The Flood Story

[Tchild2]

Well, the critics aren't the ones that have made the claim. It is a Biblical story that is still taught as literal fact by the Prophets, Apostles and publications of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. If it isn't important, then you need to let the Church leaders know so they can stop talking about it, and take out the pictures from the Gospel Art Picture kit and the lessons from the Old Testament study curriculum. As long as the Church leaders think it is a literal story with a valid application to us in the modern day and continue to teach it as such, it will be a valid topic for discussion.

Another reason it holds interest for me is because it is one of the few claims made by the Church that can actually be scientifically investigated.

If you have someone making two kinds of claims (those that can be tested and those that can never be tested), it might be prudent to test the claims that can be, and then judge whether or not that person is a reliable source of information regarding those claims that can't be tested. We might not be able to test whether or not there was a pre-existence, or a resurrection, but we can test whether there was a literal, worldwide flood. And if our leaders were wrong about something simple and basic like whether or not all animal, plant and human life was eradicated with only a floating ark to preserve the species, maybe we should wonder if they have been wrong about the other, untestable things as well.

Brilliant Cinepro summation as usual. Reading Cinepro's posts is liking waking to a morning sunset with hot coffee and a warm breeze blowing, it is just that satisfying. I will bookmark this and reference it for any and all future Flood threads.

We have many apologists and members who have reconciled science to the flood story, relegating it to myth, as a localized event etc, but on the other hand, we have the church leadership which is officially sticking to the utmost literal definition and defending it without change or pause. If members are seeing science's side, why isn't the church, and what does the church have to lose by not staunchy defending its literal interprtation despite it not being a "saving ordinance"?

The last question is answered perfectly by Cinepro.

[ryanelwood]

First off, how is the quote by Carl Sagan, not applicable or helpful in this case? Wasn't he one of the epitomes of scientific thought? Did he not say that just because we don't currently know, doesn't mean that we will never know or find? Basically, I belive that you are saying this: "Since current science cannot prove, therefore it must be false."

As in the examples that I gave before, this is similar thinking that led people to ignore or discount other scriptural stories, which where later proven to be true and accurate. Another example of this thinking is that we now, currently, know everything that can be known, and we don't need to learn anything else. Isn't that also kind of thinking limiting as well?

Second, the writtings of the story of Gilgamesh predate the known writtings of the old testatment, that is true. Heck it is even acknowledged by the bible itself. The first five books of the bible (if taken literally) cover what 2 to 4 thousand years worth of VERBAL history? Man, that's a long time to think that everything is going to be passed on perfectly word for word. If you presuppose that there was nothing lost in teh verbal traditions handed down over that extended period of time, and then that there was nothing lost over the last 4,000 years of written (and we know that there has NEVER been any dispute over the translation of the Bible, don't we?) then yes, it is a little hard to swallow. Personally, I think that type of thinking does not allow comon sense to enter into the equation.

Third, and finally, you say that some, not all, cultures have a flood myth or story? Really? What do you base that off of? Could you please provide some type of documentation that lists which cultures do not? <a href:"http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html">Here</a> is a link that you can use to look up those cultures that you consider only to be some, which do have a flood story or myth. This link will take you to a site that has SOME of the collected flood stories from around the world, and is even broken down by region. I belive that you will find it to be helpful.

Carl Sagan's quote does not apply because there IS CONTRARY EVIDENCE FOR A GLOBAL FLOOD! It is not just a lack of evidence. Not believing there is a Troy and then finding it is far different. The Science on this issue is IN. What would it take for you to believe the science is in and that there was no flood? That will never happen, because there will always be some hypothetical imaginative reason of how it could have happened. Just think, there is still a flat earth society out there claiming the earth is flat (after all that is the idea you get from the Bible and the ancient world you trust in so much).

I am not sure what the point is about verbal history or about the Bible being translated.

You want me to provide documentation about flood stories not existing? Sort of a ridiculous request. How about the Ute Indians, they have no global flood story, but your own website does a good enough job for me. Take the Greek story, says they got away to a mountain (doesn't sound global to me). The Mayan story says the dwarf's were killed but they lived by floating on stones. The other Mayan story says two floods destroyed humanity. The one from Nicaragua says the Gods destroyed everybody and started over. The one from Arekuna does not say the entire earth was flooded and that people survived by climbing palm trees (should I believe an Ark was built or that people survived by climbing Palm Trees?) Am I to think that every little story out there about a flood of somekind is somehow connected to Noah? Oh Please! You can't be serious! Using that logic in 5,000 years people will read accounts about the great Mississippi flood of 2008 and say, "hey, here is some evidence of a global flood. It just got messed up a bit because of the oral tradition not handing it down correctly."

Every region in the world has flooding, so yes flood stories grow. But to say that all these stories somehow connect with Noah is so beyond absurd that I think you are kiddding.

[SolarPowered]

I note that since the last time we did this subject, the discovery of a living tree that is thousands of years older than the Flood has been published:

Oldest Living Tree Found in Sweden

[Kreno]

Again I ask how did the fish survive? How did the aquatic plants survive?

I love listening to biblical literalists attempt to discredit those specific slices of science that contradict their beliefs. Everest and other towering peaks only arose in the last 6,000 years or so. Atomic decay happened much more quickly in the past. Aquatic life at the time of the flood had [insert unsupported speculation here] that enabled them to survive the changes in salinity inevitable with a global flood.

The simple fact is that you trust science and its fruits in every aspect of your life, rejecting it only when it contradicts your beliefs, and only to the extent that it contradicts your beliefs, and with no basis other than it contradicts your beliefs.

Dont forget about the race of giants mentioned in Exudus and Joshua.

[buraianto]

buraianto:

IIRC 15 cubits would come out to about 45 feet. Deep enough even today for a modern ship to travel the Sacramento River.

I'm interested in the 15 cubits above normal vs 15 cubits above the top of the land.

According to a Google search "15 cubits in feet", 15 cubits is 22.5 feet. The ark is 30 cubits in height, or 55 feet. In the average ship, is more than half of the ship above water, or below? Plus you'd have to allow for wave action moving the ark up and down, so you'd need a buffer. And you'd have to not be over any land that was much higher than the normal water level, or you'd run aground.

[YH8]

The word "complete" is not scientific? So I can't say that there is a "complete" lack of evidence that Atlas is holding the world up or that there is a complete lack of evidence that the world is flat?

The ideals of science (aka: empiricism) dictate that one not mistake evidence for proof. When you say complete related to science then you imply proof. Granted complete might apply to microwave ovens, in a sense, but it doesn't apply to the sciences involved in understanding history. Do you realize that scientists interpret data and that they do not necessarily discover facts?

Are you equating Monotheism with Atlas holding up the world? If so, we probably don't need to continue our discussion, if that is indeed what we were having.

You say you don't "buy the tenents of Atheism and/or this particular topic hook, line, and sinker." What does the tenets of "atheism" have to do with anything? I have not mentioned atheism once.

When one argues for throwing out religion and/or religious teachings it is easy to surmise that they espouse Atheism. Are you not an Atheist?

[dblagent007]

Yes, the atmosphere before Noah's flood (~2500BC) was about the same as it is today.

I say with all honesty that I seriously doubt that anyone who believes in a local flood has actually read the flood account in Genesis. Every description of the flood is totally incompatible with the idea of a localized flood. From the physical description of the flood, to the covenant God makes with Noah, it is always presented as covering the whole Earth, and it makes no sense if the flood was localized.

For example, regarding the height of the water and mountains and hills, Genesis 7 says this:

Even if we want to argue for a localized flood, we have to take into account the highest "hills" that might have been around Noah. Obviously, the claim that the water covered the earth to a depth of 15 cubits must refer to the depth to which the mountains were also covered. If the water only rose overall to a depth of 15 cubits (about 25 feet), then anyone who could find a hill with a height >25' would be OK. And the ark itself would have come to rest in some foothill 25' off the floodplain. Is there a proposed geography for the flood that doesn't somewhere have a visible mountain range exceeding a height of 25'?

The theory of a localized flood is a non-starter. It makes the Genesis account of the flood and the official LDS view totally non-sensical, to the point that the story becomes absolutely irrelevant to anything.

Cinepro, when Genesis was written, what was the people's conception of the earth? Did they know it was spherical, or did people learn that later?

Now, if they understood the "earth" differently than how we do today, how do you think they would have described a large localized flood in their writings?

This link has more information about the localized flood theory: http://www.noahs-ark-flood.com/creation.htm

When I read the account in Genesis and stop projecting our modern understanding of things onto a people that lived thousands of years ago, the only way it makes sense is a localized flood.

[thesometimesaint]

buraianto:

Thank you for the correction on the length of a cubit. It has been FAR TOO many years since I looked it up.

But even at 22/23 feet it is still deep enough for modern ships to traverse.

[Tchild2]

Cinepro, when Genesis was written, what was the people's conception of the earth? Did they know it was spherical, or did people learn that later?

Now, if they understood the "earth" differently than how we do today, how do you think they would have described a large localized flood in their writings?

This link has more information about the localized flood theory: http://www.noahs-ark-flood.com/creation.htm

When I read the account in Genesis and stop projecting our modern understanding of things onto a people that lived thousands of years ago, the only way it makes sense is a localized flood.

I think people are missing the point completely. Cinepro isn't arguing for a global flood, and it is irrelevant if the flood were only a localized event but that it was described and believed to be global by its experiencers for their lack of knowing the world beyond their local horizon. What is relevant is that the LDS prophets (the mouthpieces for God), the leaders, and the church publications are the ones claiming, and reiterating over and over again that it was a globalized flood. It if you are right, then the LDS prophets have all been wrong and are currently wrong, despite being led by inspiration from God.

If they are so wrong about this issue, what else might they be wrong about?

[thesometimesaint]

Tchild2:

But when other Apostles, Prophets, high influential people say differing things about The Flood they are ignored by such as Cinepro and yourself.

[Tchild2]

Tchild2:

But when other Apostles, Prophets, high influential people say differing things about The Flood they are ignored by such as Cinepro and yourself.

I haven't seen any, but if you have links to any talks, articles or church publications stating otherwise, I would enjoy reading them.

[lwyatt]

Carl Sagan's quote does not apply because there IS CONTRARY EVIDENCE FOR A GLOBAL FLOOD! It is not just a lack of evidence. Not believing there is a Troy and then finding it is far different. The Science on this issue is IN.

Just like has been said about every OTHER religion vs. science argument, which is later proven to be innaccurate. The same thing could be (and has towards Carl Sagn) by Scientific experts who contradicted Sagan's belief in extraterrestial life. The constantly said that the "Science was in," they said the same thing to Einstein when he first proposed his Theory of Relativity. It wan't until a generation later that it became truly accepted as scientific fact. The same thing happened to Louis Pasteur, and other prominent scientists whenever they propose anything that is contrary to the established belief of the current generation of scientific thought.

What would it take for you to believe the science is in and that there was no flood? That will never happen, because there will always be some hypothetical imaginative reason of how it could have happened. Just think, there is still a flat earth society out there claiming the earth is flat (after all that is the idea you get from the Bible and the ancient world you trust in so much).

Ad homenim's and red herrings aside, I am trying to prove a point here. You say trusting in the "ancient" world as if it was a bad thing. If that is the case, then could you please explain to me why more and more often in today's world "Modern" western medicine is turning to the "Ancient" medical traditions of the east? Why must you denigrate that which you disagree with? I am merely trying to point out, using proven scientific examples that show you may have missed a few things in your analysis.

I am not sure what the point is about verbal history or about the Bible being translated.

The point here is that as you undoudtedly know, things change over time. The meaning of, or when things happend in history, change the further away from that time period that you get. HAve you ever played the children's game "Telephone"? If you have, then you know how in the space of just a few seconds things can get twisted around. What makes you think that the same thing would not happen over the course of roughly 8,000 years. The city of Troy (that you mentioned by the way) was thought for the longest time to be, by all CREDIBLE archealogical sources, a literary device that was used in a story. REmember the surprise when, a few years ago, that fictitious literary device was proven to be real?

You want me to provide documentation about flood stories not existing? Sort of a ridiculous request.

When is it a ridiculous request to ask for verification? Isn't that what you are asking of us? I provide it, in a small amount, and you disregard it. That seems to be truly ridiculous, don't you think?

How about the Ute Indians, they have no global flood story, but your own website does a good enough job for me. Take the Greek story, says they got away to a mountain (doesn't sound global to me).

Keep reading, you are aboiut to answer your own question here.

The Mayan story says the dwarf's were killed but they lived by floating on stones. The other Mayan story says two floods destroyed humanity. The one from Nicaragua says the Gods destroyed everybody and started over. The one from Arekuna does not say the entire earth was flooded and that people survived by climbing palm trees (should I believe an Ark was built or that people survived by climbing Palm Trees?) Am I to think that every little story out there about a flood of somekind is somehow connected to Noah? Oh Please! You can't be serious! Using that logic in 5,000 years people will read accounts about the great Mississippi flood of 2008 and say, "hey, here is some evidence of a global flood. It just got messed up a bit because of the oral tradition not handing it down correctly."

In effect you are the one who is saying that it is impossible. I am just proposing that things may have, like you said, gotten a little mixed up in the retelling. When were accurate calenders originally introduced? I really am trying to be intellectually honest, and recognizing that human error has a tendency to creep into things. You seem to be the one that thinks either everything up to now has been 100% accurate with no room for any type of discrepency, change or error that may have taken place. Isn't that in effect a little unfair? Would you hold the same to be true of any other scientific endeavor? Or would you take into account some room for human error?

Every region in the world has flooding, so yes flood stories grow. But to say that all these stories somehow connect with Noah is so beyond absurd that I think you are kiddding.

It is interesting how you first said that it was only some of the cultures in the world that have these legends, and myths, and later change your stance to say basically that well, it doesn't matter that there is a global dispersal to these stories. If you are actually intellectually honest with the phenomena then you have to admit (I would hope) that it is interesting to say the least that in each of these stories there is some aspect of the divine. Or, are you going to say that becasue there are only surface similarities that it is a coincidence? Such a "coincidence" is not something that Cultural Anthropologists like to admit to, or are they too mistaken?

Flood stories do grow, and they are around, but at the same time, you began your position on the basis that the biblical flood story was a rip off of Gilgamesh. Now you are saying that such similarities across cultures are a coincidence and absurd. Are you by extension saying that each culture (world wide) ripped off the story of Gilgamesh? Wouldn't that be a little silly?

[thesometimesaint]

Tchild2:

I have been consistent in referring to Hugh Nibley take on The Flood on this very thread. There are other posts by me and others on the varies Creation accounts.

[cinepro]

Cinepro, when Genesis was written, what was the people's conception of the earth? Did they know it was spherical, or did people learn that later?

Now, if they understood the "earth" differently than how we do today, how do you think they would have described a large localized flood in their writings?

This link has more information about the localized flood theory: http://www.noahs-ark-flood.com/creation.htm

When I read the account in Genesis and stop projecting our modern understanding of things onto a people that lived thousands of years ago, the only way it makes sense is a localized flood.

I, more than just about anyone I know, love a good joke. And so I fully support the local-flood theory, because if it is correct, it makes the story of Noah's ark into one of the funniest, oldest jokes of all time.

From start to finish, the idea of Genesis describing a local flood pushes the story from being comically absurd to absurdly comical. You have God telling Noah that a flood is coming, and instead of taking his 8 family members and walking into the foothills to an elevation of 23 feet for a beach-front view of the coming water, he tells Noah to build a boat that is 45 feet tall.

So Noah is building that ark, and he has to get animals. But why? What animals are there for which the species would be extinguished by a local flood? Can anyone name 5 or 6 species that would need to be herded and kept in a closed, floating ark to preserve them during a local, 22 foot deep flood?

Let's see how that part of the story plays out:

Genesis 6

17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.

18 But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sonsâ?? wives with thee.

19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.

20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.

Keeping in mind that there is no reason for animals that live outside the flood plain to be in the ark, how do these verses make sense? It is absolutely nonsensical. God would just need to specify the animals and bugs that couldn't escape the water, and for which no breeding pairs existed outside of the flood plain.

Another thing. Can someone please suggest a theorized boundary for the flood, and then list what kinds of animals would even need to be saved? In a localized spot in the middle east, how many different camels, horses, birds, bugs exist for which there would be no surviving breeding pairs outside of that flood plain? Just how many would Noah have needed to round up?

So Noah builds the ark, and it starts to rain. So the water starts rising to a level of 22 feet, so the only people that are going to die are those that can't walk to the nearest >22' hill. Is this really God's best plan for wiping out a population? Somehow, a fully loaded 45' tall boat starts floating around, and at the end of the flood, where do they find themselves? On a mountain!

Genesis 8

4 And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat.

But really, how high is a 45' tall boat going to float in a 22' deep flood? Maybe a foot or two if at all? So the ark beached about 2 feet up in the "mountains of Ararat". How can that not be funny? They get out of the ark, and they're two feet higher than when they got in, and they write it down as being "upon the mountains of Ararat".

So they've ridden out the flood, and they look around, and everyone's gone (because all the other people couldn't walk outside of the limited flood plain to a city that was >22' above the ark have drowned), and God talks to Noah and makes a covenant:

Genesis 9

8

[Tchild2]

Tchild2:

I have been consistent in referring to Hugh Nibley take on The Flood on this very thread. There are other posts by me and others on the varies Creation accounts.

Hugh Nibley doesn't speak for God, nor are his arguments official LDS doctrine. If his arguments are so convincing, why doesn't the leadership stop defending and supporting an absolute literal interpretation of these biblical accounts?

[cinepro]

Tchild2:

But when other Apostles, Prophets, high influential people say differing things about The Flood they are ignored by such as Cinepro and yourself.

Are you kidding me? "High influential people"?? I thought I had missed something, so I searched LDS.org, and here's what I got:

Your search for "high influential people" has returned 0 results in All Church Content.

I have never heard of "high influential people" in the Church. Can you please explain their role in espousing doctrine? Where do they fit in to the Lord's organized pattern for revealing truth? I've found lists of the Apostles and Seventies, but not even Google can find a list of the LDS High Influential People.

So I sadly admit that I am totally ignorant to what the High Influential People have been saying, because I don't know who they are, or why they are relevant to Mormon doctrine and teachings.

But I do know who the Apostles and Prophets are, and I haven't found a single comment by any of them from the last 178 years that mentions a local flood, or even intimates there might be an alternate understanding of the flood story. Every single comment I can find on the Church website uniformly and unequivocally reiterates the flood was worldwide in scope, and that afterward, the only living humans were the 8 on the ark.

To put it clearly: There is no alternate of the theory of the flood when it comes to the Apostles and Prophets. In every public teaching and sermon, the flood is presented as literal, worldwide (covering the entire planet Earth as we know it today), and catastrophic. This continues to be taught in every level and forum of LDS teaching, from Primary lessons and Gospel Doctrine class to General Conference and college-level Old Testament classes.

If a critic or anti were to use such a preposterous methodology for arguing a point, they would be laughed off the board. I'm definitely laughing, but I hope you'll stick around.

[thesometimesaint]

Tchild2:

"A Prophet is only a Prophet when acting as such". We have a well established method of what we actually believe. We have always allowed for differing opinions on the how and when God Created this earth, including those in our Scriptures and anyone else. Until such time as God tells us exactly the HOW's and WHEN EVERYONE can and does have an opinion.

[Nomad]

I also believe in a worldwide flood. I see evidence of it in the water that drained off the Colorado Plateau as it was thrust up after the flood. I maintain that most of the erosion patterns seen on the plateau were formed quickly, and that steady, slow erosion has taken place since the initial formation of the features of the plateau.

I also maintain that those who confidently proclaim that such and such is a "proven scientific fact" are simply parrotting the consensus opinion of the scientific world that is committed to a uniformitarian paradigm. I do not believe in a uniformitarian paradigm. All the geologic evidence I have seen is consistent with catastrophism. I believe that God exercises minute controls over this earth and can manipulate it to his heart's desire when and how He chooses.

I am also confident that, in time, it will be seen that C14 dating was based on false premises -- mainly the uniform decay of C14.

Having said all that, however, it is fine with me that other people disagree with my views on this. I realize I am in the minority these days, and that my opinions are viewed with disdain and even ridicule by many people. That also doesn't bother me.

[Uncertain]

Tchild2:

"A Prophet is only a Prophet when acting as such". We have a well established method of what we actually believe. We have always allowed for differing opinions on the how and when God Created this earth, including those in our Scriptures and anyone else. Until such time as God tells us exactly the HOW's and WHEN EVERYONE can and does have an opinion.

Yes but who's opinion matters? Can the flood story be interpreted many different ways clearly yes. It is a rare passage of scripture that cannot be bent to accommodate a particular position. But there is a deeper issue here. As latter day saints our doctrine is dependent to a great degree on the correct interpretation of scripture. We also believe in an authoritative interpretive structure i.e. most members are not authorized to interpret scripture for the church. That prerogative is reserved for the upper leadership the apostles and prophets as a whole. When previous interpretations of the leadership have been determined to be false this weakens the claim of authoritative interpretation.

Why should I view prophetic interpretation of revelation regarding say the Word of Wisdom or the need for authority as any more reliable then prophetic interpretation regarding a global flood? When leaders in the church incorrectly interpret revelation it significantly undermines one of the core pillars of the gospel.

Uncertain

[katherine the great]

Tchild2:

I have been consistent in referring to Hugh Nibley take on The Flood on this very thread. There are other posts by me and others on the varies Creation accounts.

Hugh Nibley wasn't an apostle or a prophet. I have to agree that (at least from everything I've read and heard), the apostles and prophets have been unanimous in supporting the global flood viewpoint.

[thesometimesaint]

Uncertain:

For whatever reason God has not as of yet determined that the actual ways, and timing of the Creation, is of importance to my Eternal Salvation. I am as entitled to my own reasonings as JS, BY, or BRM. Please do not misunderstand. I have no problem with anyone that wants to "believe" the earth is only 7,000 years old. More power to them. I feel that they are mistaken, and will use whatever source I feel substantiates my position.

But it does little to no good to claim that God has spoken of a subject that He clearly hasn't. Makes the Saints appear uneducated, and recalcitrant.

[ryanelwood]

Just like has been said about every OTHER religion vs. science argument, which is later proven to be innaccurate. The same thing could be (and has towards Carl Sagn) by Scientific experts who contradicted Sagan's belief in extraterrestial life. The constantly said that the "Science was in," they said the same thing to Einstein when he first proposed his Theory of Relativity. It wan't until a generation later that it became truly accepted as scientific fact. The same thing happened to Louis Pasteur, and other prominent scientists whenever they propose anything that is contrary to the established belief of the current generation of scientific thought.

Ad homenim's and red herrings aside, I am trying to prove a point here. You say trusting in the "ancient" world as if it was a bad thing. If that is the case, then could you please explain to me why more and more often in today's world "Modern" western medicine is turning to the "Ancient" medical traditions of the east? Why must you denigrate that which you disagree with? I am merely trying to point out, using proven scientific examples that show you may have missed a few things in your analysis.

The point here is that as you undoudtedly know, things change over time. The meaning of, or when things happend in history, change the further away from that time period that you get. HAve you ever played the children's game "Telephone"? If you have, then you know how in the space of just a few seconds things can get twisted around. What makes you think that the same thing would not happen over the course of roughly 8,000 years. The city of Troy (that you mentioned by the way) was thought for the longest time to be, by all CREDIBLE archealogical sources, a literary device that was used in a story. REmember the surprise when, a few years ago, that fictitious literary device was proven to be real?

When is it a ridiculous request to ask for verification? Isn't that what you are asking of us? I provide it, in a small amount, and you disregard it. That seems to be truly ridiculous, don't you think?

Keep reading, you are aboiut to answer your own question here.

In effect you are the one who is saying that it is impossible. I am just proposing that things may have, like you said, gotten a little mixed up in the retelling. When were accurate calenders originally introduced? I really am trying to be intellectually honest, and recognizing that human error has a tendency to creep into things. You seem to be the one that thinks either everything up to now has been 100% accurate with no room for any type of discrepency, change or error that may have taken place. Isn't that in effect a little unfair? Would you hold the same to be true of any other scientific endeavor? Or would you take into account some room for human error?

It is interesting how you first said that it was only some of the cultures in the world that have these legends, and myths, and later change your stance to say basically that well, it doesn't matter that there is a global dispersal to these stories. If you are actually intellectually honest with the phenomena then you have to admit (I would hope) that it is interesting to say the least that in each of these stories there is some aspect of the divine. Or, are you going to say that becasue there are only surface similarities that it is a coincidence? Such a "coincidence" is not something that Cultural Anthropologists like to admit to, or are they too mistaken?

Flood stories do grow, and they are around, but at the same time, you began your position on the basis that the biblical flood story was a rip off of Gilgamesh. Now you are saying that such similarities across cultures are a coincidence and absurd. Are you by extension saying that each culture (world wide) ripped off the story of Gilgamesh? Wouldn't that be a little silly?

Scientific advances and accepting the theory of relativity is irrevelant. The point is that there is not just no evidence for a global flood, but contrary evidence. The only reason anyone wants to defend the implausible global flood is simply because the Bible said so. Is the science that says the earth moves around the sun in? Or since the Bible says otherwise should we hold out for future study? Have we established there are no corners of the earth and that the earth is not flat? Or should we wait for further study? Lev 11:6 mentions that rabbits chew the cud. Have we established that rabbits do not chew the cud and are rather constantly chewing to wear down their teeth? Or since the the Bible says that rabbits chew the cud, should await further research? Again, what sort of evidence would convince you there was no global flood? I just don't see how anything could be possibly found in the future that would make the fact there was not a global flood more concrete than what we have now.

So you do trust ancient stories more than modern science? Alright then, is the world flat? Is Atlas holding the earth on its axis? Was Hercules really that strong? Is there really hell in the underworld under the ground? Maybe we need to wait for further scientific studies to establish these issues. Or do some of these not count since there not in the Bible?

On the documentation issue, I cannot show documentation for the non-existence of documentation. But as I said, that website of yours did it for me. I am talking about a global flood, not little flood stories around the world. I never said Gilgmesh gave rise to stories around the world. But it could have been where the unknown author of the Bible got it, but I don't know or really actually care. Floods happen everywhere, water comes, people drown. Of course there will be similarities. But there is no similarity between a story of people climbing palm trees to get away from a flood and the stoy of Noah's Ark. By using your logic, in the future you could read about the tsunami in Asia just a few years ago and the flood in New Orleans are somehow the same flood. Just look at the similarities, water came in from the ocean, houses and cities were flooded, people got onto higher ground for safety, people died, and wachos thought it was God punishing the area for "sin" in both cases. Wow, they must be talking about a global flood since they are so similar and on two different sides of the world! The differences of one having to do with an earthquake and the other broken levee's is trivial, the stories simply changed among the cultures. See how absurd!

[thesometimesaint]

katherine the great:

I never said that Hugh Nibley was an Apostle or Prophet. But he was an highly influential scholar in the Church. Even if true that ALL the Apostles and Prophets of our dispensation were/are unanimous(a contention which I do not accept) on the idea of a global Flood. I am willing to let even them to be wrong on their Non-Salvation ideas.

[Tchild2]

I also believe in a worldwide flood. I see evidence of it in the water that drained off the Colorado Plateau as it was thrust up after the flood. I maintain that most of the erosion patterns seen on the plateau were formed quickly, and that steady, slow erosion has taken place since the initial formation of the features of the plateau.

I also maintain that those who confidently proclaim that such and such is a "proven scientific fact" are simply parrotting the consensus opinion of the scientific world that is committed to a uniformitarian paradigm. I do not believe in a uniformitarian paradigm. All the geologic evidence I have seen is consistent with catastrophism. I believe that God exercises minute controls over this earth and can manipulate it to his heart's desire when and how He chooses.

I am also confident that, in time, it will be seen that C14 dating was based on false premises -- mainly the uniform decay of C14.

Having said all that, however, it is fine with me that other people disagree with my views on this. I realize I am in the minority these days, and that my opinions are viewed with disdain and even ridicule by many people. That also doesn't bother me.

So, your willing to bend the cumulative scientific consensus concerning the geological and biological evolution and history (the same science that is taught at BYU) of our planet to support a scriptural passage which supports your faith, instead of bending your assumption that a literal interpretation of scriptures is even correct in the first place?

Have you considered that the scriptures in question were never meant to be taken literally, but perhaps figuratively or metaphorically to share some spiritual truth, and that it is just you reading them wrong, instead of all of science and our world's shared scientific knowledge that is wrong?

Which is the easier solution? All of consensus science is wrong, or some 19th century religious leaders incorrectly applied a literal reading to scriptural passages?

[cinepro]

Uncertain:

For whatever reason God has not as of yet determined that the actual ways, and timing of the Creation, is of importance to my Eternal Salvation. I am as entitled to my own reasonings as JS, BY, or BRM. Please do not misunderstand. I have no problem with anyone that wants to "believe" the earth is only 7,000 years old. More power to them. I feel that they are mistaken, and will use whatever source I feel substantiates my position.

But it does little to no good to claim that God has spoken of a subject that He clearly hasn't. Makes the Saints appear uneducated, and recalcitrant.

Why are you trying to change the subject? This thread is discussing Noah's flood, not the creation.

The scriptures and latter-day prophets and apostles have clearly and explicitly discussed the matter over the years. There is no confusion. If God has not "spoken" regarding the reality and scope of Noah's flood, then He has not "spoken" regarding anything. If the Prophets were not "acting as such" when they preached about the worldwide nature of the flood (and included it in all officially published Church materials and talks) , they have never spoken "as such".

If you cannot provide any comments from Apostles or Prophets explicitly stating that Noah's flood might not have been worldwide, or that there may be some other acceptable interpretation of the story, then please don't pretend there is some sort of wiggle room or flexibility in their beliefs, or insinuate that such comments have been made.