The Flood Story

[Uncertain]

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.

"The Lord expects us to believe and understand the true doctrine of the Creation—the creation of this earth, of man, and of all forms of life. Indeed, as we shall see, an understanding of the doctrine of creation is essential to salvation. Unless and until we gain a true view of the creation of all things we cannot hope to gain that fulness of eternal reward which otherwise would be ours."

(Quote by Bruce R McConkie bold added by me)

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgne...0004d82620a____

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.

But herein lies the issue if one accepts prophetic interpretation as Gods will then clearly he has spoken regarding a global flood. It just so happens a global flood is untenable. I depend on prophetic teaching to determine what is or is not relevant to my salvation. And as pointed out by Cinepro

if they misinterpret revelation where I can test them. Why should I believe them when I can't test them? Scripture is in many cases ambiguous

if prophets are no better than me or you at interpreting scripture. Then Latter-Day-Saints are no better off then the rest of Christianity.

Uncertain

[lwyatt]

Ryanelwood. I am sorry to hear you say that the advancement of science is irrelevant, particularly when that advancement seems to contradict what you are saying. It seems like you do not know how, or want to, find a way to be able to talk about this with out resorting to the dengration of an differing view point.

I find it particularly interesting that you hold the spiritual (or any other religious, mythical, or what ever word you wish to use) to a different standard than you do science. I have shown plenty of examples that do hold up to the empirical process, and you dismiss them out of hand.

By your logic, we should discount stories of rising temperatures, and other weather phenomena from around the world as dissociated and unrelated to each other, when once again the current scientific community is arguing against that very idea. If you need an example that is directly related to taking stories (i.e. reports) from around the world then look no furhter than the current hot topic of Global Climate Change.

Chances are you are going to discount this as well, but that is frankly sad.

[ryanelwood]

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.

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?

I cannot show "proof" that I did not kill Nicole Simpson, but there is a "complete" lack of evidence that I did, and there is plenty of evidence I did not. Completely lacking evidence on any given issue does not imply proof. There is a complete lack of evidence that Hercules lived and did all the things Zeus told him to do, but there is no proof these stories did not happen.

Yes science can discover facts. A fact is a measurement. If you drop a ball and measure the time it takes for the ball to hit the ground in an experiment, the time it takes is a fact. But yes I am aware that it is generally interpreting facts.

I never said anything about Monotheism and Atlas. Just that there is a complete lack of evidence that Atlas is holding up the earth like some cultures believed.

Why wouldn't a geologist throw out religious teachings when studying the world? Science is based on observation and evidence, not on what the Bible, Koran, Book of Mormon, or Greek and Egyptian mythology say. Should we really bring what Greek mythology says about creation and Zeus into our scientific studies? It has nothing to do with atheism.

[cinepro]

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.

Does your distinction between salvate and non-salvate ideas include whether or not Apostles and Prophets were mistaken when they were expressed? Because I'm fairly certain I was once taught that my salvation would be affected by whether or not I was willing to follow the scriptures and the latter-day prophets, but here we have an instance of the scriptures and latter-day prophets being wrong, so suddenly that particular idea becomes optional. As we find out the scriptures and prophets are wrong in other areas, do those also automatically become optional?

[Tchild2]

But herein lies the issue if one accepts prophetic interpretation as Gods will then clearly he has spoken regarding a global flood. It just so happens a global flood is untenable. I depend on prophetic teaching to determine what is or is not relevant to my salvation. And as pointed out by Cinepro

if they misinterpret revelation where I can test them. Why should I believe them when I can't test them? Scripture is in many cases ambiguous

if prophets are no better than me or you at interpreting scripture. Then Latter-Day-Saints are no better off then the rest of Christianity.

Uncertain

Uncertain also unquestionably understands it.

If the global flood story was wrong, might the necessity of baptism by immersion also be wrong, or a literal baptism of any kind? What about tithing, or obedience or any number of untestable claims?

[ryanelwood]

Ryanelwood. I am sorry to hear you say that the advancement of science is irrelevant, particularly when that advancement seems to contradict what you are saying. It seems like you do not know how, or want to, find a way to be able to talk about this with out resorting to the dengration of an differing view point.

I find it particularly interesting that you hold the spiritual (or any other religious, mythical, or what ever word you wish to use) to a different standard than you do science. I have shown plenty of examples that do hold up to the empirical process, and you dismiss them out of hand.

By your logic, we should discount stories of rising temperatures, and other weather phenomena from around the world as dissociated and unrelated to each other, when once again the current scientific community is arguing against that very idea. If you need an example that is directly related to taking stories (i.e. reports) from around the world then look no furhter than the current hot topic of Global Climate Change.

Chances are you are going to discount this as well, but that is frankly sad.

I said the advancements of science like the one about relativity was not relevant to the particular point I was making. Global warming has nothing to do with saying that a flood on one side of the world is same one as the other side of the world. The Asian flood was a DIFFERENT flood than the one in New Orleans. Global Warming and what I am saying is apples and oranges. Again, what evidence can come forth that would convince you there was no global flood? And do you believe that the science is in about the shape of the earth and that rabbits don't chew the cud? Or do we need to await for future study?

[thesometimesaint]

cinepro:

The first chapter of the Bible deal with the Creation and Adam. The first five chapters then Noah. Any realistic reading of the Bible would say that Noah is part of the Creation story.

[Uncertain]

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.

Hi Sometimesaint,

How do I decide what prophetic teachings are necessary for my salvation and which are not? Do I depend on prophetic teaching to let me know unless science says otherwise? If at some distance point science determines that drinking Alcohol is amazingly good for me. Can I then decide the WOW was just prophets getting it wrong. Must I wait for science to vote in order to determine which prophetic teaching is or is not correct or which prophetic teaching is or is not relevant to my salvation?

All the Best,

Uncertain

[lwyatt]

I said the advancements of science like the one about relativity was not relevant to the particular point I was making. Global warming has nothing to do with saying that a flood on one side of the world is same one as the other side of the world. The Asian flood was a DIFFERENT flood than the one in New Orleans. Global Warming and what I am saying is apples and oranges. Again, what evidence can come forth that would convince you there was no global flood? And do you believe that the science is in about the shape of the earth and that rabbits don't chew the cud? Or do we need to await for future study?

It does have direct relevance to this discussion in this manner: You are claming that we know everything that there is to now about science. That is your proposition in toto. It would be just as "fair" of me to ask, what "evidence" would you accept to convince you that there was a global flood?

Again, I have given concrete scientific facts that support (not prove - I never said prove) the argument that there may have been a global flood. You are the one who is discounting these evidences becasue it does not fit your paradigm. I have seen countless geologists that have argued that there have been numerous catastrophic events throughout history that could fit any "interpretation" of the flood story. I am not LIMITING myself by saying that the only possible one that could have happened was what was described in the bible. I am saying that there is evidence (the bible is only part of that evidence) that supports such an event.

You are the one that keeps going for the arguments that those who belive this could have happened are absurd. Why not actually try using some logic, instead of name calling?

P.S. (on edit)

I brought up the thing of global warming because scientests are taking data, stories, or events from around the world and linking them together. These two events are not unrelated, and is not comparing apples to oranges. It was being used as an illustration.

[ryanelwood]

It does have direct relevance to this discussion in this manner: You are claming that we know everything that there is to now about science. That is your proposition in toto. It would be just as "fair" of me to ask, what "evidence" would you accept to convince you that there was a global flood?

Again, I have given concrete scientific facts that support (not prove - I never said prove) the argument that there may have been a global flood. You are the one who is discounting these evidences becasue it does not fit your paradigm. I have seen countless geologists that have argued that there have been numerous catastrophic events throughout history that could fit any "interpretation" of the flood story. I am not LIMITING myself by saying that the only possible one that could have happened was what was described in the bible. I am saying that there is evidence (the bible is only part of that evidence) that supports such an event.

You are the one that keeps going for the arguments that those who belive this could have happened are absurd. Why not actually try using some logic, instead of name calling?

P.S. (on edit)

I brought up the thing of global warming because scientests are taking data, stories, or events from around the world and linking them together. These two events are not unrelated, and is not comparing apples to oranges. It was being used as an illustration.

It would take evidence to get me to believe in a global flood. I have not seen your concrete evidence, unless you are counting the Mayan story about people climbing palm trees to get away from a flood. Yes I do discount that evidence because it is not even close to the Noah story. Yes there are catastrophe's that happen, but no global flood. Go on a field trip to all the accredited universities in your area and ask the science department if there is any evidence of a global flood 5,000 years ago. I am positive you will not find countless numbers that say yes.

I have never said anything about science knowing everything. But I believe we know enought to confidently say the earth is not flat, the earth goes around the sun, Atlas is not holding the earth up, and that there was no global flood.

Of course I say it is absurd. Do you think the claims of the flat earth society is absurd? To me arguing the global flood is no different than arguing the flatness of the earth. I have given logical reasons in other posts, maybe not to you I can't remember.

But here they are:

The ark would have had to have been far more massive than the Bible says. We are talking about several million animals being taken care of by about eight people. That is a lot food and excrement to clean up. Do you really think that is possible?

What about fresh water fish that cannot live in salt water? Did they have little fish ponds in the Ark? Is that even plausible?

The water would have covered Mt. Everest where the air is too thin to breath.

How did Kangaroos get to Australia? Or the American Moose to North America? Did they swim?

Where in the world did the massive amounts of water go?

I know there is a bunch of Hypothetical and imagninative explanations for all of this. But with enough imagination I can explain how Santa Claus and visit every house in the world in 24 hours.

Have you ever asked yourself why no geologist at any accredited university believes in a global flood? I assume they are not persuaded by the Mayan palm tree's to the rescue story either.

Again, do you think the science is in about the shape of the earth, rabbits chewing the cud, and Atlas holding up the earth? And what would it take to convince you there was no global flood?

[lwyatt]

It would take evidence to get me to believe in a global flood. I have not seen your concrete evidence, unless you are counting the Mayan story about people climbing palm trees to get away from a flood. Yes I do discount that evidence because it is not even close to the Noah story. Yes there are catastrophe's that happen, but no global flood. Go on a field trip to all the accredited universities in your area and ask the science department if there is any evidence of a global flood 5,000 years ago. I am positive you will not find countless numbers that say yes.

I have never said anything about science knowing everything. But I believe we know enought to confidently say the earth is not flat, the earth goes around the sun, Atlas is not holding the earth up, and that there was no global flood.

Of course I say it is absurd. Do you think the claims of the flat earth society is absurd? To me arguing the global flood is no different than arguing the flatness of the earth. I have given logical reasons in other posts, maybe not to you I can't remember.

But here they are:

The ark would have had to have been far more massive than the Bible says. We are talking about several million animals being taken care of by about eight people. That is a lot food and excrement to clean up. Do you really think that is possible?

What about fresh water fish that cannot live in salt water? Did they have little fish ponds in the Ark? Is that even plausible?

The water would have covered Mt. Everest where the air is too thin to breath.

How did Kangaroos get to Australia? Or the American Moose to North America? Did they swim?

Where in the world did the massive amounts of water go?

I know there is a bunch of Hypothetical and imagninative explanations for all of this. But with enough imagination I can explain how Santa Claus and visit every house in the world in 24 hours.

Have you ever asked yourself why no geologist at any accredited university believes in a global flood? I assume they are not persuaded by the Mayan palm tree's to the rescue story either.

Again, do you think the science is in about the shape of the earth, rabbits chewing the cud, and Atlas holding up the earth? And what would it take to convince you there was no global flood?

I never said conclusive that there was. I have been providing evidence (despite what you may think) that shows that there COULD have been. I am intellectually honest enough to be able to say that there may not have been one (as is literally described in the Bible). Unfortunately you do not appear to be intellectually honest enough to say that a global flood may HAVE happened. You are just dismissing out of hand anything that you disagree with. You are also saying that evidence = proof. Proof is concrete. Evidence, as smeone stated earlier, is not concrete, it is just that evidence. You take several pieces of evidence together to reach the truth. You do not dismiss the evidence that you disagree with just so that you can arrive at the conclusions that you want.

Please, in the future, try actually talking with someone as oppesed to resorting to the "nyaa-nyaa boo-boo, your in idiot" argument. That does not really promote an atmosphere for discussion, just one for argument.

[SolarPowered]

I have been providing evidence (despite what you may think) that shows that there COULD have been.

With all the mud-slinging going on, I'm afraid I've missed the occasional bits of substance in this thread. Could I prevail on you to please summarize the evidence you've provided? Thanks!

[lwyatt]

With all the mud-slinging going on, I'm afraid I've missed the occasional bits of substance in this thread. Could I prevail on you to please summarize the evidence you've provided? Thanks!

I apologize for any mudslinging on my side, truly. Here is what I stated, simply put.

- Every major culture from around the world had a flood story.

- Over 8,000 years (minimum) facts MAY get a little twisted, changed, blown oout of proportion, and so on.

- Scientists believe in empirical data, even the stuff that they don't like.

- Most scientists I know say things like: "Evidence suggests" NOT "Evidence concludes." (Semantics I know, but it has impact

- Anthropology is a science too.

- That evidence does not equal proof.

Roughly, that is what I was saying. Hope that helps.

[cinepro]

cinepro:

The first chapter of the Bible deal with the Creation and Adam. The first five chapters then Noah. Any realistic reading of the Bible would say that Noah is part of the Creation story.

They may be close together in the Bible, but chronologically speaking, they are pretty far apart (at least 1500 years.) I think any realistic reading would have to conclude that the creation was done 1500 years after Adam had left the garden.

[ryanelwood]

I never said conclusive that there was. I have been providing evidence (despite what you may think) that shows that there COULD have been. I am intellectually honest enough to be able to say that there may not have been one (as is literally described in the Bible). Unfortunately you do not appear to be intellectually honest enough to say that a global flood may HAVE happened. You are just dismissing out of hand anything that you disagree with. You are also saying that evidence = proof. Proof is concrete. Evidence, as smeone stated earlier, is not concrete, it is just that evidence. You take several pieces of evidence together to reach the truth. You do not dismiss the evidence that you disagree with just so that you can arrive at the conclusions that you want.

Please, in the future, try actually talking with someone as oppesed to resorting to the "nyaa-nyaa boo-boo, your in idiot" argument. That does not really promote an atmosphere for discussion, just one for argument.

I believe that I am to intellectually honest to think that there was no global flood, but that is simply a difference of opinion we have. I agree evidence is not proof, but very little is proven. Plate Tectonics is not proven, but we sure know a lot about earthquakes and how the world works from it. Natural Selection is not proven, but it has assisted in medical advances. But I could argue that the evidence suggests that the world is not flat, althought not proven. Are you open that the earth may be flat? I have not dismissed any evidence that I know of. I just do not see different cultures having flood myths as evidence of anything other than floods happen all over the world. I see nearly no relation between many of the stories on your website other than a flood happened in the area. I do not reach the conclusion that I "want," it would make no difference to me if a global flood happened or if the world was flat. But the evidence demonstrates, at least to me, beyond a shadow of doubt that the earth is round and no global flood happened.

I still want to know what it would take to convince you a global flood did not happen.

[Tchild2]

I apologize for any mudslinging on my side, truly. Here is what I stated, simply put.

- Every major culture from around the world had a flood story.

- Over 8,000 years (minimum) facts MAY get a little twisted, changed, blown oout of proportion, and so on.

- Scientists believe in empirical data, even the stuff that they don't like.

- Most scientists I know say things like: "Evidence suggests" NOT "Evidence concludes." (Semantics I know, but it has impact

- Anthropology is a science too.

- That evidence does not equal proof.

Roughly, that is what I was saying. Hope that helps.

On a scale of 1 to 10, how possible is it for you that a global flood inundated the earth covering every last yard of dirt, hill and mountain (ice caps included), killing all life except 8 humans on the ark and the animals within and happening just as literally claimed? How possible is it that the global flood happened just as the LDS leadership teaches?

[lwyatt]

On a scale of 1 to 10, how possible is it for you that a global flood inundated the earth covering every last yard of dirt, hill and mountain (ice caps included), killing all life except 8 humans on the ark and the animals within and happening just as literally claimed? How possible is it that the global flood happened just as the LDS leadership teaches?

For me? I truly believe that it happened the way that the Prophet teaches. That being said, I have not heard, nor seen a prophet say that the Bible was totally 100% Accurate. I beleve that it was, and is taught, that as far as we know it happened something along those lines.

If this sounds like an escape, I am sorry. You asked what I believed.

People may say that I am fairly naive, but I think that nothing can truly discounted. We are told to seek after the truth, are we not? We have been told that the truth is around us, have we not? Have not many things later been found to be true that were once considered fable, folklore and myth?

Frankly, and I will be honest with you all on this, I do not know what it would take to prove to me that a global flood did not happen. Just as I do not know what it would take to prove to me that it did. I am willing to say "I don't know."

Is anyone else?

[cinepro]

I apologize for any mudslinging on my side, truly. Here is what I stated, simply put.

- Every major culture from around the world had a flood story.

Yes, but is this evidence that all major cultures trace their roots to Noah and his family circa 2500BC, or is it evidence that the Genesis flood story is but one of many common myths found the world over? Many myths doesn't add up to a true story.

- Over 8,000 years (minimum) facts MAY get a little twisted, changed, blown oout of proportion, and so on.

Sorry, but it's 4500 years, maximum. Heck, Adam and Eve left the Garden about 6,000 years ago, so I don't know what the heck was happening 8,000 years ago. But if the Bible is twisted, changed and blown out of proportion, then we should probably just set it aside all together. Especially if we can't rely on latter-day prophets to be able to tell the difference.

- Scientists believe in empirical data, even the stuff that they don't like.

I don't know of a single geologist or other scientist who has ever theorized a worldwide flood around 2500BC without first believing in the story based on the Bible.

- Most scientists I know say things like: "Evidence suggests" NOT "Evidence concludes." (Semantics I know, but it has impact

Evidence suggests there was no worldwide catastrophic flood in the last 5,000 years.

- Anthropology is a science too.

Yes, but the geologic ramifications of a worldwide flood are such that the evidence presented by anthropology would need to be really, really strong to compensate for the complete and utter lack of geologic evidence. So far, that is not the case.

[Ron Beron]

This always gets me as the biggest argument against the flood! Everyone believing in the flood (like myself) knows that Mt. Everest was not yet upthrust from the earth while the flood was taking place. In fact, global flood believers and researchers know that the major mountain chains in the which Mt. Everest is part of, were indeed upthrust after the flood. They were then fragmented and exposed showing their varied layers of watery laid sediment.

Weak argument!

If the flood occurred 30 to 50 million years ago I would agree. Your credibility is gone.

[Ron Beron]

'lwyatt' writes,

By eveidence, you mean something along the lines of a flood story in EVERY major culture found around the world? I think that it has been pretty well established that there is a grain of truth to every fable or myth. Or am I wrong?

It could also mean that every culture and locale has had rainfall and with it an occasional flooding. No big whoop.

[Ron Beron]

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.

Let them continue in presenting the story in the manner and method they choose to do so. It doesn't bother me nor should it bother anyone. It is a tool to convey a broader construct of instruction. Why should science obfuscate the real message of the church?

[Ron Beron]

'cinepro' writes,

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.

Maybe one needs to read as an ancient would. The account in Genesis says the water covered the whole earth. While ostensibly this would seem to include the entire globe it would make little sense to a ancient writer since the world or e'retz could've been a localized region or the entire world which would have consisted of a flat region not a globe.

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'?

You are neglecting the fact that the "ark" would've drifted for days and weeks leading it away from the flood plan and into the ocean or sea. On a more historical basis the inhabinants of the area feel that the ark came to rest not on Ararat, but on the Aratta Mountains.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

'cinepro' writes,

Maybe one needs to read as an ancient would. The account in Genesis says the water covered the whole earth. While ostensibly this would seem to include the entire globe it would make little sense to a ancient writer since the world or e'retz could've been a localized region or the entire world which would have consisted of a flat region not a globe.

Out of curiosity what do think about what happned in the days of Paleg? That is when the continents broke appart?

[ryanelwood]

Yes, but is this evidence that all major cultures trace their roots to Noah and his family circa 2500BC, or is it evidence that the Genesis flood story is but one of many common myths found the world over? Many myths doesn't add up to a true story.

Sorry, but it's 4500 years, maximum. Heck, Adam and Eve left the Garden about 6,000 years ago, so I don't know what the heck was happening 8,000 years ago. But if the Bible is twisted, changed and blown out of proportion, then we should probably just set it aside all together. Especially if we can't rely on latter-day prophets to be able to tell the difference.

I don't know of a single geologist or other scientist who has ever theorized a worldwide flood around 2500BC without first believing in the story based on the Bible.

Evidence suggests there was no worldwide catastrophic flood in the last 5,000 years.

Yes, but the geologic ramifications of a worldwide flood are such that the evidence presented by anthropology would need to be really, really strong to compensate for the complete and utter lack of geologic evidence. So far, that is not the case.

Cinpero, lwyat gave me the following website that discusses all these different flood stories across the world (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html) . Just take a look at some of them and tell me if you think they are related to Noah or even to each other. For example, the Greek story says the peopole got away to a mountain (doesn't sound like it covered everything). The Mayan story says the dwarf's were killed but that others 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 and escaped in canoes (should I believe an Ark was built or that people survived by climbing Palm Trees?) These stories do not seem to have the same origin, but rather unique to the particular culture. The only similarity is that there was a flood (not always of the entire world either). Dare I say it is the silliest argument I have ever heard. It is like saying that since every culture has stories of war they must all be talking about the same war no matter how different the war stories are.

[thesometimesaint]

Mola Ram Suda Ram:

Not continents but political lands.