The Flood Story

[cinepro]

'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.

Please, I beg you, read the story. You are grossly mischaracterizing what Genesis says, which makes me doubt you've actually read the account. It's not a simple comment saying "water covered the whole Earth". It is a continually reinforced and clarified scope that demands that the entire planet was covered. The story does not make any sense if the water didn't cover everything, including the mountains. And the covenant God makes with Noah is just plain silly if the flood was local. In order for the flood to be local, it's not just Noah who has to be mistaken. God has to mistakenly think the whole world is getting covered too (thus requiring an ark and animals to be saved in the first place). Surely God knew the real scope of the flood?

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 inhabitants of the area feel that the ark came to rest not on Ararat, but on the Aratta Mountains.

Again, read the actual account. It says the water receded and the ark ended up in the mountains. This is impossible if it drifted into an ocean or sea.

Thank you to each and every one of you that is arguing for a local flood theory. You have unintentionally turned the Genesis account of the flood into the most hilarious, ill-conceived Bible story of all time. I will read it often, just to imagine the huge ark floating around on a limited flood and getting beached a few feet off the valley floor "in the mountains", as hundreds of thousands of people live on in the rest of the world not knowing about the floating man and his animals.

[Ron Beron]

'cinepro' writes,

Please, I beg you, read the story. You are grossly mischaracterizing what Genesis says, which makes me doubt you've actually read the account.

Read it and many other accounts as well. In addition to the Genesis flood account there is also the Gilgamesh account, the Atrahasis account, and the Ziusudra account. All of these taken in context add up to a much different story than you are presenting which is, excuse me, a bit simplistic.

It's not a simple comment saying "water covered the whole Earth". It is a continually reinforced and clarified scope that demands that the entire planet was covered.

Again, this begs the question of what was the definition of planet? Was it an encircling globe or a simple plane or sheet? Was it, as the Hebrew suggests an "place of land" or e'retz, or the entire face of the earth? If there are no mountains within the flood plain area that would have normally been seen how could a Noah character known that such mountains were covered?

All life within the locale of the flood would have been killed as well. Any animal life beyond the scope of the flood plane would have been beyond the visual abilities of the survivors.

In Genesis 7:19 it states, "under the whole sky", which exactly means that portion that can be seen by the human eye. It does not represent what exists beyond the curvature of the earth, which ostensibly was unknown in that day.

The story does not make any sense if the water didn't cover everything, including the mountains. And the covenant God makes with Noah is just plain silly if the flood was local. In order for the flood to be local, it's not just Noah who has to be mistaken. God has to mistakenly think the whole world is getting covered too (thus requiring an ark and animals to be saved in the first place). Surely God knew the real scope of the flood?

You are making the attempt, for obvious reasons, to conflate fact with the spiritual telling.

Again, read the actual account. It says the water receded and the ark ended up in the mountains. This is impossible if it drifted into an ocean or sea.

The Gilgamesh account states that the ark was on the water until the 7th month. The Gilgamesh account shows that the ark drifted for this time in a much higher Persian Gulf than today and landed near Eridu which has a higher elevation. One author, Robert Best in Noah's Ark and the Ziusudra Epic states that the mountain were actually a mistranslation of country or land.

You have done little to raise the real dialogue that could have existed here insteah you have attempted to use an interesting and suggestive legend/myth to attempt to further your own agnostic codswallop. While I don't see everything in the Bible or even in latter day literature as historically accurate I do see it as an attempt to explain the wondrous and wonderful in spiritual tones.

[Tchild2]

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.

Ron - If the ancient world inhabitants experienced a massive local flood and believed it to be a global flood in error, why has every LDS prophet of God since the restoration in error stated emphatically that it was a global flood in nature, killing all humans except the 8 aboard the ark and the animals within. Why do the prophets and apostles still continue to teach this gross error of an ark, all animals gathered two by two and water covering the whole earth?

It isn't relevant what the ancients thought. For us today, it is relevant what the Leadership teaches as they are supposed to have the truth via revelation. If the flood was local, you and other apologists are right and all your past and current prophets are wrong. That might make the apologists feel vindicated, but it casts doubt on the LDS leaders having any access to revelation.

The apologist argument in this case undermines the competency to know truth, for the cumulative LDS leadership over the last 170 years.

[thesometimesaint]

Tchild2:

We do not hold anyone but God to be inerrant. Why do YOU keep insisting that we do?

[Tchild2]

Tchild2:

We do not hold anyone but God to be inerrant. Why do YOU keep insisting that we do?

The LDS leaders, prophets and apostles past and present wouldn't agree that they are speaking in error, why are you insisting that they are?

[thesometimesaint]

Tchild2:

CFR

[Tchild2]

Tchild2:

CFR

CFR what?

Can you CFR that the prophets and church leaders teaching a literal global flood are wrong? Can you CFR where any church prophet or apostle has taught anything other than a literal global flood?

Can you CFR anything?

[thesometimesaint]

Tchild2:

I am CFRing your proposition that we consider anything said by Church leaders is automatically inerrant. It is not.

On The Flood by Jeff Lindsay

The Bible says that the flood covered the whole earth, including mountains, and that everything and everybody died except the few people and animals in the ark. Critics have long pointed out that the ark could not possibly have contained all the known species of animals, and that a flood that covered all the mountains of the world simply makes no sense and finds no evidence in the geologic record.

While many faithful religious leaders, including Latter-day Saints, have accepted the literal meaning of the words in Genesis, the Bible frequently uses language that was never meant to be taken in a literal, modern sense. In other cases, perhaps the author or later editor meant it literally, but due to limitations in the author's understanding, the passage demands something other than a literal reading from the modern perspective. For example, when the author of Luke states that "there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed" (Luke 2:1), we should understand that "all the world" really meant "the world" of the Roman empire, that small fraction of "all the world" from a modern, literal perspective. Perhaps the scope of the Roman empire was the entire populated world known to the author, or perhaps it was just a figurative expression o indicate a large geographical scope. Critics of the Bible might strive to disprove the Bible by spewing forth long diatribes about the impossibility of South American natives paying tax to the Roman empire in those days, but they would be wasting their breath, for Luke 2:1 cannot be reasonably understood as an allegedly inspired statement about global financial networks.

I am pointing to the obvious fact that there are non-literal interpretations to some passages of scripture. Since some LDS and other Christian leaders have naturally and understandably accepted a literal interpretation of some such passages, I am suggesting that their interpretation of those passages may have been in error. If their interpretation was not correct, the mistake does not affect core, canonized doctrines of the Church, but rather our understanding of some events in the canonized scriptures. To differ in the interpretation of academic issues in the scriptures - how long was the Creation, how big was the flood, how many animals were in the ark, etc. - is not to challenge canonized LDS doctrines. Dealing with these issues does not require rejecting the doctrine of the Creation or the Fall and Redemption of man, the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, the sacredness of the Temple, the divine role of Joseph Smith as a chosen prophet of God, the power of the Priesthood, and the reality of the Restoration.

Turning to the flood, look at the language of Genesis 7:19-24:

19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.

20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:

22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.

23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.

This was in fulfillment of the Lord's declaration in Genesis 6:17:

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.

A literal reading of these passages points to a global flood that covered "all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven" that killed "everything that is in the earth" and "all flesh . . . under heaven." But such language is commonly used figuratively to indicate a significant extent without requiring a literal reading. For example, in Deuteronomy 2:25, as the Lord is commanding Moses to go battle Sihon the Amorite, of Heshbon, the Lord encourages Moses with these words:

"This day will I begin to put the dread of thee and the fear of thee upon the nations that are under the whole heaven, who shall hear report of thee, and shall tremble, and be in anguish because of thee."

Now should we imagine that the lords of the Olmec empire in southern Mexico would soon be learning of that awesome warrior, Moses, and tremble in fear and anguish? Did the emperor of China lose sleep, worried that Moses and his several thousand warriors might make a surprise thrust across thousands of miles to overthrow his empire? Were Australian natives living in terror at the mention of Moses? After all," the nations that are under whole heaven" would include those in Australia, the New World, China, Ireland, Samoa, Japan, and everywhere else, for that matter. Can atheists disprove the Bible by showing that no Japanese emperor ever even heard of Moses until centuries after Moses died? Of course not. When the text refers to the nations under the whole heaven, the only way that passage makes any sense is to accept it as a figure of speech. The extent of the nations that lost sleep (or lives) due to Moses was probably limited to a minute speck of earth around Palestine, a scope covering perhaps a few hundred miles or so at most.

Likewise, in Romans 1:8 the Apostle Paul declares that the faith of the Roman Christians was "spoken of throughout the whole world." Again, Paul was using figures of speech, and not reporting on a global communications network that was spanning multiple continents in 40 A.D. See also 1 Kings 10:24, which tells us that "all the earth sought to Solomon, to hear his wisdom, which God had put in his heart." This may refer to all the earth the writer was personally familiar--perhaps multiple kingdoms and nations within the Middle East--but surely the Lord does not expect us to believe that Siberians, Finns, South Africans, Polynesians, and Olmec lords were all making their way to Israel to honor Solomon.

I could beat this dead horse a few more times, but the point should be clear: If language that literally refers to "all the world" or all the "nations under the whole heaven" actually covers only a tiny portion of the globe, why should we assume that similar language about the flood must be taken literally? Might a limited geographical scope be the most reasonable way to understand the text?

Granted, many LDS teachers and leaders have insisted on a literal meaning of the text. Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie, for example, both wrote books offering their strong and generally literal views on the matter. But I do not believe that there is any canonized revelation which requires a global flood. We can understand the language used in the scriptures to be describing a local flood, though it may have seemed to cover the whole world from the perspective of the observers.

John A. Widstoe, a scientist and apostle of the Church, recognizing the limitations inherent in the scriptural account of the flood, wrote the following comments sometime around 1930, I think (Evidences and Reconciliations, edited by G. Homer Durham, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1960, pp. 126-127):

Did the Flood Cover the Highest Mountains of Earth?

This question, really of insignificant importance, is a good example of man-made objections to the sacred character of the Bible, and therefore to faith.

The coming of the flood and its extent and duration, are described in the seventh chapter of the Book of Genesis. The account states that "the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were tinder the whole heaven, were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered." (Gen. 7:19-20) . . .

A cubit, an ancient and well-known measure of length, is the distance from a man's elbow to the end of his middle finger. . . . If we employ the largest of these values, 20.61 inches, fifteen cubits would be something less than twenty-six-feet. This, then, was the depth of the flood, according to Genesis.

The suggestion has been made that the flood filled every hollow and valley until the earth was a great sphere of water covering the highest mountain peaks twenty-six feet deep, Mount Ararat, seventeen thousand feet high, "upon the mountains" of which the ark rested, would according to this view have been completely under water. It is doubtful whether the water in the sky and all the oceans would suffice to cover the earth so completely.

Another suggestion is that the earth at that time was so flat that a depth of water of twenty-six feet would cover the highest hill. There is no existing evidence of this supposition; and Mount Ararat did exist then according to the record.

It has also been suggested that a blanket of water twenty-six feet thick lay up and down the sides of every hill, mountain, and valley. This would seem to be in defiance of the law of gravity, though under a long-continued, furious rainfall such a layer, not too thick, might roll down every slope.

The fact remains that the exact nature of the flood is not known. We set up assumptions, based upon our best knowledge, but can go no further. We should remember that when inspired writers deal with historical incidents they relate that which they have seen or that which may have been told them, unless indeed the past is opened to them by revelation.

The details in the story of the flood are undoubtedly drawn from the experiences of the writer. Under a downpour of rain, likened to the opening of the heavens, a destructive torrent twenty-six feet deep or deeper would easily be formed. The writer of Genesis made a faithful report of the facts known to him concerning the flood. In other localities the depth of the water might have been more or less. In fact, the details of the flood are not known to us.

Elder Widstoe's remarks given above are also quoted in The Encyclopedia of Mormonism in an article on the flood (Vol. 2). He went on to speculate that the flood occurred in the Mississippi Valley, where the flat terrain could easily be subject to massive flooding that covered a broad area (but I think Mesopotamia is where we should look). In any case, Elder Widstoe seemed to have no trouble with the concept of a local flood and of human limitations in the text, both in its preparation and its interpretation.

Dr. Hugh Nibley, one of the most beloved of Mormon scholars, also had no trouble with a local flood, as he indicated in his speech, "Before Adam," given at BYU on April 1, 1980 (available online at FARMS):

The earliest Abraham books are supposed to be autobiographies, and the story told from his point of view makes perfectly good sense. So with Noah in the ark. From where he was, "the whole earth" (Genesis 8:9) was covered with water as far as he could see; after things had quieted down for 150 days and the ark ground to a halt, it was still three months before he could see any mountaintops. But what were conditions in other parts of the world? If Noah knew that, he would not have sent forth messenger birds to explore. The flood as he described it is what he saw of it. "He sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters were abated from off the face of the ground." (Genesis 8:8.) Couldn't he see for himself? Not where the dove went. It was not until seven days later that he sent it out again; and after flying all day, the bird came back with a green leaf fetched from afar; "so Noah knew that the waters were abated from off the earth." (Genesis 8:11.) Still he waited another seven days. When the dove did not return, Noah had his answer. In some distant place, trees were bearing and there was birdfood to be found. But not where Noah was. All that time he had not dared to open up.

Note that the author does not fall into the literary trap of telling where the birds went and what they saw. That became a standard theme of early Oriental literature, faithfully reflected in the classical stories of the sea-eagle and the hoopoe. All Noah tells us is what he saw of the birds and the flood.

Other Christians have also recognized that the scriptures permit a limited flood. For example, see Dr. Hugh Ross, "The Waters of the Flood," available online.

Of course, just making the flood local does not solve some of the scientific challenges to the story of Noah's flood. If there was a flood that lasted a year and wiped out human and animal life over many hundreds of square miles, one would expect the geologic and archaeological evidence to be clear. There have been major floods in Mesopotamia and surrounding regions, but as far as I know, we don't have evidence of a flood in that region of sufficient magnitude to explain the extreme description in Genesis. Some have said that there are hints of such flooding, but I am unaware of convincing evidence. But this is an issue where I am willing to be patient. I do not rule out the possibility that magnitude of the flood became exaggerated in written accounts over time. In any case, I welcome further advances in knowledge, both of past calamities on the earth and of the meaning of the Hebrew scriptures.

Simply reducing the scope of the flood to local proportions does not address some criticisms of the Biblical record. Is there any archaelogical evidence of a major flood, albeit local, wiping out numerous cities and bringing elevated waters that lasted for many days? There does not appear to be evidence for a flood of that magnitude that once swept over present lands in the Middle East or Central Asia in a time frame compatible with the Bible. But recently, a fascinating new theory may offer the solution. The regions that were wiped out by Noah's flood may presently be still underwater and still unexplored - in the region that is now the Black Sea. Preliminary evidence points to the possibility of a massive flood around 5600 B.C. as breach of the Bosporus land bridge allowed waters from the Mediterranean Sea to flood the area, expanding a small ancient freshwater lake into the present Black Sea. For details from an LDS perspective, see "Noah's Flood: Modern Scholarship and Mormon Traditions" by Duane E. Jeffery, Sunstone, Oct. 2004, pp. 27-45.

[Tchild2]

Tchild2:

I am CFRing your proposition that we consider anything said by Church leaders is automatically inerrant. It is not.

Why are you requesting that? We are discussing very specific teachings concerning the literal belief in a global flood, and that is all that I am referencing. Are all prophets and apostles wrong on this specific issue? If so, why is it that you and other apologists can see they are wrong, but they cannot?

[thesometimesaint]

Tchild2:

While I'm no Apologist, I have never had any problem with stating my beliefs. Even when I disagree with some non-Salvanic comment that my leaders have made.

[cinepro]

After reading this thread, I'm not sure who has done more to shoot the story of Noah's flood to pieces: scientists, or apologists.

If the flood was localized, and humanity (and animanity and plantity) lived on in the other 99% of the world without concern, then the story of Noah is hilariously silly. There is almost no difference between Noah building an ark and the water coming so he could float around on it for a few days, and me taking a pontoon boat out to a nearby lake for a Saturday afternoon with my family, dog and cat. Both mean about as much to the world.

It should also be noted that the theory of a local flood is about the thinnest, most fragile "theory" you could ever invent. It will survive only as far as it's "supporters" resist trying to propose a real-world geography for the flood to take place. If anyone actually tried to find a real world location for such an event, they would find themselves veering between foolishness and frustration. The physics of geology and water just don't work to create a flood that is big enough to qualify for even the slightest dramatic telling and requiring the building of a boat to escape it. The Bible is too specific in giving the measurements for the ark and the depth of water, a mistake that would have been avoided had the ancient writers known the difficulties that would face 21st century apologists, I'm sure.

The only use of the Local Flood Theory is to create some sort of mental space for people to still feel like they "believe" in the Bible, but not feel stupid for believing in something that obviously didn't (and couldn't) happen. But in order to believe, they have to redefine almost every single word from the Biblical account, and totally ignore the repeated, official statements of the men they revere as latter day Prophets of God reiterating the worldwide scope of the flood.

But I would still love to be proven wrong. Can someone please tell me what the covenant was between Noah and God if the flood was local and humans and animals had continued to live undisturbed in the other 99% of the planet? Can someone please tell me how the ark could get up into the mountains if the water was only 22 feet deep and the ark was 45 feet tall?

In broad, general terms, it seems so nice and comfy to think "oh, the ancients used the word "world" when they meant the land around them", but the meaning and telling of the story is just shredded to bits if it didn't cover the entire Earth. I recommend skipping over the "Local Flood" theory and just proceeding directly to the "allegory" theory.

[Tchild2]

After reading this thread, I'm not sure who has done more to shoot the story of Noah's flood to pieces: scientists, or apologists.

If the flood was localized, and humanity (and animanity and plantity) lived on in the other 99% of the world without concern, then the story of Noah is hilariously silly. There is almost no difference between Noah building an ark and the water coming so he could float around on it for a few days, and me taking a pontoon boat out to a nearby lake for a Saturday afternoon with my family, dog and cat. Both mean about as much to the world.

It should also be noted that the theory of a local flood is about the thinnest, most fragile "theory" you could ever invent. It will survive only as far as it's "supporters" resist trying to propose a real-world geography for the flood to take place. If anyone actually tried to find a real world location for such an event, they would find themselves veering between foolishness and frustration. The physics of geology and water just don't work to create a flood that is big enough to qualify for even the slightest dramatic telling and requiring the building of a boat to escape it. The Bible is too specific in giving the measurements for the ark and the depth of water, a mistake that would have been avoided had the ancient writers known the difficulties that would face 21st century apologists, I'm sure.

The only use of the Local Flood Theory is to create some sort of mental space for people to still feel like they "believe" in the Bible, but not feel stupid for believing in something that obviously didn't (and couldn't) happen. But in order to believe, they have to redefine almost every single word from the Biblical account, and totally ignore the repeated, official statements of the men they revere as latter day Prophets of God reiterating the worldwide scope of the flood.

But I would still love to be proven wrong. Can someone please tell me what the covenant was between Noah and God if the flood was local and humans and animals had continued to live undisturbed in the other 99% of the planet? Can someone please tell me how the ark could get up into the mountains if the water was only 22 feet deep and the ark was 45 feet tall?

In broad, general terms, it seems so nice and comfy to think "oh, the ancients used the word "world" when they meant the land around them", but the meaning and telling of the story is just shredded to bits if it didn't cover the entire Earth. I recommend skipping over the "Local Flood" theory and just proceeding directly to the "allegory" theory.

Agreed. A "local flood theory" seems reasonable and rational -- except when you use it as a rationale to explain the Genesis account of the Flood, an Ark and animals, then a local flood theory seems utterly preposterous as God could have merely warned Noah to flee the flood plain and go to higher ground, which is exaclty what God did (the warning part), but instead of fleeing, Noah got stuck building an ark, and gathering together species that didn't need saving or gathering.

[Bender]

cinepro,

Agreed. The only way you can view the Literal World Wide Flood is, God is all powerful. I liken that to just being able to snap your fingers and presto, all the animals, vegetation is back to where they were Pre-Flood. There is so much the God would have to do though. There is just not enough space on the Ark for all the species on Earth. Most of the plant, aquatic, insect life would have been extinguished that a whole new Creative period would have to be done. Why destroy all the plants and animals just to wave your hand to bring them all back again. Couldn't God just destroy all the bad people. Also you would have to hide all the evidence so that it looks like the whole earth is billions of years old and that No evidence showing a world wide flood occurred. I don't like this since it would make God into a deceiver. I see no difference between that and a conman who is showing you false information to get you in invest in their scam.

The local Flood theory doesnt get much better. I was always taught (I guess incorrectly) that the Earth needed baptism by immersion. A local flood would be more like a sprinkling. Also no one has come up with good reasons why God would Command a boat to be built when just moving to higher ground would be a much better idea. He had enough time to build a very big boat. Certainly he would have had time to get off any flood plains that exist on this Earth. The whole meaning of the Noah and the Flood disappear with the local flood IMO.

I think Allegory is all thats really left, but like what was said by some others, if you cant trust your Prophets in their interpretations of scripture on this and other issues that may not be required for Salvation, IMO it does bring into question their accuracy on interpreting scriptures that do involve salvation.

[buraianto]

Mola Ram Suda Ram:

Not continents but political lands.

Does that fit with Doctrine and Covenants 133? Verse 24 seems to reference Peleg, and refers to the land being divided in the same thought as lands being driven back and turned back into their own place.

23 He shall command the great deep, and it shall be driven back into the north countries, and the islands shall become one land;

24 And the land of Jerusalem and the land of Zion shall be turned back into their own place, and the earth shall be like as it was in the days before it was divided.

[Ron Beron]

Ron - If the ancient world inhabitants experienced a massive local flood and believed it to be a global flood in error, why has every LDS prophet of God since the restoration in error stated emphatically that it was a global flood in nature, killing all humans except the 8 aboard the ark and the animals within. Why do the prophets and apostles still continue to teach this gross error of an ark, all animals gathered two by two and water covering the whole earth?

It isn't relevant what the ancients thought. For us today, it is relevant what the Leadership teaches as they are supposed to have the truth via revelation. If the flood was local, you and other apologists are right and all your past and current prophets are wrong. That might make the apologists feel vindicated, but it casts doubt on the LDS leaders having any access to revelation.

The apologist argument in this case undermines the competency to know truth, for the cumulative LDS leadership over the last 170 years.

Great question and I agree that every prophet has spoken of the Flood story as historically accurate. To be definitive I cannot answer for them. I know that two apostles Bruce R. McConkie and Joseph Fielding Smith held to the literal flood. I also know that there hasn't been a canonical view on it. In fact, some leaders of the church have come forward and challenged the literalness of the flood.

John A. Widstoe, an apostle of the Church wrote,

Did the Flood Cover the Highest Mountains of Earth?

This question, really of insignificant importance, is a good example of man-made objections to the sacred character of the Bible, and therefore to faith.

The coming of the flood and its extent and duration, are described in the seventh chapter of the Book of Genesis. The account states that "the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were tinder the whole heaven, were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered." (Gen. 7:19-20) . . .

A cubit, an ancient and well-known measure of length, is the distance from a man's elbow to the end of his middle finger. . . . If we employ the largest of these values, 20.61 inches, fifteen cubits would be something less than twenty-six-feet. This, then, was the depth of the flood, according to Genesis.

The suggestion has been made that the flood filled every hollow and valley until the earth was a great sphere of water covering the highest mountain peaks twenty-six feet deep, Mount Ararat, seventeen thousand feet high, "upon the mountains" of which the ark rested, would according to this view have been completely under water. It is doubtful whether the water in the sky and all the oceans would suffice to cover the earth so completely.

Another suggestion is that the earth at that time was so flat that a depth of water of twenty-six feet would cover the highest hill. There is no existing evidence of this supposition; and Mount Ararat did exist then according to the record.

It has also been suggested that a blanket of water twenty-six feet thick lay up and down the sides of every hill, mountain, and valley. This would seem to be in defiance of the law of gravity, though under a long-continued, furious rainfall such a layer, not too thick, might roll down every slope.

The fact remains that the exact nature of the flood is not known. We set up assumptions, based upon our best knowledge, but can go no further. We should remember that when inspired writers deal with historical incidents they relate that which they have seen or that which may have been told them, unless indeed the past is opened to them by revelation.

The details in the story of the flood are undoubtedly drawn from the experiences of the writer. Under a downpour of rain, likened to the opening of the heavens, a destructive torrent twenty-six feet deep or deeper would easily be formed. The writer of Genesis made a faithful report of the facts known to him concerning the flood. In other localities the depth of the water might have been more or less. In fact, the details of the flood are not known to us.

In a recent Dialogue article, Clayton M. White and Mark D. Thomas (On Balancing Faith in Mormonism with Traditional Biblical Stories: The Noachian Flood Story) discusses the obvious dichotomy of the three prevailing thoughts.

Elder Widstoeâ??s statement is remarkable on several accounts. It is

certainly not a traditional view and contradicts the claim that the highest

mountains were under fifteen cubits of water. Hence, he opens the door

to new ways of interpreting the flood. The denial of complete knowledge

regarding the details of the facts of a flood is echoed by Morris Petersen, a

former stake president, who wrote the entry on the flood for the Encyclopedia

of Mormonism.14 â??The Great Floodâ? appears as a subdivision under the

entry â??Earth.â? He acknowledges the lack of empirical data to support a literal,

universal flood and simply cites the same sort of material as Widstoe.

Under the entry on â??Noah,â? Andrew Skinner mentions the flood only in

passing: â??[Noah] became second fatherâ??with Adamâ??of all mankind following

the flood,â? and the remaining page or so of material discusses, as it

should, Noahâ??s importance and role as a prophet.

As I have previously stated the use of Noah as a live, historical character has been used only to promote a deeper philosophical issue. Many church leaders do not make the issue a historical one. White and Thomas continue...

Though many Latter-day Saints have adopted the traditional view ofa universal flood, they have a variety of views on the historical core of the

story, even among the pronouncements of LDS leaders, as we have already

noted. Much of the evidence from the Genesis text and from sermons of

Church leaders is either silent or ambiguous on the factual issues surrounding

the flood. In LDS sermons, Noah is clearly understood to be a

historical character, and the flood is usually assumed to be a historical

event. Other than these two implicit assumptions, rarely are historical

claims about the flood expressed in LDS sermons. LDS leaders have demonstrated

far more interest in the storyâ??s moral, social, and existential symbolism

than in its historical details. The point of these sermons is how to

exercise faith, how to live in a corrupt world about to be destroyed, how to

maintain faith in the LDS Church despite the scoffing of critics, and so

forth. We suspect that current Latter-day Saints will continue to use

Noahâ??s story as a religious and literary model, just as in the past.

[Ron Beron]

Can someone please tell me what the covenant was between Noah and God if the flood was local and humans and animals had continued to live undisturbed in the other 99% of the planet? Can someone please tell me how the ark could get up into the mountains if the water was only 22 feet deep and the ark was 45 feet tall?

In a continued read of my previously listed Dialogue article of White and Thomas they close their paper with.

At the end of the Noah story, God made a covenant with humanity,

which included human accountability for nature (Gen. 9:1â??

. God then

covenanted to never totally destroy life again, not only with humans but

also with â??all that live on earth.â? This is a covenant between God and all

living creatures, with humans acting as Godâ??s stewards. Living creatures

are a â??Thouâ? and are therefore intimately associated with an ethic of respect

for all life. This is a story addressing immediate ethical concerns in

our age. It speaks of the destruction of life and the preservation of species.

Many LDS leaders have understood this story as primarily ethical. Yet in

the workaday world, nature is often treated as an object, a scarce economic

commodity to be discarded if the whims of the market dictate. This

view of nature is foreign to the human stewardship of life articulated in

the Noah story.

To enter into Noahâ??s covenant of life is to take upon us the obligation

to be accountable for the earthâ??s preservation as articulated in this

biblical passage. As we seek to survive despite the increasingly dangerous

challenges that confront and surround us, we should use every tool possible

for finding the truth. Each discipline that is brought to bear upon this

task of finding truth contains perspectives and methodologies appropriate

to its particular approach. Science concerns itself primarily with facts

about the world, scriptural scholars with the meaning of texts, and reli-

gions with ethics, meaning, and values. Hence, a combined approach in

which science, religion, and textual critics combine forces in the spirit of

John Taylorâ??s embrace of truth may yield new perspectives and insights

into the narrative of Noah and the flood for LDS readers.

Furthermore, such a combined search will help us bring to life the

sorrows and hopes of a world struggling for decency and survival. Such an

open and honest search for truth, with its promise of survival, seems to be

a fundamental and necessary tenet of our religion. Without facts from science,

religion struggles for direction in its stewardship. Without the values

that are the essence of religion, science and economics may become

prisons of meaningless and heartless facts. If it is to succeed, the covenant

of life articulated in the Noah story must be honest to the fundamental

message of the text, guided by the light of science and inspired by the

music of religion.

(DIALOGUE: A JOURNAL OF MORMON THOUGHT, VOL. 40, NO. 3)

[katherine the great]

Agreed. A "local flood theory" seems reasonable and rational -- except when you use it as a rationale to explain the Genesis account of the Flood, an Ark and animals, then a local flood theory seems utterly preposterous as God could have merely warned Noah to flee the flood plain and go to higher ground, which is exaclty what God did (the warning part), but instead of fleeing, Noah got stuck building an ark, and gathering together species that didn't need saving or gathering.

I see it as a brilliant combination of real events and people combined with an existing memory of a catastrophic event told in a way that transmits a powerful spiritual lesson.

[Tchild2]

I see it as a brilliant combination of real events and people combined with an existing memory of a catastrophic event told in a way that transmits a powerful spiritual lesson.

I agree. An allegorical rendering or a past historical flood still embodied in the collective unconscious and shaped to teach lessons on the human condition is so much simpler and poetic, than a clunky literal reading. The best part is that it would never conflict with science and still retain its powerful message.

[Flyonthewall]

Why does the story of the flood have to be concrete in some direction? Why can't it just be on the back burner until the Lord reveals the why's and how's of the story? If it turns out to be real, and accomplished by some very complex and supernatural effors of God, then so be it. If it turns out to be a parable-esque story, then we can still learn something from it. If it was a local event, so be it. Any way it turns out, there is a point to be learned for our better-ment.

[katherine the great]

Why does the story of the flood have to be concrete in some direction? Why can't it just be on the back burner until the Lord reveals the why's and how's of the story? If it turns out to be real, and accomplished by some very complex and supernatural effors of God, then so be it. If it turns out to be a parable-esque story, then we can still learn something from it. If it was a local event, so be it. Any way it turns out, there is a point to be learned for our better-ment.

True. It really is only problematic for some people. For those who believe it is necessary to believe it word for word, it is better to ignore all scientific evidence to the contrary.

[cinepro]

Why does the story of the flood have to be concrete in some direction? Why can't it just be on the back burner until the Lord reveals the why's and how's of the story? If it turns out to be real, and accomplished by some very complex and supernatural effors of God, then so be it. If it turns out to be a parable-esque story, then we can still learn something from it. If it was a local event, so be it. Any way it turns out, there is a point to be learned for our better-ment.

I agree. The only problem would then be having leaders of a Church who can't tell the difference, but think they can.

[lwyatt]

Sorry that I didn't answer some of you before today, I was away from my computer over the weekend, so there wasn't anyway that I could answer.

For those who have said that if the Bible is inaccurate that we should just throw it out, and that we should stop listening to the prophets because they cannot tell the difference, I would like to say one thing read the Articles of Faith. It says there that we beleve the Bible to be the word of God insofar as it is translated correctly. Notice that it doesn't say that we believe the Bible to be the complete, and total word of God without error or innaccuracy? If there was no error or innaccuracy, then why the need for a restoration (as we Mormon's believe)?

All I was stating was that over the past few THOUSAND years there was bound to be some mistakes that crept in. It is only human nature. Like I said earlier it happens with that game telephone. People have acknowledged that there were errors in other translation processes or other documents (heck linguists are always arguing over such differences), so why would any rational person believe that it would be different with the Bible? All one has to do to see that there are differences in translations, and stories is to look at a book store and see how many different versions of the Bible there are. Another great hint would be to look at the Torah and compare it to the Christian Old Testament. Are the Flood stories exactly the same? If not, why not?

For those who have said that the world wide spreading of the flood myths make no big deal, or don't prove anything conclusively. THink about this, if there was a flood that wiped away most of humanity wouldn't it stand to reason that the decendents of those who survived all have the same, or remarkably similar (again accounting for those nasty little things called time and human nature) myths and legends?

I have never said that there was conclusive, concrete "scientific" evidence that proved there was a global flood. I understand that there is contrary evidence, I am just recognizing the fact that there is evidence that supports that it could have happened.

About the time frame. I coul dbe wrong, and this is what I believe I remember from being taught in seminary or something, but there was roughly 2000 years between Adam and Noah. 2000 years between Noah and Moses. 2000 years between Moses and Christ, and surprise surprise, 2000 years between Christ and us today. That would be roughly 8,000 years if the Bible is taken literally. I could be wrong on the math, but the point is still the same I believe. 2,000 years is a long time to get everything 100 % exactly right by passing things down verbally (which I think that I everyone agrees happened prior to Moses writting everything down). Heck, people are getting upset nowadays because we have a president or congress that is not going along with what they were saying 8 years ago. Come on people, lets show a little consistency here why don't we?

In conclusion, while I may have been providing some of what was asked for, I find it interesting that people were holding my arguments to a different standard than they would anyone, or anything else. Why is that?

[cinepro]

For those who have said that if the Bible is inaccurate that we should just throw it out, and that we should stop listening to the prophets because they cannot tell the difference, I would like to say one thing read the Articles of Faith. It says there that we beleve the Bible to be the word of God insofar as it is translated correctly. Notice that it doesn't say that we believe the Bible to be the complete, and total word of God without error or innaccuracy? If there was no error or innaccuracy, then why the need for a restoration (as we Mormon's believe)?

We aren't discussing "The Bible". We are discussing 3 chapters in Genesis which have been repeatedly and consistently misinterpreted by modern day apostles and prophets.

What if I told you that in a addition to getting the flood story really, really wrong, the Bible also got the story of Jesus's life and ministry really, really wrong, and our modern leaders didn't know this? What if it turns out that Jesus's atonement was limited in scope and not worldwide as the scriptures imply, and our leaders didn't know the difference? Wouldn't that be a surprise!

Coincidentally, The Book of Mormon has errors and inaccuracies as well; do you feel there is a need for an additional restoration?

All I was stating was that over the past few THOUSAND years there was bound to be some mistakes that crept in. It is only human nature. Like I said earlier it happens with that game telephone. People have acknowledged that there were errors in other translation processes or other documents (heck linguists are always arguing over such differences), so why would any rational person believe that it would be different with the Bible? All one has to do to see that there are differences in translations, and stories is to look at a book store and see how many different versions of the Bible there are. Another great hint would be to look at the Torah and compare it to the Christian Old Testament. Are the Flood stories exactly the same? If not, why not?

I agree. The issue isn't whether there are huge mistakes in the Bible. I agree with you that there are. The issue is whether LDS leaders are a good source of information about what is correct and what is incorrect about the Bible. Apparently, they aren't.

Based on your interpretation of the flood story, I'm not sure I'm going to take your word for what a rational person will or won't accept about the Bible. No offense intended.

For those who have said that the world wide spreading of the flood myths make no big deal, or don't prove anything conclusively. THink about this, if there was a flood that wiped away most of humanity wouldn't it stand to reason that the decendents of those who survived all have the same, or remarkably similar (again accounting for those nasty little things called time and human nature) myths and legends?

That is certainly one possibility, but isn't it kind of putting the cart before the horse to suggest that a bunch of other myths all combine to support your myth? Is there some guy in Mongolia arguing that the Biblical account of the flood provides iron-clad evidence for their flood myths?

While the multitude of different flood myths may suggest that the Biblical account is the true account, they may also argue for something more mundane...like...maybe people experience floods all over the world, and these floods find themselves as a part of their stories and mythology?

I have never said that there was conclusive, concrete "scientific" evidence that proved there was a global flood. I understand that there is contrary evidence, I am just recognizing the fact that there is evidence that supports that it could have happened.

If you take away the Biblical account, there really isn't any evidence. Sure, you may be able to suggest there was a flood in that general area of the world at some time in the past, but that isn't what the Biblical account is saying. And all the "evidence" fails to address any of the unique and relevant aspects of the story from a biological or geological angle. No one believes in Noah's flood because of "evidence". They believe in it because the Bible tells the story, and then they try to support that believe by stretching anything they can find to fit as "evidence".

About the time frame. I coul dbe wrong, and this is what I believe I remember from being taught in seminary or something, but there was roughly 2000 years between Adam and Noah. 2000 years between Noah and Moses. 2000 years between Moses and Christ, and surprise surprise, 2000 years between Christ and us today. That would be roughly 8,000 years if the Bible is taken literally. I could be wrong on the math, but the point is still the same I believe. 2,000 years is a long time to get everything 100 % exactly right by passing things down verbally (which I think that I everyone agrees happened prior to Moses writting everything down). Heck, people are getting upset nowadays because we have a president or congress that is not going along with what they were saying 8 years ago. Come on people, lets show a little consistency here why don't we?

Here's the currently promoted timeline from the Church Educational System:

Old Testament Chronology

Jesus told Joseph Smith that the Earth would have a temporal existence of 7,000 years, with the last 1,000 being the millenium. So the fall of Adam was about 4,000 BC, the flood was about 2350 BC, Jesus came around 0 BC, and obviously we're about 2,000 years after that.

You can also see how the Church feels about the scope and effects of the flood in that timeline (as well as who was there when the Jaredites and Lehites landed; i.e., nobody). I wonder if the thinking on this subject has changed appreciably since the manual was last updated?

In conclusion, while I may have been providing some of what was asked for, I find it interesting that people were holding my arguments to a different standard than they would anyone, or anything else. Why is that?

No, your arguments are being held to the same standard as anyone else's.

[lwyatt]

We aren't discussing "The Bible". We are discussing 3 chapters in Genesis which have been repeatedly and consistently misinterpreted by modern day apostles and prophets.

What if I told you that in a addition to getting the flood story really, really wrong, the Bible also got the story of Jesus's life and ministry really, really wrong, and our modern leaders didn't know this? What if it turns out that Jesus's atonement was limited in scope and not worldwide as the scriptures imply, and our leaders didn't know the difference? Wouldn't that be a surprise!

We are talking about 3 chapters in Genesis, which is in the Bible.

No it really wouldn't be a surprise since there is always more room for revelation. We do not, nor have not, had every thing about Christ's life laid out before us. This is part of the reason that there was a restoration.

Coincidentally, The Book of Mormon has errors and inaccuracies as well; do you feel there is a need for an additional restoration?

It may surprise you, but yes. I would also argue that there is in Mormon theology that exact statement. We do profess that 2/3 of the Book of Mormon was sealed, and that the world was/is not ready for it's release as of yet. Would this not constitute a "restoration" of lost scripture?

I agree. The issue isn't whether there are huge mistakes in the Bible. I agree with you that there are. The issue is whether LDS leaders are a good source of information about what is correct and what is incorrect about the Bible. Apparently, they aren't. Based on your interpretation of the flood story, I'm not sure I'm going to take your word for what a rational person will or won't accept about the Bible. No offense intended.

None taken. I just think it's amussing is all.

Amazing how, if you accept the premise of on going revelation, that this particular issue becomes a non-argument. The same thing could be said of the various prophets throughout history. Elijha (I think it was him) was nothing but a crackpot who saw some ball lightning when he described the "Chariot's of Fire. " Jacob must have had a bad reaction to some goat's milk when he saw the "Ladder" to heaven. John the revelator must have eaten some bad mushrooms when he wrote Revelations. After all, these would be the more "rational" explanation wouldn't they?

That is certainly one possibility, but isn't it kind of putting the cart before the horse to suggest that a bunch of other myths all combine to support your myth? Is there some guy in Mongolia arguing that the Biblical account of the flood provides iron-clad evidence for their flood myths?

See the above, for some more indepth comments about particular myths.

At the same time, the argument could be made that you are doing the same thing by discounting (or ignoring) conflicting information that does not go along with your conclusion.

I am not saying that I know what has gone on. I am not saying that my church's leaders are infallable (heaven knows that they are). I AM saying that I have not heard a single prophet (the only one who has the authority to speak for the Lord, or to provide revelation for the Church as a whole, say anything along the lines of "THUS SAYETH THE LORD..."

I have read things posted here where it was said Joseph Smith said this, or Brigham Young said that, or some other church leader said this. I have not seen anything that supports the argument "The prophet speaking as a prophet says...".

Along those lines, and using that argument, you are saying that EVERYTHING in the Bible should be discounted because they did not get it gramatically or scientifically accurate by TODAY's standards.

While the multitude of different flood myths may suggest

Which is all that I was saying, suggest.

that the Biblical account is the true account, they may also argue for something more mundane...like...maybe people experience floods all over the world, and these floods find themselves as a part of their stories and mythology?

It could, but I (personally) find it interesting that these stories are all relegated to the area of myth because there is an aspect of the divine in it, wouldn't you?

If you take away the Biblical account, there really isn't any evidence.

Why must you take away the Biblical account? Seriously, why? I am not trying to discount conflicting information to what I believe, I am simply willing admit that I, and other's, do not know everything that may have happened at that time. I am personally saying that I just don't know everything.

Sure, you may be able to suggest there was a flood in that general area of the world at some time in the past, but that isn't what the Biblical account is saying. And all the "evidence" fails to address any of the unique and relevant aspects of the story from a biological or geological angle. No one believes in Noah's flood because of "evidence". They believe in it because the Bible tells the story, and then they try to support that believe by stretching anything they can find to fit as "evidence".

I am not saying that evidence alone is going to determine what a person believes in. There are aspects of life though that cannot be answered by purely empirical or scientific statements. My personal believe is that science explains the purely mechanical process of HOW God does whatever it is that He does.

There is two quotes that I love, one by (I think) Carl Sagan, and the other by Paul of Tarsis. The first is that any sufficiently advanced society is going to look like magic to those not as advanced. The second is that "Faith is the belief in things not seen."

I personally do not need to know the absolute answers to everything RIGHT NOW. At one time, I did and acted accordingly. That way led to some extreme pain and heartache. I may not know the answers completely, but I do know that one day the answers will come.

Here's the currently promoted timeline from the Church Educational System:

Notice that third word: Currently. Things tend to change over time, particularly through the use of revelation.

Old Testament Chronology

Jesus told Joseph Smith that the Earth would have a temporal existence of 7,000 years, with the last 1,000 being the millenium. So the fall of Adam was about 4,000 BC, the flood was about 2350 BC, Jesus came around 0 BC, and obviously we're about 2,000 years after that.

By that logic, and statement we should have a fairly accurate idea of when the Lord should be returning to the Earth. That would be around the year 283x. I would disagree with this interpretation, since there are other scriptures that says the Lord's time is not the same as our time, as well as that no one knows when the Lord is going to return, and that he will be returning like a thief in the night.

You can also see how the Church feels about the scope and effects of the flood in that timeline (as well as who was there when the Jaredites and Lehites landed; i.e., nobody). I wonder if the thinking on this subject has changed appreciably since the manual was last updated?

No, your arguments are being held to the same standard as anyone else's.

No, they haven't been. Typically, my statements have been considered (when they have been) considered abusurd adn idiotic by some out there. What information that I presented was discounted as being irrelevant, as no big whoop, or not relevant to the current discussion - often for no better reason that it was from widely scattered areas around the world.

Typically, from what I understand of the rules of debate, it is not allowed to call another's arguments or evidence's idiotic, or absurud. Particularly, when someone provides modern equivalents to somethign that MAY have happened over centuries and millenia. In fact, I believe that Darwin did that in that book "Evolution of the Species" which caused him so much trouble.

[cinepro]

We are talking about 3 chapters in Genesis, which is in the Bible.

No it really wouldn't be a surprise since there is always more room for revelation.

Oddly, you don't seem to be defending the Bible, or modern Church leaders' statements.

I agree with you that the Bible is probably wrong about the flood, and that modern leaders have been mistaken when they state it was a literal, worldwide event. So there's not much to debate on that subject. We agree. My disagreement is with those who believe there was a literal, worldwide flood, or those who would argue that the idea of a local flood is compatible with the Genesis account (including God's rainbow covenant).

I'm open to future evidence for a local or worldwide flood, and until that evidence presents itself, I'll go with the most likely explanation that the Bible story is nothing more than a superstition meant to explain where rainbows come from. Hopefully, the geologists and apologists in the Church can get word to SLC about this, so they can correct the CES manuals and clarify past statements (maybe even an OD3).