Implications Of Noah's Flood Not Being Global

[Ron Beron]

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

CKS

Hmmmm....at least I am in good company, but isn't that what one of the Christian martyrs said right before they fed him to the lions?

[Kevin Christensen]

Regarding the Ether passage and the flood, I commented on this last year.

Regarding the original quote:

Ether 13: 2

2 For behold, they rejected all the words of Ether; for he truly told them of all things, from the beginning of man; and that after the waters had receded from off the face of this land it became a choice land above all other lands, a chosen land of the Lord; wherefore the Lord would have that all men should serve him who dwell upon the face thereof;

I see a reference to the beginning, but none to the Noah flood. Therefore, I think it reasonable to interpret this passage as referring to the waters of the creation story. Hence, for me, the passage has nothing to do with the either the scale or the historicity of the Noah flood.

I've noticed several places where critics reflexively impose fundamentalist readings, not because the text requires it, or in many cases, despite the texts disallowing such from the outset. Reading the scripture the way the ancients did does not necessarily presuppose 19th Century fundamentalism. In an essay in the Nibley tribute volumes (By Study and By Faith), Noel Reynolds did a study of the Book of Moses compared to the Book of Mormon and discovered that the Book of Mormon presupposes the accounts provided in the Book of Moses. So the Pearl of Great Price, not the MT Hebrew Genesis, is the proper context for the Book of Mormon. In the Book of Moses, there are many lands, and each land is called earth. Nibley observed in "Before Adam" that in the Book of Moses "Speaking of Noah, God promised Enoch "that he [God] would call upon the children of Noah; and he sent forth an unalterable decree, that a remnant of his seed [Enoch's through Noah] should always be found among all nations, while the earth should stand; and the Lord said: Blessed is he through whose seed Messiah shall come." (Moses 7:51?53.) Methuselah boasted about his line as something special. (Moses 8:2?3.) Why special if it included the whole human race?"

I remember being rather irritated with the Parry article in the Ensign. I've heard that he has since modified his binary views. A significant bit of trivia associated with the same article is that Simon Southerton reports that he read that one night before going to bed, and woke up the next day an atheist. I don't blame Parry for Southerton's brittleness. But I don't see such attitudes as helpful or responsible or sensitive or informed either. I very much prefer Nibley's take in Before Adam, and the recent explorations of the Bosphorus flood, at the very least as viable options to be tolerated within the faith.

I personally don't think the scriptures overall demand a global flood. I don't think anyone should be forced to choose between faith and science on this issue. The only eye-witness in scripture would be Noah, and as Nibley points out, he could have recorded only his own limited perspective. He didn't see where the birds went. Any later scriptural writers who depended on traditional accounts an interpretations report in that context. I think the social and cultural context, and source materials used in most of the scriptural commentary on the flood deserves attention. Assuming that "Surely a prophet would know!" neglects the rather blunt warnings to the contrary in D&C 1.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Rob Osborn]

Methuselah boasted this because only through his seed would life go on. From Methuselah sprang Noah (grandson) who then through his loins the whole earth was repopulated. Everyone living in Methuselahs time was his peers. But only one chosen individual at that time could claim the lineage that would later come and bring the Messiah- that was himself. This is proof exactly that the flood was a global tragedy that killed the entire human race except for noah and his seed. I am sure that there were some people who thought they could outsmart god by hearing the warning and then moved to the farthest place away and the highest- only that couldn't save them as the flood really was global.

[Sanpitch]

I personally don't think the scriptures overall demand a global flood. I don't think anyone should be forced to choose between faith and science on this issue. The only eye-witness in scripture would be Noah, and as Nibley points out, he could have recorded only his own limited perspective. He didn't see where the birds went.

Kevin, as I've mentioned previously somewhere on this thread, I find a problem concerning the bible account of the Flood waters covering the mountains to a depth of fifteen cubits or about 21 feet as stated in some versions of the bible. If Noah is the only eye-witness how did he determine the depth of the water above the mountains? There is no way for him to determine his location on the water if all landmarks are covered. Therefore somewhere along the way there must have been a little spiritual help with the record. Certainly the spiritual help would know whether there was a world-wide flood or a local one. And the record, or the bible, states that there was a world-wide flood.

So either the record is inaccurate or there was a world-wide flood.

Right?

[SolarPowered]

So either the record is inaccurate or there was a world-wide flood.

Right?

There's clearly something wrong with the assertion that the mountains were covered to a depth of 15 cubits. By their very nature, mountains are "mountainous", not flat. You can't cover even one mountain to a depth of 15 cubits. (Though, you can of course cover the peak of the mountain to that depth.) As far as covering the "mountains", they are all going to be covered to different depths.

Therefore, that particular passage messed up in some way. How, exactly, I don't know. Perhaps Noah didn't know what he was talking about. Perhaps the whole passage is an interpolation of some later scribe. Perhaps the whole book of Genesis is a rewrite by the Deuteronomists. I have no idea.

In any case, it is clear to me that that particular passage cannot be used to prove what Noah did or didn't know from revelation, because the passage itself is not logically plausible.

So, I'll go with your first option, "the record is inaccurate." (And in so doing, ignore the fact that your argument flagrantly extrapolates to facts which are not in evidence.)

[cinepro]

Methuselah boasted this because only through his seed would life go on. From Methuselah sprang Noah (grandson) who then through his loins the whole earth was repopulated. Everyone living in Methuselahs time was his peers. But only one chosen individual at that time could claim the lineage that would later come and bring the Messiah- that was himself. This is proof exactly that the flood was a global tragedy that killed the entire human race except for noah and his seed. I am sure that there were some people who thought they could outsmart god by hearing the warning and then moved to the farthest place away and the highest- only that couldn't save them as the flood really was global.

Rob, either you are a sincerely zealous believer in the scriptures, or you are a cipher created by a critic to entertainingly wave the banner of orthodox belief. Either way, you stand as an able representative of the prevailing attitudes I find at Church on Sunday, and a reminder that the more flexible attitudes held by many LDS on this board are not necessarily representative of the LDS Church in general. Some on this board may represent what the Church will be 50 or 100 years from now, but you embody the present (or maybe 25 years ago).

To either, I say "Huzzah!", and may you live long on this board lest we forget what LDS belief hath wrought.

[Doctor Steuss]

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

'Tis a noble venture.

[Son]

Kevin, as I've mentioned previously somewhere on this thread, I find a problem concerning the bible account of the Flood waters covering the mountains to a depth of fifteen cubits or about 21 feet as stated in some versions of the bible. If Noah is the only eye-witness how did he determine the depth of the water above the mountains? There is no way for him to determine his location on the water if all landmarks are covered. Therefore somewhere along the way there must have been a little spiritual help with the record. Certainly the spiritual help would know whether there was a world-wide flood or a local one. And the record, or the bible, states that there was a world-wide flood.

So either the record is inaccurate or there was a world-wide flood.

Right?

Is it also possible that Noah was able to come and go as the wind, that he was perfected, and able to walk on water, that in the spirit he could see the fullness of the earth at once?

son

[Sanpitch]

There's clearly something wrong with the assertion that the mountains were covered to a depth of 15 cubits. By their very nature, mountains are "mountainous", not flat. You can't cover even one mountain to a depth of 15 cubits. (Though, you can of course cover the peak of the mountain to that depth.) As far as covering the "mountains", they are all going to be covered to different depths.

Therefore, that particular passage messed up in some way. How, exactly, I don't know. Perhaps Noah didn't know what he was talking about. Perhaps the whole passage is an interpolation of some later scribe. Perhaps the whole book of Genesis is a rewrite by the Deuteronomists. I have no idea.

In any case, it is clear to me that that particular passage cannot be used to prove what Noah did or didn't know from revelation, because the passage itself is not logically plausible.

So, I'll go with your first option, "the record is inaccurate." (And in so doing, ignore the fact that your argument flagrantly extrapolates to facts which are not in evidence.)

Well, OK, Solar Powered, if the 15 cubits is too complicated for you we can simplify it to the fact that either the record is inspired or it is not. Either someone is writing their opinion including the opinion of later copiers and translators or the bible record is inspired and should be correct. If it's inspired it should be correct in stating that the entire earth was covered in the "Flood". If it's just the understanding of Noah or other writers and is inaccurate then apparently many other things in the bible can be totally inaccurate. That BTW is my point.

[Sanpitch]

Is it also possible that Noah was able to come and go as the wind, that he was perfected, and able to walk on water, that in the spirit he could see the fullness of the earth at once?

son

Good thinking, therefore Noah would have realized that the water covered the entire earth and if the original story came from him it's accurate and we can depend on a World-Wide Flood.

I think it's settled. ---- Wait a minute, if the story as written by Moses did not come from Noah then it was inspired and accurate or a myth passed down through the ages and not inspired.

[SolarPowered]

Well, OK, Solar Powered, if the 15 cubits is too complicated for you we can simplify it to the fact that either the record is inspired or it is not. Either someone is writing their opinion including the opinion of later copiers and translators or the bible record is inspired and should be correct. If it's inspired it should be correct in stating that the entire earth was covered in the "Flood". If it's just the understanding of Noah or other writers and is inaccurate then apparently many other things in the bible can be totally inaccurate. That BTW is my point.

We've absolultely never made the claim that the Bible record "should be correct." Quite the contrary, in fact.

[Son]

Good thinking, therefore Noah would have realized that the water covered the entire earth and if the original story came from him it's accurate and we can depend on a World-Wide Flood.

I think it's settled. ---- Wait a minute, if the story as written by Moses did not come from Noah then it was inspired and accurate or a myth passed down through the ages and not inspired.

The spirit is there to keep the story straight. Moses saw the kingdom of God, and could have very easily visited with all the righteous forefathers.

Moses was a great reporter, he went straight to the source.

son

[Kevin Christensen]

In dealing with translated, transmitted, interpreted texts and traditions, I find it useful to remind myself that things can occasionally go awry. And it is helpful to compare the language used in the interpretations with the actual Hebrew text and context being interpreted, noting any glarring discrepancies. And it also helps to be alert for possibilities suggested within the scriptures themselves.

For instance, comparing the language of the flood story to this:

Exodus 10: 14-15

And the locusts went up over all the land of Egypt...For the covered the face of the whole earth...

Global locusts? Or should I even imagine locusts blanketing every centimeter of Egypt?

And this:

Moses 1:29

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

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Ron Beron]

There seems to an explicit belief that Noah was Jewish. He was not. Judaism didn't even exist at the time of the flood, but was superseded by the religions of Mesopotamia. If anything the warnings given to "Noah" wouldn't have been given by God per se, but by Ea of the Sumerians. It was only during the redaction of biblical legends that the story of Noah became codified as a Hebrew parable.

[ryanelwood]

Religious belief is very important for many people and because of that, logic is sometimes missing. Noah's Flood is one of them. There really is no debate here, there was no global flood anymore than that the earth was once flat. If such an event occurred there would be overwhelming amounts of geological evidence. If anyone doubts this, take a field trip to all the local Universities in your area and go to the science department and ask if the entire world was ever flooded. ALL will say no! There are several reasons to doubt the flood:

1. If the entire world was flooded then Mt. Everest was covered with water, how did they breathe?

2. How did eight people take care of several million animals and how did they all fit?

3. Where did all the water go? There is no logical explanation for this.

4. The Pyramids of Egypt were being built about the time of the supposed flood; there are no high water marks on them.

5. Did all the different races develop in their part of the world in just the last 5,000 years?

6. How did the animals get scattered? Remember the continents separated 200 million years ago.

Taking the story literal is preposterous, I cannot imagine a human with any sense of reason living in the enlightened 21st century believing in such an ancient myth.

[Deborah]

Scholars continue to assume the universal flood could not have happened, but prophets have continually supported the concept of a universal flood. One argument seems to be that the waters couldn't possibly cover the mountains. If indeed as the scriptures say the dry land was all one could we not also assume that the mountains were not necessarily the massive things they are now. If the earth were more level and one mass it is much easier to see how the whole could have been covered in water. Why not assume that the division of the land which occurred in the days of Peleg formed the massive mountains we have today. But that's assuming that the scriptures are true on that account as well. We also don't know how extensive the exposed land was in those days, and it could very well be that after the flood receded more land became exposed.

I just think that as human beings we are too limited in our minds to comprehend how some things could have happened and so it's easier to turn Biblical accounts into nice legends or stories. And yet prophets through the ages have continued to count Noah as one of the great prophets and to describe how all but 8 people were wiped from the face of the earth.

[grego]

Ether 13: 2

2 For behold, they rejected all the words of Ether; for he truly told them of all things, from the beginning of man; and that after the waters had receded from off the face of this land it became a choice land above all other lands, a chosen land of the Lord; wherefore the Lord would have that all men should serve him who dwell upon the face thereof;

I see a reference to the beginning, but none to the Noah flood. Therefore, I think it reasonable to interpret this passage as referring to the waters of the creation story. Hence, for me, the passage has nothing to do with the either the scale or the historicity of the Noah flood.

I've noticed several places where critics reflexively impose fundamentalist readings, not because the text requires it, or in many cases, despite the texts disallowing such from the outset. Reading the scripture the way the ancients did does not necessarily presuppose 19th Century fundamentalism. In an essay in the Nibley tribute volumes (By Study and By Faith), Noel Reynolds did a study of the Book of Moses compared to the Book of Mormon and discovered that the Book of Mormon presupposes the accounts provided in the Book of Moses. So the Pearl of Great Price, not the MT Hebrew Genesis, is the proper context for the Book of Mormon. In the Book of Moses, there are many lands, and each land is called earth. Nibley observed in "Before Adam" that in the Book of Moses "Speaking of Noah, God promised Enoch "that he [God] would call upon the children of Noah; and he sent forth an unalterable decree, that a remnant of his seed [Enoch's through Noah] should always be found among all nations, while the earth should stand; and the Lord said: Blessed is he through whose seed Messiah shall come." (Moses 7:51?53.) Methuselah boasted about his line as something special. (Moses 8:2?3.) Why special if it included the whole human race?"

Interesting. Would you also conclude that Adam and Eve's earth was actually a land, and that as the city of Enoch left this planet, Adam and Eve's land came to this planet at the Fall?

-=-=-=

There's clearly something wrong with the assertion that the mountains were covered to a depth of 15 cubits. By their very nature, mountains are "mountainous", not flat. You can't cover even one mountain to a depth of 15 cubits. (Though, you can of course cover the peak of the mountain to that depth.) As far as covering the "mountains", they are all going to be covered to different depths.

Wow, talk about digging a pit for your neighbor and twisting words... Or, then, Sanpitch might actually have something...

-=-=-=

I personally don't think the scriptures overall demand a global flood. I don't think anyone should be forced to choose between faith and science on this issue. The only eye-witness in scripture would be Noah, and as Nibley points out, he could have recorded only his own limited perspective.

I hate when I have to choose religion or science; the view from the fence is much better.

Of course, one doesn't have to choose lots of things and still be a "good" member. And in fact, everyone disagrees on something/ sees things just a little differently, somewhere.

But then, I don't see anything demanding that I believe in a local flood yet (evidence-wise, that is--because there are plenty here who demand that it does now. Well; not really--they allow me to choose to be wrong by believing in a global flood.)

(I'm still curious, if it's so clear and simple, who is debating Brown?)

But *was* Noah the only eye-witness? It's clear Enoch was an eye-witness, too. Others saw "all things", "all the inhabitants", etc.--would that include the Flood/ flood and other floods?

What does one make of the promise that God would not destroy by flood, when there have been many floods that have destroyed? Is it that God didn't do it, but nature did? Or is it, a global flood, or what? Was this Flood only talking about the "chosen" lineage's descendants? What does one make of Noah repopulating the earth, and his lineage? Or is that only earth as in that land, not the entire earth? And what does one do with

SECTION 116

Revelation given to Joseph Smith the Prophet, near Wightâ??s Ferry, at a place called Spring Hill, Daviess County, Missouri, May 19, 1838. HC 3: 35.

1 Spring Hill is named by the Lord Adam-ondi-Ahman, because, said he, it is the place where Adam shall come to visit his people, or the Ancient of Days shall sit, as spoken of by Daniel the prophet.

Is this a case--note the definition the Lord gives here--that it is a second Adam-ondi-Ahman, and not the original one that is over in the Middle East?

And where, for comparison, is the Hebrew text of the BoM? of the PoGP? of the modern-day prophets? You'll note I haven't even quoted the Bible in this argument.

-=-=-=

1. If the entire world was flooded then Mt. Everest was covered with water, how did they breathe?

2. How did eight people take care of several million animals and how did they all fit?

3. Where did all the water go? There is no logical explanation for this.

4. The Pyramids of Egypt were being built about the time of the supposed flood; there are no high water marks on them.

5. Did all the different races develop in their part of the world in just the last 5,000 years?

6. How did the animals get scattered? Remember the continents separated 200,000 million years ago.

Read the links, read the links, read the... Sorry, just mumbling to myself again...

Says who any of those things are as you say, and are so problematic? You have made massive assumptions--there Everest was already there, that the air displaced by the water wouldn't rise and air pressure wouldn't be heavier, that there had to so much water to cover Everest in a flood, the pyramids were there, and how can I remember something I never knew, etc.?

May I suggest donning the ol' thinking cap before making what might be preposterous, illogical comments about preposterous and illogical things?

-=-=-=

There seems to an explicit belief that Noah was Jewish. He was not. Judaism didn't even exist at the time of the flood, but was superseded by the religions of Mesopotamia. If anything the warnings given to "Noah" wouldn't have been given by God per se, but by Ea of the Sumerians. It was only during the redaction of biblical legends that the story of Noah became codified as a Hebrew parable.

Did Noah know God? Yes, he did. Was he a high priest of Ea, or a high priest after the order of the Son of God?

[SolarPowered]

Scholars continue to assume the universal flood could not have happened,

I'll try not to speak for others here, but I'm not talking about anyone "assuming" anything. There are geologists any other scientists who spend their entire lives studying the world around us. Many, if not the vast majority, have no religious stake in their studies. They tend to be studying these things so that they can find oil and minerals, understand forces that lead to earthquakes, understand how soils function so that people can build building that don't sink into the ground, and many, many other purposes.

There reliable ways of determining the age of things one is looking at. These methods include counting tree rings, counting layers of sediment from annual climate patterns, radiocarbon dating, radiological dating of other elements, and "frozen" magnetic fields. These dating techniques all agree well with each other. For example, one can take a sample of wood that is dated by tree rings and perform a C14 dating on that sample, and it will with high probability result in a similar date.

These people, for the most part, are not out there teach that a universal flood could not have happened. They merely are reporting what they have found on this earth. It is people like us, who actually care about whether a global flood occurred, that make the observation that what is known about the earth is incompatible with a global flood.

For example, a few years ago I was with our soils engineer when he dug a profile pit on our property to determine suitability for a septic system leach field. He went through and identified all the layers in the soil, such as the eruption of Mt. Saint Helena some number of thousands of years ago, and many other features. There was no "Flood of Noah" layer. None. It just isn't there.

All over the earth, we find the layer from the extinction of the dinosaurs 67 million years ago. But there is no layer from the Flood of Noah just 4400 years ago.

If indeed as the scriptures say the dry land was all one could we not also assume that the mountains were not necessarily the massive things they are now. If the earth were more level and one mass it is much easier to see how the whole could have been covered in water.

You write a lot of "if"s.

No, we can't just assume that the mountains were flat. The mountains of 4400 years are known to have been pretty much just as they are now.

No, we can't just assume that earth was all one land mass 4400 years ago. We can date where the lands were at different times. We can date how long the sea beds between the lands have been forming. There are millions upon millions of years of deposits on the floor of the sea beds between the lands as they are now. The lands were all pretty much exactly where they are now, 4400 years ago.

Why not assume that the division of the land which occurred in the days of Peleg formed the massive mountains we have today.

Why not assume that the $3.00 ream of paper I have sitting next to my computer is really $100 bills? Then I'd be rich! Because it's not true, that's why. And the lands were pretty much as they are now 4400 years ago, so we can't go assuming that the continents split in the last 4400 years. The mountains are known to have been there for millions of years. We can't just assume that it was different than it was.

We also don't know how extensive the exposed land was in those days, and it could very well be that after the flood receded more land became exposed.

While your statements show that you don't happen to know these things, it is not accurate to extrapolate that to everyone else. These things are very well understood. And the answer is that the lands 4400 years ago were largely as they are today.

I just think that as human beings we are too limited in our minds to comprehend how some things could have happened and so it's easier to turn Biblical accounts into nice legends or stories. And yet prophets through the ages have continued to count Noah as one of the great prophets and to describe how all but 8 people were wiped from the face of the earth.

Deborah, it's not just lack of imagination, the big issue is that the history of the earth for many millions of years in the past is very well understood. And not just "understood" as half-baked hypotheses, but in many cases understood by incontrovertable proof. For example, the millions of years of deposits on the sea floor between the continents where you can count the annual layers, and where there are orderly layers of fossils where different species have come and gone over the millions of years.

I welcome an explanation that accounts for world around us (in all it's detail, not like the half-baked wishful thinking on the "creation science" web sites) in a way that is consistent with a world-wide flood. Until such an explanation is put forth, I will continue to understand that we live in a world that did not undergo a global flood 4400 years ago.

[ryanelwood]

Scholars continue to assume the universal flood could not have happened, but prophets have continually supported the concept of a universal flood. One argument seems to be that the waters couldn't possibly cover the mountains. If indeed as the scriptures say the dry land was all one could we not also assume that the mountains were not necessarily the massive things they are now. If the earth were more level and one mass it is much easier to see how the whole could have been covered in water. Why not assume that the division of the land which occurred in the days of Peleg formed the massive mountains we have today. But that's assuming that the scriptures are true on that account as well. We also don't know how extensive the exposed land was in those days, and it could very well be that after the flood receded more land became exposed.

I just think that as human beings we are too limited in our minds to comprehend how some things could have happened and so it's easier to turn Biblical accounts into nice legends or stories. And yet prophets through the ages have continued to count Noah as one of the great prophets and to describe how all but 8 people were wiped from the face of the earth.

Noahâ??s flood was not that long ago, supposedly 5,000 years ago. At the rate the continents are moving they would have separated 200,000,000 years ago! Plate Tectonics explains the creation of mountain ranges, 5,000 years is simply not enough time for much to change. Yes prophets have affirmed the global flood, but obviously they can be wrong. Through the evolutionary process, or maybe Godâ??s creation, humans have developed a problem solving brain that separates us from the animals. When utilizing the problem solving part of our brain in light of modern scientific data, it is not difficult to determine the obvious fact that there was never a global flood.

[HiJolly]

I'll try not to speak for others here, but I'm not talking about anyone "assuming" anything. There are geologists any other scientists who spend their entire lives studying the world around us. Many, if not the vast majority, have no religious stake in their studies. They tend to be studying these things so that they can find oil and minerals, understand forces that lead to earthquakes, understand how soils function so that people can build building that don't sink into the ground, and many, many other purposes.

<snip>

Excellent comments. I used to be a creationist, and a young-earth believer as well. Then, over a period of years in association with several LDS scientists, I began to see the light. It was scary, but it felt 'true', by the spirit. I had to disagree with my parents, and even my uncle Cleon Skousen (author of The First 1,000 Years series of books).

It comes down to this. Either God is a God of truth, or he is a god of deceptions, fraud and frivolous misdirection. I don't believe the latter to be the case. Indeed, I *know* that God is a God of truth. When "truth springs forth from the earth"*, it not only may refer to the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, but it certainly can also be applied to the truths we have been learning for many decades now, about the earth and the things of the earth.

All truth can be circumscribed into one great whole. Our job is to be humble enough to do it. We have to slay the things we *thought* were true, and replace them with what actually *is*. Sometimes, things seem to be inconflict and cannot be resolved without 'further light and knowledge'. So be it.

HiJolly

*The truth will sprout from the earthâ?¦.

(from Tehilim 85)

Psalm 85:11 >>

New American Standard Bible (

[Rob Osborn]

Many are unaware that some of the BoM geographical incidents of their time go against everything uniformatarianism has theorized to tell us. There are instances in the BoM that tell us that whole cities sank in the sea while others were buried by gigantic mountains. There it tells us that the smooth land became rugged and great mountains arose- overnight! There are a lot of evidences found, especially in South America, that show how ancient civilization structures were once lower by thousands of feet in just the past few thousand years and have since rosen to great heights.

[SolarPowered]

Many are unaware that some of the BoM geographical incidents of their time go against everything uniformatarianism has theorized to tell us. There are instances in the BoM that tell us that whole cities sank in the sea while others were buried by gigantic mountains. There it tells us that the smooth land became rugged and great mountains arose- overnight! There are a lot of evidences found, especially in South America, that show how ancient civilization structures were once lower by thousands of feet in just the past few thousand years and have since rosen to great heights.

I don't know precisely which philosophical baggage you're trying to invoke with the word "uniformatarianism (sic)". However, you will note that throughout my previous post I have been careful to qualify my statements with words like "largely." The vast majority of the land of this Earth is very, very similar to what it was 4400 years ago. There are, however, places where dramatic changes have occurred. The fact of these dramatic changes, though, does not make it the case that the entire Earth has undergone dramatic changes.

One particularly interesting dramatic change is that the Bosporus flooded a few thousand years ago, allowing the Mediterranean to flood into the Black Sea area.

[grego]

Well, it seems all that's left now is snarky remarks and avoiding the issues.

Deborah, I enjoyed your post.

When you others and some "true" scientists debate Brown and win by a preponderance of evidence, come back and let us know. Then you'll find an ear much more willing to listen.

[maupayman]

Hey all, great comments thus far. Just some things I have been thinking over in relation to LDS teachings.

How did the altar at Adam-ondi-Ahman survive the flood waters and remain standing?

The Bible states that the Tower of Babel was constructed 110 to 150 years after the flood. How could the 3 fertile female human survivors of the flood (Noah's daughters-in-law) produce such a large number of descendants within 6 generations? This has direct implications on the Book of Mormon narrative.

Just some thoughts to fuel the fire.

[grego]

This has direct implications on the Book of Mormon narrative.

See this thread:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...0&hl=pandas