say unto you that if it were not for the prayers of the righteous, who are now in the land, that ye would even now be visited with utter destruction; yet it would not be by flood, as were the people in the days of Noah, but it would be by famine, and by pestilence, and the sword."

Ether 6:7 "And it came to pass that when they were buried in the deep there was no water that could hurt them, their vessels being tight like unto a dish, and also they were tight like unto the ark of Noah; therefore when they were encompassed about by many waters they did cry unto the Lord, and he did bring them forth again upon the top of the waters."

We also have the Biblical references such as I Peter 3:20 "Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. "

The logic of course is why would there be so many references to Noah Noah were not real and the events true.

[grego]

Adam? Enoch? Brother of Jared? Abraham? Which ones had very limited understandings of celestial physics? CFR.

It is prima facie what the ancients believed and what they didn't. For one they had no concept of a Copernican concept of the solar system nor did they accept the round earth theory. While there might have been some understanding of a correct view of the universe by the ancients such as Abraham, there is nothing directly written by them to confirm this. If so, you would have posted it. Since there is virtual agreement on what the ancients believed why do you hold to such an untenable position?

Uhhhhh... I would have posted it?? I guess that is prima facie too, eh?

That's a very strong blanket summary of your beliefs about ancient man. Is that just about their understanding of the earth, or about everything else, too?

So, you assume that men given visions of the creation, the whole world and all its inhabitants, the universe, and even all the creations of God, and their fathers and sons, had a very limited understanding of all of it? (Let's throw Moses on that list there, too.) Once more, CFR.

[Ron Beron]

My comment...It is prima facie what the ancients believed and what they didn't. For one they had no concept of a Copernican concept of the solar system nor did they accept the round earth theory. While there might have been some understanding of a correct view of the universe by the ancients such as Abraham, there is nothing directly written by them to confirm this. If so, you would have posted it. Since there is virtual agreement on what the ancients believed why do you hold to such an untenable position?

Uhhhhh... I would have posted it?? I guess that is prima facie too, eh?

Prima facie means, as I am sure you know, is any matter that appears to be self-evident from the facts. It denotes evidence that would be sufficient to prove a particular proposition or fact. Since you have asked, deservedly, for some references I will be glad to supply them.

The earth was seen as being flat with four corners Ezekiel 7:2, Isaiah 41:9, Revelation 7:1. The earth was supported on pillars, 1 Samuel 2:8, Psalms 75:3. A dome, expanse or firmament, called "heaven" or "sky", separated the waters below the earth from the waters above Genesis 1:6-8, Exodus 20:4, Deuteronomy 5:8. The sun, moon and stars moved about in the firmament Genesis 1:14-18. The windows or floodgates of the sky could be opened to admit rain Genesis 7:11, 8:2, Isaiah 24:18, Malachi 3:10. Sheol, the abode of the dead, was a pit under the earth, Numbers 16:31-34, Psalms 16:10, Isaiah 14:9.

I cannot be confident of such things, but it appear this is not actually scientific. This segues into your next question...

That's a very strong blanket summary of your beliefs about ancient man. Is that just about their understanding of the earth, or about everything else, too?

Certainly, the cosmological view of the ancients was fairly ignorant as ours is of things yet discovered. Were they stupid? Not at all. They simply hadn't obtained the tools of discovery. Next question/statement...

So, you assume that men given visions of the creation, the whole world and all its inhabitants, the universe, and even all the creations of God, and their fathers and sons, had a very limited understanding of all of it? (Let's throw Moses on that list there, too.) Once more, CFR.

CFR is above. If they had such perceptions of modern cosmology why are the scriptures replete with inaccuracies? The visions that the ancients received were aspects of an "ascent motif" which can be found throughout the scriptures and which as been discussed here in various ways.

The Bible reports five figures who ascended to heaven: Enoch (Gen 5:24); Elijah (2 Kgs 2:1-12); Jesus (Luke 24:51; Acts 1:9); Paul (2 Cor 12:2-4); and John (Rev 4:1). There are also four related accounts in which individuals behold the throne, or heavenly court, of Yahweh: Moses, Aaron, and the elders of Israel (Exod 24:9-11); Micaiah (1 Kgs 22:19-23); Isaiah (Isa 6:1-13); and Ezekiel (Ezk 1, 10). Finally, there is the scene in which an otherwise unidentified "son of man" comes before the throne of God in an apocalyptic vision of Daniel (Dan 7:11-14). The motifs followed by the accounts of these prophets follow a fairly established routine common in shamanic literature, i.e., 1. an invasion of heaven, 2. revelation, 3. an ascent to achieve immortal life and 4. ascent as a foreshadowing of a celestial glory.

Hope this helps.

[grego]

That's a very strong blanket summary of your beliefs about ancient man. Is that just about their understanding of the earth, or about everything else, too?

Certainly, the cosmological view of the ancients was fairly ignorant as ours is of things yet discovered. Were they stupid? Not at all. They simply hadn't obtained the tools of discovery. Next question/statement...

Aaaw, I like that question. Because, as you might be aware, the ancients seemed to be up with, if not further ahead of, modern man in some ways. That the ancients lacked most all the knowledge that we had, is not supported by lots of evidence.

-=-=-=

Since there is virtual agreement on what the ancients believed why do you hold to such an untenable position?

The earth was seen as being flat with four corners Ezekiel 7:2, Isaiah 41:9, Revelation 7:1. The earth was supported on pillars, 1 Samuel 2:8, Psalms 75:3.

A dome, expanse or firmament, called "heaven" or "sky", separated the waters below the earth from the waters above Genesis 1:6-8, Exodus 20:4, Deuteronomy 5:8. The sun, moon and stars moved about in the firmament Genesis 1:14-18. The windows or floodgates of the sky could be opened to admit rain Genesis 7:11, 8:2, Isaiah 24:18, Malachi 3:10. Sheol, the abode of the dead, was a pit under the earth, Numbers 16:31-34, Psalms 16:10, Isaiah 14:9.

I cannot be confident of such things, but it appear this is not actually scientific.

I don't really see that as strong evidence... Are those all to be taken literally that the earth was flat--not in any other way, such as the land mass was one and had four corners when it was created, or maybe looking at the world as drawn on a map (like the Antartica from ancient times was); that people sailing thousands of years ago could never figure out a horizon and an azimuth, the different stars, etc. from a curve/ sphere, etc.? Do you also claim this evidence supports that all the ancients understood it that way? CFR for any of your statements? (And I'm somewhat lacking understanding about the part starting "A dome..." Surely interpretation has nothing to do with the way you read these??)

-=-=-=

grego: So, you assume that men given visions of the creation, the whole world and all its inhabitants, the universe, and even all the creations of God, and their fathers and sons, had a very limited understanding of all of it? (Let's throw Moses on that list there, too.) Once more, CFR.

Ron Beron: The visions that the ancients received were aspects of an "ascent motif" which can be found throughout the scriptures and which as been discussed here in various ways.

I'm not talking about "seeing God" visions. I'm talking about these types:

3 And it came to pass that I turned and went up on the mount; and as I stood upon the mount, I beheld the heavens open, and I was clothed upon with glory;

4 And I saw the Lord; and he stood before my face, and he talked with me, even as a man talketh one with another, face to face; and he said unto me: Look, and I will show unto thee the world for the space of many generations.

23 And after that Zion was taken up into heaven, Enoch beheld, and lo, all the nations of the earth were before him;

24 And there came generation upon generation; and Enoch was high and lifted up, even in the bosom of the Father, and of the Son of Man; and behold, the power of Satan was upon all the face of the earth.

30 And were it possible that man could number the particles of the earth, yea, millions of earths like this, it would not be a beginning to the number of thy creations; and thy curtains are stretched out still; and yet thou art there, and thy bosom is there; and also thou art just; thou art merciful and kind forever;

41 And it came to pass that the Lord spake unto Enoch, and told Enoch all the doings of the children of men; wherefore Enoch knew, and looked upon their wickedness, and their misery, and wept and stretched forth his arms, and his heart swelled wide as eternity; and his bowels yearned; and all eternity shook.

42 And Enoch also saw Noah, and his family; that the posterity of all the sons of Noah should be saved with a temporal salvation;

43 Wherefore Enoch saw that Noah built an ark; and 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 up.

44 And as Enoch saw this, he had bitterness of soul, and wept over his brethren, and said unto the heavens: I will refuse to be comforted; but the Lord said unto Enoch: Lift up your heart, and be glad; and look.

45 And it came to pass that Enoch looked; and from Noah, he beheld all the families of the earth; and he cried unto the Lord, saying: When shall the day of the Lord come? When shall the blood of the Righteous be shed, that all they that mourn may be sanctified and have eternal life?

46 And the Lord said: It shall be in the meridian of time, in the days of wickedness and vengeance.

47 And behold, Enoch saw the day of the coming of the Son of Man, even in the flesh; and his soul rejoiced, saying: The Righteous is lifted up, and the Lamb is slain from the foundation of the world; and through faith I am in the bosom of the Father, and behold, Zion is with me.

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?

49 And when Enoch heard the earth mourn, he wept, and cried unto the Lord, saying: O Lord, wilt thou not have compassion upon the earth? Wilt thou not bless the children of Noah?

50 And it came to pass that Enoch continued his cry unto the Lord, saying: I ask thee, O Lord, in the name of thine Only Begotten, even Jesus Christ, that thou wilt have mercy upon Noah and his seed, that the earth might never more be covered by the floods.

51 And the Lord could not withhold; and he covenanted with Enoch, and sware unto him with an oath, that he would stay the floods; that he would call upon the children of Noah;

52 And he sent forth an unalterable decree, that a remnant of his seed should always be found among all nations, while the earth should stand;

Ether 3:25 And when the Lord had said these words, he showed unto the brother of Jared all the inhabitants of the earth which had been, and also all that would be; and he withheld them not from his sight, even unto the ends of the earth.

Ether 3:26 For he had said unto him in times before, that if he would believe in him that he could show unto him all things--it should be shown unto him; therefore the Lord could not withhold anything from him, for he knew that the Lord could show him all things.

4 And, behold, thou art my son; wherefore look, and I will show thee the workmanship of mine hands; but not all, for my works are without end, and also my words, for they never cease.

7 And now, behold, this one thing I show unto thee, Moses, my son, for thou art in the world, and now I show it unto thee.

8 And it came to pass that Moses looked, and beheld the world upon which he was created; and Moses beheld the world and the ends thereof, and all the children of men which are, and which were created; of the same he greatly marveled and wondered.

27 And it came to pass, as the voice was still speaking, Moses cast his eyes and beheld the earth, yea, even all of it; and there was not a particle of it which he did not behold, discerning it by the spirit of God.

28 And he beheld also the inhabitants thereof, and there was not a soul which he beheld not; and he discerned them by the Spirit of God; and their numbers were great, even numberless as the sand upon the sea shore.

29 And he beheld many lands; and each land was called earth, and there were inhabitants on the face thereof.

30 And it came to pass that Moses called upon God, saying: Tell me, I pray thee, why these things are so, and by what thou madest them?

31 And behold, the glory of the Lord was upon Moses, so that Moses stood in the presence of God, and talked with him face to face. And the Lord God said unto Moses: For mine own purpose have I made these things. Here is wisdom and it remaineth in me.

32 And by the word of my power, have I created them, which is mine Only Begotten Son, who is full of grace and truth.

33 And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten.

1 And I, Abraham, had the Urim and Thummim, which the Lord my God had given unto me, in Ur of the Chaldees;

2 And I saw the stars, that they were very great, and that one of them was nearest unto the throne of God; and there were many great ones which were near unto it;

3 And the Lord said unto me: These are the governing ones; and the name of the great one is Kolob, because it is near unto me, for I am the Lord thy God: I have set this one to govern all those which belong to the same order as that upon which thou standest.

4 And the Lord said unto me, by the Urim and Thummim, that Kolob was after the manner of the Lord, according to its times and seasons in the revolutions thereof; that one revolution was a day unto the Lord, after his manner of reckoning, it being one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest. This is the reckoning of the Lordâ??s time, according to the reckoning of Kolob.

5 And the Lord said unto me: The planet which is the lesser light, lesser than that which is to rule the day, even the night, is above or greater than that upon which thou standest in point of reckoning, for it moveth in order more slow; this is in order because it standeth above the earth upon which thou standest, therefore the reckoning of its time is not so many as to its number of days, and of months, and of years.

6 And the Lord said unto me: Now, Abraham, these two facts exist, behold thine eyes see it; it is given unto thee to know the times of reckoning, and the set time, yea, the set time of the earth upon which thou standest, and the set time of the greater light which is set to rule the day, and the set time of the lesser light which is set to rule the night.

7 Now the set time of the lesser light is a longer time as to its reckoning than the reckoning of the time of the earth upon which thou standest.

8 And where these two facts exist, there shall be another fact above them, that is, there shall be another planet whose reckoning of time shall be longer still;

9 And thus there shall be the reckoning of the time of one planet above another, until thou come nigh unto Kolob, which Kolob is after the reckoning of the Lordâ??s time; which Kolob is set nigh unto the throne of God, to govern all those planets which belong to the same order as that upon which thou standest.

10 And it is given unto thee to know the set time of all the stars that are set to give light, until thou come near unto the throne of God.

11 Thus I, Abraham, talked with the Lord, face to face, as one man talketh with another; and he told me of the works which his hands had made;

12 And he said unto me: My son, my son (and his hand was stretched out), behold I will show you all these. And he put his hand upon mine eyes, and I saw those things which his hands had made, which were many; and they multiplied before mine eyes, and I could not see the end thereof.

13 And he said unto me: This is Shinehah, which is the sun. And he said unto me: Kokob, which is star. And he said unto me: Olea, which is the moon. And he said unto me: Kokaubeam, which signifies stars, or all the great lights, which were in the firmament of heaven.

14 And it was in the night time when the Lord spake these words unto me: I will multiply thee, and thy seed after thee, like unto these; and if thou canst count the number of sands, so shall be the number of thy seeds.

15 And the Lord said unto me: Abraham, I show these things unto thee before ye go into Egypt, that ye may declare all these words.

1 And then the Lord said: Let us go down. And they went down at the beginning, and they, that is the Gods, organized and formed the heavens and the earth.

[Ron Beron]

Grego writes,

Aaaw, I like that question. Because, as you might be aware, the ancients seemed to be up with, if not further ahead of, modern man in some ways. That the ancients lacked most all the knowledge that we had, is not supported by lots of evidence.

What contrary evidence are you looking at? How were they more advanced scientifically? Perhaps they had aircraft or advanced medicine? Huh....I don't think so. So, how were they more advanced?

I don't really see that as strong evidence... Are those all to be taken literally that the earth was flat--not in any other way, such as the land mass was one and had four corners when it was created, or maybe looking at the world as drawn on a map (like the Antartica from ancient times was); that people sailing thousands of years ago could never figure out a horizon and an azimuth, the different stars, etc. from a curve/ sphere, etc.? Do you also claim this evidence supports that all the ancients understood it that way? CFR for any of your statements? (And I'm somewhat lacking understanding about the part starting "A dome..." Surely interpretation has nothing to do with the way you read these??)

Now, did I say they were stupid or ignorant? Chances are that many of the people who sailed beyond the horizon usually kept within the sight of land. There are a number of probable contradictions, but simply saying so does not make it so. Now, I would like some references. Further, from the Anchor Dictionary...

The Hebrew Bible's Portrait of the Cosmos. The variety in date, origin, and scope of the Hebrew Bible's cosmological materials means that achieving a single, uniform picture of the physical universe is hardly possible. Still, sufficient overlap does obtain between the many accounts of the universe, however these may vary in their details, to allow for a few generalizations. The earth on which humanity dwells is seen as a round, solid object, perhaps a disk, floating upon a limitless expanse of water. Paralleling this lower body of water is a second, similarly limitless, above, from which water descends in the form of rain through holes and channels piercing the heavenly reservoir. The moon, sun, and other luminaries are fixed in a curved structure which arches over the earth. This structure is the familiar "firmament" (rāqı̂a˓) of the priestly account, perhaps envisioned as a solid but very thin substance on the analogy of beaten and stretched metal. Though some texts appear to convey a picture of a four-storied universe (Job 11:8â??9 or Ps 139:8â??9), the great majority of biblical texts assume the three-storied universe so clearly assumed in other, ancient traditions. Thus, the Decalog's prohibition of images specifies "heaven above," "earth below," and "water under the earth" as the possible models for any such forbidden images (Exod 20:4). If we understand the common term "earth" (˒ereṣ) as designating at times the "underworld," then the combined references in Ps 77:19 to heaven, the "world" (tēbēl), and the "earth" (˒ereṣ) are another appeal to the universe as a three-storied structure (for other texts where ˒ereṣ may refer to the underworld, see Stadelmann 1970: 128, n. 678). Clearer reference still to the same structure is to be found in Ps 115:15â??17, where we find grouped together "the heaven of heavens," "the earth," and the realm of "the dead" (cf. Ps 33:6â??8 and Prov 8:27â??29). The curving, solid structure which arches over the realm of humanity is sometimes called a "disk" or "vault" (ḥ

[SolarPowered]

-why is there no evidence for such an event in... ice core samples?

Excuse me for laughing.

The question should have been, "Why are there ice core samples extending back for hundreds of thousands of years? Why didn't they all melt when covered by water? Or at least float away.

[SolarPowered]

I do wonder how one responds, however, to the fossil evidence of sea life found in the mountains of North America.

There is not much mystery there. The fossils were laid down on the floor of the ocean. At a later time, the collision of tectonic plates crumpled parts of the North American plate, raising up mountains. These ocean-bottom formations ended up forming parts of the mountains.

Also, that "fossil evidence of sea life" is millions upon millions of years old--far, far to old to have anything to do with a flood that occurred ~4400 years ago.

[SolarPowered]

Those LDS who support a localized flood because of lack of evidence, then have to say that the critics are right when they deny the authenticity of the Book of Mormon because of lack of evidence, at least the evidence that supports the scientific world.

I do not "support a localized flood because of lack of evidence"; I acknowledge that a global flood is extremely unlikely because of the enormous amount of evidence that such a flood in fact did not occur ~4400 years ago.

[grego]

What contrary evidence are you looking at? How were they more advanced scientifically? Perhaps they had aircraft or advanced medicine? Huh....I don't think so. So, how were they more advanced?

Much of the evidence I look at is in the visions. How could they see worlds, and not know that they were round? How could they see the world, and all its inhabitants, yet not know that most of them survived the Flood because the Flood was local, even though they were told it wasn't? Was God lying, or did they all mistunderstand? Why would they be told about the Flood? As Rob said, if the Flood were local, why not just move from one place to another, like Abraham did a few times to escape destruction (such as S&G)? And other questions like that.

So what do you think about the visions? Was the shape of the earth hidden from them? Did they see all the inhabitants or just where they lived? When it went from the beginning to the end, was that also just where they lived?

But, I'll give you a very quick list (google anything that looks interesting). "Advanced medicine?" Chinese, Ayurvedic. (By the way, these can do what Western medicine still cannot do--actually cure someone with their medicine. Western medicine has yet to discover some aspects of Chinese medicine, though it seems to have begun.) Baghdad battery. Brain surgery. Pyramids. Incan stone walls. Iron Pillar of Delhi. Interestingly enough, advanced aircraft is controversial. Try googling "ancient aircraft".

http://www.world-mysteries.com/sar_4.htm (Starting at "A new analysis, though"...)

Piri Reis map ("After a long study, Mallery discovered the projection method used.").

Though I hardly agree with lots of the conclusions about when, how long, whence, what it all means, and even credibility, for many of these things here and below, strong evidence of early advanced civilization is there... and if not much else for some things, a controversial different POV that shows "prima facie" doesn't hold.

Books (mostly on Amazon.com):

http://www.amazon.com/Origin-Map-Prehistor...d_sim_b_title_5 (Read first three reviews, which include:

If Brophy is correct, the dozens of megaliths at Nabta actually comprise an intricate star map involving knowledge of astronomy so advanced it may even surpass our own.

)

http://www.amazon.com/Civilization-One-Wor...d_sim_b_title_1

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/089213294...F8&n=283155

http://www.mcremo.com/impact.htm

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Forbidden-Archaeol...d/dp/0892132833

Then...

http://www.amazon.com/Forbidden-History-Te...d_sim_b_title_3

http://www.amazon.com/Technology-Gods-Incr...d_sim_b_title_5

[cinepro]

Furthermore, I believe Chinese history goes back before the flood, and yet the Chinese seem to still be around.

Oh really? Have you ever been to China? Have you actually seen it, or are you basing your belief on hearsay and anecdotal evidence?*

*Note: This argument only works on people who haven't been to China. Use with caution.

[cksalmon]

I don't know if this has been mentioned above, so forgive the repetition if it has.

Clayton M. White and Mark D. Thomas (both of BYU) have an interesting article in the Fall 2007 Dialogue: "On Balancing Faith in Mormonism with Traditional Biblical Studies: The Noachian Flood Story" (pp. 85-110).

The authors present an overview of the scientific case against a universal flood. The information is not groundbreaking, to be sure, but it is a decent summary of the evidence. Both authors apparently reject a universal flood. The determinative factors in their so doing are largely empirical, rather than interpretive.

The relatively-brief article has a long history. It was originally submitted to BYU Studies. The text of the article went through five major revisions over the course of three years to suit the editor. BYU Studies finally accepted the article, but after "yet another review by another panel, the article was rejected." Hence, its publication in Dialogue.

CKS

[grego]

I think I read it a while ago--or maybe that was another recent "no global flood" paper in Sunstone. Thanks for the info.

The determinative factors in their so doing are largely empirical, rather than interpretive.

Empirical as they see it, you mean?

[Tchild2]

Excuse me for laughing.

The question should have been, "Why are there ice core samples extending back for hundreds of thousands of years? Why didn't they all melt when covered by water? Or at least float away.

I think that was what he was saying. If there were a global flood, how come the ice core samples do not have evidence of it, by 1) still existing (not having been melted), and 2) by lacking a frozen salt water layer at some point in their depth?

It is truly mind-boggling that a global flood is even considered given the progress of the understanding of our physical world and its processes. I wonder which is more physically impossible to occur; a global flood covering the earth and mountains, yet every species saved on an ark, or making the earth go flat to fit the old world understanding of how the earth was shaped?

Are we in the 21st century here or the dark ages of superstition and mythical thinking? Despite our progress, religions still maintain the global flood as literal. Isn't there a thread about "knowing" the truth of the LDS religion? It makes you scratch your head in wonderment, that is for sure.

[cksalmon]

I think I read it a while ago--or maybe that was another recent "no global flood" paper in Sunstone. Thanks for the info.

I'd assume that was Duane Jefferey's "Noah's Flood: Modern Scholarship and Mormon Tradition" (Sunstone, 136 [October 2004]: 27-45). The article I've referenced above was indeed mentioned in Jefferey's article, but the two are not the same.

Empirical as they see it, you mean?

Sure, I think that goes without saying.

CKS

EDIT: One can read the Jefferey's article here.

EDIT#2: spelling of Jefferey's name.

[Ron Beron]

'grego' writes,

Much of the evidence I look at is in the visions. How could they see worlds, and not know that they were round? How could they see the world, and all its inhabitants, yet not know that most of them survived the Flood because the Flood was local, even though they were told it wasn't?

The simple answer is that in many of these ascension motifs the vision is not literal, but figurative. They are not seeing the vision in reality, but in their minds eye as JS describes in his visionary experience. He stated that the visions were not literal, but spoke to his mind not his visionary sense.

So what do you think about the visions? Was the shape of the earth hidden from them? Did they see all the inhabitants or just where they lived? When it went from the beginning to the end, was that also just where they lived?

I think it was like many theophonies, i.e., God's plan for mankind. The individual usually travels to heaven and views a celestial glory. It is not meant to be historically accurate, but spiritually educational. Hopefully, you read some of the postings regarding visions that I gleaned from other sources and posted including the info from the BYU class. You can even download the audio for most of those classes.

But, I'll give you a very quick list (google anything that looks interesting). "Advanced medicine?" Chinese, Ayurvedic. (By the way, these can do what Western medicine still cannot do--actually cure someone with their medicine. Western medicine has yet to discover some aspects of Chinese medicine, though it seems to have begun.) Baghdad battery. Brain surgery. Pyramids. Incan stone walls. Iron Pillar of Delhi. Interestingly enough, advanced aircraft is controversial. Try googling "ancient aircraft".

I have looked at all of these and for the most part they fall under pop-science and pseudo-history. Most of what you list is interesting, but hardly elicits any special attention other than the fact that in some ways the ancients had some understanding of metallurgy and medicine, but it doesn't have the same weight that one would give the discoveries of Newton and Copernicus.

Though I hardly agree with lots of the conclusions about when, how long, whence, what it all means, and even credibility, for many of these things here and below, strong evidence of early advanced civilization is there... and if not much else for some things, a controversial different POV that shows "prima facie" doesn't hold.

Yes, they were advanced in some ways, weren't they? Unfortunately, their cosmological understanding wasn't.

Books (mostly on Amazon.com):

Try to summarize the books. I don't have the time nor the inclination to buy and read them.

[Ron Beron]

Oh really? Have you ever been to China? Have you actually seen it, or are you basing your belief on hearsay and anecdotal evidence?*

That one flew right over my head. I have read the Chinese dynastic histories and I have never seen one that as old as the flood. In fact, Chinese ideographic writing wasn't even invented until 4600 B.C., was it?

[grego]

Yes, they were advanced in some ways, weren't they? Unfortunately, their cosmological understanding wasn't.

For the *second* time:

If Brophy is correct, the dozens of megaliths at Nabta actually comprise an intricate star map involving knowledge of astronomy so advanced it may even surpass our own.

Sorry, you lost!

-=-=-=

Try to summarize the books. I don't have the time nor the inclination to buy and read them.

Have you ever been on amazon?? There are summaries already there, and reader reviews. I even told you which ones to read on one. Not only that, you can read at least a few pages of the books online, and you can see the ToC. At least show a minimum desire and *read* them. Helloooo!

-=-=-=

In fact, Chinese ideographic writing wasn't even invented until 4600 B.C., was it?

Once more, you didn't bother to read, did you? Once more, you lose.

-=-=-=

I have looked at all of these and for the most part they fall under pop-science and pseudo-history. Most of what you list is interesting, but hardly elicits any special attention other than the fact that in some ways the ancients had some understanding of metallurgy and medicine, but it doesn't have the same weight that one would give the discoveries of Newton and Copernicus.

Yes, the pyramids are pop-science! They don't really exist. And the pillar? Well, it's not really there. The Incan stone walls? Well, that's pseudo-history! They were done in the 21st century! Chinese medicine? Well, being able to cure people of malaria, cancer, etc. thousands of years ago couldn't have done the world any good compared to the discoveries of Copernicus!!

-=-=-=

You provided plenty of prima facie evidence for the ancients' ignorance, but now this time, for the visions. Well, I guess it might be possible they saw a flat earth in their visions. And a square one, too. I guess it's possible that the brother of Jared imagined they were traveling in circles on the barges all that time, and Nephi too. Not to mention the Gentiles coming from a very close land. I imagine that, notwithstanding seeing all the earth, and all its inhagitants, and other stars and planets, and the sun, it never would have entered into their minds the earth might be similar, because I imagine they threw out Occam's razor principle because of a few Bible verses that they know had to be literal. I imagine they could have been looking at one small part and thought it was the whole world when they saw the Flood. This would all fit in with their ignorance that you have imagined nicely, too.

At least when asked for references, I can give them. You haven't, and I doubt you can--because they aren't there. If you can show that the ancients had no clue about the world and its inhabitants, please do so, or limit yourself. I guess you've had no desire or intent to check on anything other than to intentionally waste people's time.

[cksalmon]

Try to summarize the books. I don't have the time nor the inclination to buy and read them.

I also think Ron Beron is a loser, mainly because he doesn't assess books based on reader reviews on Amazon.

If he can't see fit to respond to sources he hasn't read and that those who reference them haven't seen fit to summarize, he has, perhaps inevitably, crossed over into Loser Land.

Loser.

EDIT: for subject-verb agreement. D'oh!

[grego]

I also think Ron Beron is a loser, mainly because he doesn't assess books based on reader reviews on Amazon.

If he can't see fit to respond to sources he hasn't read and that those who reference them hasn't bothered to summarize, he has, perhaps inevitably, crossed over into Loser Land.

Loser.

Yes, of course, that's my entire point!! Smart kid!

[cksalmon]

Yes, of course, that's my entire point!! Smart kid!

I'm just trying to get some Ron Beron points.

[grego]

I'd assume that was Duane Jefferey's "Noah's Flood: Modern Scholarship and Mormon Tradition" (Sunstone, 136 [October 2004]: 27-45). The article I've referenced above was indeed mentioned in Jefferey's article, but the two are not the same.

Thanks.

-=-=-=

I'm wondering:

Anyone Willing to Debate?

Brown says he, unlike many with theories in the scientific field, opens his theory to critiques and debates - on a purely scientific level.

So far, his 27-year standing offer to go head-on in a written debate with evolutionists challenging his theory has not been accepted. He says they refuse because he doesn't allow them to bring religion into their arguments - which don't attack his theory on a scientific level, but only attempt to discredit its confirmation of biblical truth.

Sources: Dr. Walt Brown, Center for Scientific Creation, Institute for Creation Research, Answers in Genesis

http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/275993.aspx

So, anyone want to go for it and report back?

[Ron Beron]

'grego' writes,

For the *second* time:

Sorry, you lost!

I'm sorry...were we playing a game? The quote you used

QUOTEIf Brophy is correct, the dozens of megaliths at Nabta actually comprise an intricate star map involving knowledge of astronomy so advanced it may even surpass our own.

wasn't mine.

Have you ever been on amazon?? There are summaries already there, and reader reviews. I even told you which ones to read on one. Not only that, you can read at least a few pages of the books online, and you can see the ToC. At least show a minimum desire and *read* them. Helloooo!

I am not going to do your work for you. YOU summarize the material for our perusal. FYI, I did check a couple of your referrals and came away fairly unimpressed. Not only were the books generally poorly received, but the science used is simply not science or history.

Once more, you didn't bother to read, did you? Once more, you lose.

Again, I am not playing a game. At least this time you have properly ascribed the quote to me...

QUOTEIn fact, Chinese ideographic writing wasn't even invented until 4600 B.C., was it?

Did you find a problem with this quote? If so, what was it? State your summarized references. Again, I am not going to do your reading for you.

Yes, the pyramids are pop-science! They don't really exist. And the pillar? Well, it's not really there. The Incan stone walls? Well, that's pseudo-history! They were done in the 21st century! Chinese medicine? Well, being able to cure people of malaria, cancer, etc. thousands of years ago couldn't have done the world any good compared to the discoveries of Copernicus!!

I never said that the science involved in building any of these was pop anything only the interpretation of how these structures were created. The relative intelligence of man hasn't changed much in the last 12,000 years only his ability to comprehend it.

This would all fit in with their ignorance that you have imagined nicely, too.

Ignorance is simply not knowing not understanding. The ancients did know plenty, but do not try to rewrite the history books in stating that they knew more than what was reported in their histories.

At least when asked for references, I can give them. You haven't, and I doubt you can--because they aren't there. If you can show that the ancients had no clue about the world and its inhabitants, please do so, or limit yourself. I guess you've had no desire or intent to check on anything other than to intentionally waste people's time.

I did give references. You have chosen to ignore them. Instead of the sloppiness you have presented as references at least I have given you the actual sources and summarized them. In case your eyesight isn't any better than your cognitive skills I will repost the references...

The Hebrew Bible's Portrait of the Cosmos. The variety in date, origin, and scope of the Hebrew Bible's cosmological materials means that achieving a single, uniform picture of the physical universe is hardly possible. Still, sufficient overlap does obtain between the many accounts of the universe, however these may vary in their details, to allow for a few generalizations. The earth on which humanity dwells is seen as a round, solid object, perhaps a disk, floating upon a limitless expanse of water. Paralleling this lower body of water is a second, similarly limitless, above, from which water descends in the form of rain through holes and channels piercing the heavenly reservoir. The moon, sun, and other luminaries are fixed in a curved structure which arches over the earth. This structure is the familiar "firmament" (rāqı̂a˓) of the priestly account, perhaps envisioned as a solid but very thin substance on the analogy of beaten and stretched metal. Though some texts appear to convey a picture of a four-storied universe (Job 11:8â??9 or Ps 139:8â??9), the great majority of biblical texts assume the three-storied universe so clearly assumed in other, ancient traditions. Thus, the Decalog's prohibition of images specifies "heaven above," "earth below," and "water under the earth" as the possible models for any such forbidden images (Exod 20:4). If we understand the common term "earth" (˒ereṣ) as designating at times the "underworld," then the combined references in Ps 77:19 to heaven, the "world" (tēbēl), and the "earth" (˒ereṣ) are another appeal to the universe as a three-storied structure (for other texts where ˒ereṣ may refer to the underworld, see Stadelmann 1970: 128, n. 678). Clearer reference still to the same structure is to be found in Ps 115:15â??17, where we find grouped together "the heaven of heavens," "the earth," and the realm of "the dead" (cf. Ps 33:6â??8 and Prov 8:27â??29). The curving, solid structure which arches over the realm of humanity is sometimes called a "disk" or "vault" (ḥ

[Ron Beron]

I also think Ron Beron is a loser, mainly because he doesn't assess books based on reader reviews on Amazon.

If he can't see fit to respond to sources he hasn't read and that those who reference them haven't seen fit to summarize, he has, perhaps inevitably, crossed over into Loser Land.

Loser.

EDIT: for subject-verb agreement. D'oh!

Loser, eh? Since when is it a losing venture when one refuses to not only do the others homework, but also present his arguments. Secondly, where did I venture to refute any arguments presented by books I haven't even looked at? Or third, I have simply failed to see the tongue in your cheek. To fair I did go back and looked at a few of the books in question and they simply seem like junk science. One, "Civilization One: The World Is Not as You Thought It Was" was reviewd by Skeptic Magazine which essentially saw it as occultic mumbo-jumbo.

More...

I took the extra time to really give the books referenced a serious look. These are the books...

Forbidden Archeology: The Full Unabridged Edition

Forbidden Archeology's Impact: How A Controversial New Book Shocked the Scientific Community and Became An Underground Classic

Forbidden History: Prehistoric Technologies, Extraterrestrial Intervention, and the Suppressed Origins of Civilization

Technology of the Gods: The Incredible Sciences of the Ancients

I would have read them, but I believe it was forbidden to do so or at least that seems to have been the trend.

I especially liked the extraterrestrial connection referenced. Am I wrong or didn't von Daniken belly up?

Oh...and I especially liked this review of Forbidden Archeology's authors,

"Given the fact that both of the Authors are members of the Krishna Bhaktivendanta Institute "that studies the relationship between modern science and the world view expressed in the Vedic literature," one begins to suspect the authors might have an agenda that "colors" the findings presented in their book.

I'm sorry, Grego, you have to come up with something better than this.

[cksalmon]

Loser, eh? Since when is it a losing venture when one refuses to not only do the others homework, but also present his arguments.

It ain't.

Secondly, where did I venture to refute any arguments presented by books I haven't even looked at?

You didn't.

Or third, I have simply failed to see the tongue in your cheek.

Well, I quite stuck it out quite as far as I could possibly manage, physically and metaphorically. See my utterly-unsubstantiated sig line.

CKS