Do You Believe The â??biblical Accountâ?�?

[katherine the great]

We off into Cuckoo land now. I outa here.

Hold up! I'm coming with you!

[Tarski]

The irony is too much.

Sitting at a computer(one of the most scientifically, and technologically advanced devices ever invented by mankind), using the Internet(using some of the most scientifically and technological advanced concepts ever invented by mankind), all powered by electricity that is at best a Theory on the supposed flow of electrons that no one has ever seen.

Complaining about how horrible science and technology is. .com

On top of that, this modern internet is overrun by pseudo-science, conspiracy theories, and fundamentalism (and other kinds of immorality).

[dubhdara]

Good points, blackstrap.

Tarski:

On top of that, this modern internet is overrun by pseudo-science, conspiracy theories, and fundamentalism (and other kinds of immorality)

Maybe so, but it also has creationist, John Birch Society and the LDS Church websites etc. to make up for such flights of fancy

As to the Flood, I often wonder why one of the most obvious things is not pointed out - how could a local flood lift an Ark up out of the Americas and then plant it in the Middle East?

But back to topic...

I absolutely agree that we do not understand the details of the creation and we should not be dogmatic. My concern, however, is that most sympathetic toward evolution seem to not be open minded at all. They believe it because they disdain God or his power to do miracles. The Church does not have an official position on many things - though it certainly has said enough for me to believe that the scriptures can be taken quite (if not quite 100%) literally; even most literal events have a symbolic meaning but I doubt there are too many purely figurative. As to Church statements in the positive:

"...if God made man - the first man - in His own image and likeness, he must have made him like unto Christ, and consequently like unto men of Christ's time and of the present day...this is just as true of the spirit as it is of the body..and the spirits of all creatures are in the likeness of their bodies...Adam, our great progenitor...took upon himself an appropriate body...It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth, and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men. The word of the Lord declares that Adam was "the first man of all men" (Moses 1:34), and we are therefore in duty bound to regard him as the primal parent of our race....Man began life as a human being, in the likeness of our heavenly Father....Never, unaided, will [man] discover the truth about the beginning of life. The Lord must reveal Himself, or remain unrevealed." (The First Presidency, 1909)

And yet I read that some LDS believe in the evolution of man. How can they is regard to such a statement? Indeed, read carefully, I wonder how an animal evolution can be considered.

As to speciation - is it not true that fish genes cannot create a lizard? A fish can never become a lizard. But then we have the suggestion that maybe genes mutate. But is it not true that evidence has only shown mutations to be either (and mostly) harmful - deleting genetic data - or neutral. Such mutations are the cause of many modern diseases we suffer from, but who ever caught such a condition that was an improvement? Surely if the claims of evolutionist were correct in this regard we would be able to observe it clearly?

[blackstrap]

MM you note the Scablands and say that geologists " know " that catastrophies can affect large areas. The problem is that JH Bretz,who developed the Scablands theory, fought for 50 years to have that accepted by mainstream geologists. They just "knew" that such large scale flooding was impossible and besides, the whole thing was a bit too Biblical.

[cinepro]

Here is the thing, however, continents also sink and rise. Their relative position is now believed to be upheld by heat in the underlying magma. If, for some reason, the magma becomes cooler the continent will sink to lower levels. The North American continent, for example, is help up at its current height above sea level because of the convection of heat from the directly underlying magma.

We know from the Bible that large earthquakes were also said to be happening after the waters rose to a certain level for two reasons. One of them is that the Bible as we currently have it stated that the fountains of the deep were broken up. The other text (do not recall which one but I think it is in Jeremiah) flatly states that the world shook during these times. Sounds to me like there was more going on than mere flooding but a shuffling of things around.

Suppose that continents actually had cooling waters dropped down into the magma through the broken crustal rock caused by large earthquakes in a number of locations. Do you not suppose that a continent or two might sink somewhat, making the water levels appear to be rising more than they actually were? Over a period the heat of the magma would lift the continent gradually and cause a receding of waters. Gradual processes do not result in the leaving behind of catastrophic evidence.

My personal view is that there are many overlapping processes at work here. Since we were not there to see it, I suppose that we all are stuck with speculation on both sides, eh?

Your still talking about a local flood, which is already so wrought with problems it's hardly worth.

If you believe that could happen and still be undetectable to geologists, more power to you. Whatever it takes I suppose. Whatever it takes.

[JarMan]

I believe the biblical account of the flood. But I don't believe the biblical account tells of a global flood. To me it is clear that the flood described in Genesis is a local flood. And I don't think it is doctrine that the flood was global.

[cjcampbell]

I am not a creationist in the usual sense of the word, but I do believe the Biblical account of Noah's flood. I think that the earth had to be baptized in order to achieve a celestial glory, just as we must.

[cinepro]

I believe the biblical account of the flood. But I don't believe the biblical account tells of a global flood. To me it is clear that the flood described in Genesis is a local flood. And I don't think it is doctrine that the flood was global.

Can you explain what the covenant was between God and Noah if the flood were localized?

Genesis 98

[dubhdara]

I think we may all do well to review the Creation excerpt (especially the Points to Ponder which quotes heavily from the works of Professor Coffin) from the Old Testament CES manual. Now, this is a manual approved by the Church I hasten to add...

http://www.ldsces.org/inst_manuals/ot-in-1...n1-02-gen-a.htm

quote: “Constant exposure to one theory of origins, and only one, has convinced many that no alternative exists and that evolution must be the full and complete answer. How unfortunate that most of the millions who pass through the educational process have little opportunity to weigh the evidences on both sides!

“Examinations of the fossils, stony records of the past, tell us that complicated living things suddenly (without warning, so to speak) began to exist on the earth. Furthermore, time has not modified them enough to change their basic relationships to each other. Modern living organisms tell us that change is a feature of life and time, but they also tell us that there are limits beyond which they do not pass naturally and beyond which man has been unable to force them. In consideration of past or present living things, man must never forget that he is dealing with life, a profoundly unique force which he has not been able to create and which he is trying desperately to understand.

“Here are the facts; here are the evidences; here, then, are the sound reasons for believing life originated through a creative act. It is time that each individual has the opportunity to know the facts and to make an intelligent choice.”

quote: The Flood and subsequent cataclysms drastically changed the topography and geography of the earth. The descendants of Noah evidently named some rivers, and perhaps other landmarks, after places they had known before the Flood. This theory would explain why rivers in Mesopotamia now bear the names of rivers originally on the American continent.

[spinner]

For people who believe the Genesis account literally, who got the lousy job of going out into the world and collecting the following insects:

170,000 species of moths and butterflies

12,000 species of ants

20,000 species of grasshopper

350,000+ species of beetles

What about aquatic life? Freshwater animals and plants can't survive in saltwater and vice-versa. And if the earth was flooded, the oceans would have become too dilute for the saltwater species to survive, and the freshwater would also likely have become to salty for the survival of the freshwater species. So Noah's ark must have undoubtedly had a number of massive, temperature-controlled, aquarians to house mating couples of each type of aquatic life.

After the floods receded, of course, Noah's job was still only half done, as he then had to return all of these species to their native continents. For that reason I suspect that it went unrecorded that Noah also had a small fleet of swift mini-arks to get all of the animals back to their home continents, and these swift-arks probably came equipped with a with range of transport vehicles to get the animals from the ark to the land--not unlike our US Marine Corps' amphibious assault ships.

Truly the ark was a marvel! If it didn't say it happened right there in Genesis, I would think the whole story too far-fetched to be true.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I do not accept the literalness of the flood nor more than I accept the possibility of a talking ***

Leave the talking *** (donkey) alone. I work with one. I know it can happen.

[Honorentheos]

I work with one. I know it can happen.

Don't we all? And if you don't, well, you know what they say if you can't point out which one of your friends is the ugly one...

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Geologists know that catastrophism is sometimes in evidence, as in the Scablands of Washington, caused by a catastrophic event

Mentioned twice can someone supply link so I can see what you are talking about.

[Honorentheos]

Mentioned twice can someone supply link so I can see what you are talking about.

Here is one- Scablands and Megafloods

There was a pretty good show about this issue on the discovery channel. I saw it again this weekend actually. They are still making discoveries regarding the formation of the scab lands, and as we speak there are researchers digging around to find out more information. One of the current issues is that it appears that more than one mega flood was responsible for the scablands, based on ash layers from Mount St. Helens that are found between some of the layers of silt left by the flows. Current estimates is that there may be an interval of 10,000 years between the first mega-flood and the last one. So any current thinking on the matter is likely to be stale in a few years.

[Honorentheos]

Actually, turns out it was an episode of Nova. Here is a link-

Nova Site

[JarMan]

What does that covenant mean if the flood was localized?

I don't know. Maybe you can help me out by explaining what the covenant means if the flood is global.

[cinepro]

I don't know. Maybe you can help me out by explaining what the covenant means if the flood is global.

No, I can't help you out by explaining it. I'm not a prophet, or the scriptures. Here's the covenant:

Genesis 9

God shall not again destroy the earth by a flood

8

[JarMan]

No, I can't help you out by explaining it. I'm not a prophet, or the scriptures. Here's the covenant:

Ok. You're sitting in Gospel Doctrine class. The teacher turns to you, and says Brother JarMan, what was the Lord covenanting not to do?

How do you respond?

If we take the words literally, I think it's pretty clear what the covenant is. But I think where we get hung up is on the word "all". Consider chapter 6 of Genesis. It's clear that "all" doesn't always literally mean "all" as used several times in this chapter.

1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,

2 That the asons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they btook them cwives of all which they chose.

3 And the Lord said, My aspirit shall not always bstrive with man, for that he also is cflesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

4 There were agiants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

5

[JarMan]

For those who think the flood was global, how did the animals fit on the ark? If the answer is that God did something that would normally be impossible, then why bring the animals aboard in the first place. Couldn't God have wiped out the wicked without destroying the animals? Couldn't he have brought them to Kolob to live for a year or so? Why must the animals have boarded the ark to be saved when an all-powerful God could have saved them anyway?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

For those who think the flood was global, how did the animals fit on the ark? If the answer is that God did something that would normally be impossible, then why bring the animals aboard in the first place. Couldn't God have wiped out the wicked without destroying the animals? Couldn't he have brought them to Kolob to live for a year or so? Why must the animals have boarded the ark to be saved when an all-powerful God could have saved them anyway?

I'll ask when I see him...

[cinepro]

For those who think the flood was global, how did the animals fit on the ark? If the answer is that God did something that would normally be impossible, then why bring the animals aboard in the first place. Couldn't God have wiped out the wicked without destroying the animals? Couldn't he have brought them to Kolob to live for a year or so? Why must the animals have boarded the ark to be saved when an all-powerful God could have saved them anyway?

An ark wouldn't be needed to save animals from a local flood either. You might have a few species of insects that are only found in the specific area to be flooded, and don't have the wherewithal for God to inspire a few to migrate to higher ground for a year; it probably wouldn't be too many. I seriously doubt there is a middle-eastern local-flood plain with more than a few such isolated species. Instead of an Ark, Noah probably could have put all the endangered species into his pocket with room to spare for a pita and some hummus.

And keeping in mind that the Bible gives the flood a depth of 15 cubits (about 22 feet), the endangered animals just needed to get to the nearest mountain range with a height greater than 22 feet to stay out of the flood waters. That would actually have worked for Noah and his family too.

Truly, God works in mysterious ways.

[T-Shirt]

And keeping in mind that the Bible gives the flood a depth of 15 cubits (about 22 feet), the endangered animals just needed to get to the nearest mountain range with a height greater than 22 feet to stay out of the flood waters. That would actually have worked for Noah and his family too.

Truly, God works in mysterious ways.

Good grief! Sometimes I think you are rather bright and clever, and at other times you seem to be so clueless. I don't know if, this time, you are truly clueless, feigning ignorance or hoping that others are too ignorant to know any better, in order to further your work of mockery.

I am quite certain that you are perfectly aware that the verses to which you are referring mean that the water was fifteen cubits above the mountain tops. If not, then that would partly explain your problem.

Nevertheless, I am completely aware that even if you concede your ignorance on this matter, scratching this one item off your list of talking points will not deter your mission, there are plenty more items on your list yet to work with.

Best,

T-Shirt

[JarMan]

An ark wouldn't be needed to save animals from a local flood either. You might have a few species of insects that are only found in the specific area to be flooded, and don't have the wherewithal for God to inspire a few to migrate to higher ground for a year; it probably wouldn't be too many. I seriously doubt there is a middle-eastern local-flood plain with more than a few such isolated species. Instead of an Ark, Noah probably could have put all the endangered species into his pocket with room to spare for a pita and some hummus.

And keeping in mind that the Bible gives the flood a depth of 15 cubits (about 22 feet), the endangered animals just needed to get to the nearest mountain range with a height greater than 22 feet to stay out of the flood waters. That would actually have worked for Noah and his family too.

Truly, God works in mysterious ways.

I don't think Noah needed the ark to save the animals from extinction. I think he needed to save the animals so that he had something to eat after the flood. That's why he needed seven of the clean ones, I would guess.

[Sevenbak]

Good grief! Sometimes I think you are rather bright and clever, and at other times you seem to be so clueless. I don't know if, this time, you are truly clueless, feigning ignorance or hoping that others are too ignorant to know any better, in order to further your work of mockery.

I am quite certain that you are perfectly aware that the verses to which you are referring mean that the water was fifteen cubits above the mountain tops. If not, then that would partly explain your problem.

Nevertheless, I am completely aware that even if you concede your ignorance on this matter, scratching this one item off your list of talking points will not deter your mission, there are plenty more items on your list yet to work with.

Best,

T-Shirt

Don't forget these two.

Ps. 104: 6. Thou coveredst it with the deep as with a garment: the waters stood above the mountains.

2 Pet. 3: 6. Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

[Sevenbak]

An ark wouldn't be needed to save animals from a local flood either. You might have a few species of insects that are only found in the specific area to be flooded, and don't have the wherewithal for God to inspire a few to migrate to higher ground for a year; it probably wouldn't be too many. I seriously doubt there is a middle-eastern local-flood plain with more than a few such isolated species. Instead of an Ark, Noah probably could have put all the endangered species into his pocket with room to spare for a pita and some hummus.

And keeping in mind that the Bible gives the flood a depth of 15 cubits (about 22 feet), the endangered animals just needed to get to the nearest mountain range with a height greater than 22 feet to stay out of the flood waters. That would actually have worked for Noah and his family too.

Truly, God works in mysterious ways.

If it was indeed just a local flood, that's one BIIIIIIIG local flood.

Ether 13: 2 For behold, they rejected all the words of Ether; for he truly told them of all things, from the beginning of man; and that after the waters had receded from off the face of this land it became a choice land above all other lands, a chosen land of the Lord; wherefore the Lord would have that all men should serve him who dwell upon the face thereof;