Does Genesis Teach a Worldwide Flood

[Uncertain]

D&C 20:74 pretty clearly does that.

Hi Maklelan,

Fair enough, I think D&C 20:74 clearly teaches baptism by immersion. For that matter I think baptism by immersion is clearly taught any number of places in the standard works. This is entirely besides the point. I was attempting to point out "binding" interpretations of scripture (like baptism by immersion) are rarely if every prefaced by "God told me this interpretation is correct by revelation". Therefore if your criteria for "binding" interpretations is an explicit statement that a given interpretation is supported by revelation by a united twelve and first presidency very few if any LDS teachings would qualify as "doctrine".

The Word of Wisdom is an obligation of membership, not a doctrine.

Does the LDS church teach the Word of Wisdom is direction from God? Is the Word of Wisdom based on scripture found in the D&C? When explaining what the Word of Wisdom means as found in the D&C with regards to the obligation of members was there a united statement from the twelve and the first presidency claiming their interpretation of the D&C was given by revelation? Whether or not the WOW is defined as "doctrine" has nothing to do with the point I was making. What is important is that the WOW is binding period on church members. Is a member free to reinterpret the WOW to allow alcoholic drinks because there is no united statement from the brethren that their interpretation is supported by revelation?

Interpretations of scripture are found frequently in the standard works.

Yes but who is responsible to ensure the interpretations of interpretations in the scriptures are interpreted correctly ?

Now I am curious do you think the only binding interpretations of scripture by the brethren are those interpretations in which the brethren in unity claim were supported by revelation?

[cinepro]

If you please, I'm trying to figure out how people understand the Genesis account in such a way that they aren't "convinced":

Taken altogether, [the Genesis account] should convince every believer in the Bible that the great Deluge was a worldwide event, not a localized flood that filled only the Mesopotamian or some other region.

The general impression I get is that Brother Parry (and the Church in general) have erred in taking the account too "literally", misunderstanding the scope of Noah's story as told by the author, and perhaps relying too much on the English translation (admittedly, an odd error for a professor of Hebrew to make...?).

[volgadon]

If you please, I'm trying to figure out how people understand the Genesis account in such a way that they aren't "convinced":

The general impression I get is that Brother Parry (and the Church in general) have erred in taking the account too "literally", misunderstanding the scope of Noah's story as told by the author, and perhaps relying too much on the English translation (admittedly, an odd error for a professor of Hebrew to make...?).

The Hebrew bears him out on this, that is not the issue.

For the record, I am a believer in a global flood.

[maklelan]

Hi Maklelan,

Fair enough, I think D&C 20:74 clearly teaches baptism by immersion. For that matter I think baptism by immersion is clearly taught any number of places in the standard works. This is entirely besides the point. I was attempting to point out "binding" interpretations of scripture (like baptism by immersion) are rarely if every prefaced by "God told me this interpretation is correct by revelation". Therefore if your criteria for "binding" interpretations is an explicit statement that a given interpretation is supported by revelation by a united twelve and first presidency very few if any LDS teachings would qualify as "doctrine".

That's not quite what I was getting at. The Bible is a conflicted text with a long, long history of interpretation. We can know for sure that the restored gospel advocates a specific reading if modern revelation explicitly does so. You're right that it's not always black and white, though. For instance, some have pointed to D&C 121:10 as a confirmation of the existence of Job. I disagree that the scripture confirms that, just as I disagree that D&C 20:1 actually indicates the exact day on which Christ was born.

Does the LDS church teach the Word of Wisdom is direction from God?

Direction? Yes. Commandment? Not originally, and nothing subsequent has established it as official doctrine. It is a condition of membership, though.

Is the Word of Wisdom based on scripture found in the D&C? When explaining what the Word of Wisdom means as found in the D&C with regards to the obligation of members was there a united statement from the twelve and the first presidency claiming their interpretation of the D&C was given by revelation? Whether or not the WOW is defined as "doctrine" has nothing to do with the point I was making. What is important is that the WOW is binding period on church members. Is a member free to reinterpret the WOW to allow alcoholic drinks because there is no united statement from the brethren that their interpretation is supported by revelation?

They are free if they wish, but since a condition of baptism is to agree to live the Word of Wisdom as delineated by church leaders, the person would be violating those conditions.

Yes but who is responsible to ensure the interpretations of interpretations in the scriptures are interpreted correctly ?

That's where the lack of a systematic theology comes into play. On the essentials, unity, etc.

Now I am curious do you think the only binding interpretations of scripture by the brethren are those interpretations in which the brethren in unity claim were supported by revelation?

Binding terms are those outlined in the standard works and in official proclamations and declarations, which are accepted as revealed truth. As the church's highest authority, the church High Council may administratively enforce their interpretations of the standard works, but since the church's High Council has turnover, those administrative decisions can change. Canonization guarantees the perpetuity of such interpretations and decisions, and is the functional equivalent of declaring it revelation (if it's not explicitly done).

[Zakuska]

The Hebrew bears him out on this, that is not the issue.

For the record, I am a believer in a global flood.

After hearing about the Authors of the OT giving Goliath the Armor of a 6th Century Greek Soldier (DOH?!) Instead of the leather Armor of the Soldiers of his time, I have to wonder if, Perhaps there are quite a few interpolations of Man in the flood story as well.

The fact that the author takes the time to point out how high the water was above all the Mountain tops raises red flags for me. How did Noah know? Did he drop the plumb line and measure the fathoms each day?

I mean Even Eve in the Garden embellishes her story a little for dramatic effect. To me it stinks of Scribal tampering to make the story more interesting and readable.

[maklelan]

If you please, I'm trying to figure out how people understand the Genesis account in such a way that they aren't "convinced":

I think this thread is clearly more rhetoric than curiosity. I explained my position. Why no response?

The general impression I get is that Brother Parry (and the Church in general) have erred in taking the account too "literally", misunderstanding the scope of Noah's story as told by the author, and perhaps relying too much on the English translation (admittedly, an odd error for a professor of Hebrew to make...?).

Dr. Parry has a very conservative background and a very conservative view of scripture. The modern church has inherited a similar view from its preceding generations. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but the church avoids taking an official stance on many issues like this because, I believe, it recognizes the need to be discrete concerning issues about which we don't have any clear revealed direction.

I think it's time to quit patronizing people about their position vis-a-vis Dr. Parry. It's quite juvenile.

[volgadon]

After hearing about the Authors of the OT giving Goliath the Armor of a 6th Century Greek Soldier (DOH?!) Instead of the leather Armor of the Soldiers of his time,

I don't know that that is neccesarily wrong, the Philistines it seems were Aegean and think it could equally refer to their rare armour.

[Zakuska]

I don't know that that is neccesarily wrong, the Philistines it seems were Aegean and think it could equally refer to their rare armour.

I of course was refering to the the ever changing ideas of Archeologists and their recent discovery of what they think is Gath as depicted on the Late night Discovery Channel show with all the talking heads arguing back and forth on the subject.

Goliath was a giant soldier from Gath in ancient Palestine, according to a famous story in the biblical book 1 Samuel. The 17th chapter describes an armed clash between the Philistines, led by Goliath, and the army of Israel. Despite Goliath's intimidating size, the unlikely Judean boy-hero David meets him on the field of battle. David slings a fatal stone that hits the giant between the eyes and fells him. David beheads the fallen Goliath, Israel wins in a rout and David goes on to become king. In sports, politics, business and other arenas, a competition between seemingly mismatched opponents is sometimes described as "David and Goliath" or "David versus Goliath."

In 2005, archaelogists at the likely site of Gath found the word "Goliath" inscribed in an ancient language on a pottery shard... According to the King James version of the Bible, Goliath's height was "six cubits and a span" -- roughly three meters, or more than nine feet, in modern terms.

...

Goliath and the Greeks

In 2004 Azzan Yadin suggested that the armour described in 1 Samuel 17 is typical of Greek armour of the 6th century BC rather than of Philistine armour of the 10th century, and that narrative formulae such as the settlement of battle by single combat between champions is characteristic of the Homeric epics (the Iliad) but not of the ancient Near East. Yadin also suggested that the designation of Goliath as a ??? ???????,

[maklelan]

After hearing about the Authors of the OT giving Goliath the Armor of a 6th Century Greek Soldier (DOH?!) Instead of the leather Armor of the Soldiers of his time, I have to wonder if, Perhaps there are quite a few interpolations of Man in the flood story as well.

Ah, Yadin's 2004 VT article. Leather has nothing to do with Philistine armor, by the way. I like Yadin's idea about monomaxia, but basing firm conclusions about 11th century Philistine armor on the bas reliefs of early 12th century Medinet Habu is a little bit of a reach. He also rejects the helmets, scale armor, greaves, and shield bearer as indicative of Homeric influence, but these are all elements of Neo-Assyrian warfare, which is the context I would put the redaction of 1 Samuel in.

[volgadon]

One of the major clues is their distinctive pottery, but if you PMor email me, me I'll send you some material.

[Zakuska]

This was also intresting from my link...

Goliath (g?l?'?th), in the Bible, a giant of Gath, a Philistine city, who challenged the Israelites. The young David, fortified by faith, accepted the challenge and killed him with a stone from a sling. In 2 Samuel it says that Elhanan killed Goliath, though 1 Chronicles says Elhanan killed Lahmi the brother of Goliath. The Authorized Version edits 2 Samuel to agree with 1 Chronicles.

So was God in the Editing Process of the Ancient "God breathed" texts too? Wasn't it good enough the first time around? (Those were Rhetorical question BTW)

[maklelan]

I of course was refering to the the ever changing ideas of Archeologists and their recent discovery of what they think is Gath as depicted on the Late night Discovery Channel show with all the talking heads arguing back and forth on the subject.

A good friend of mine has dug at Tel es-Safi for the last three years with Jeff Chadwick and Aren Maeir. There are few archaeologists who reject Tel es-Safi as Gath.

You got a source on the Aegean connection I might wet my whistle on? That sounds like an intreguing angle to explore.

It's the consensus view on the origins of the Philistines. See here, here, and (most recently) here for a quick intro.

[maklelan]

This was also intresting from my link...

So was God in the Editing Process of the Ancient "God breathed" texts too? Wasn't it good enough the first time around?

Chronicles is a post-exilic text that often draws upon different sources than the Deuteronomic histories from the pre-exile. I also don't recall anyone claiming that biblical historical narrative is or ever was inerrant.

[volgadon]

We were down in that area recently, my mom was quite pleasently surprised that they have been excavating Tel e-Safi, as she remembers from her kibbutz Beit-Nir days that people suspected it as being Gath.

Zak, I just remebered a decent work on the Philisitnes and their origins, by Moshe and Trude Dothan. The People of the Sea.

Some of their conclusions are debatable, as with any archaeologist, and being husband and wife they fight about it themselves too, but it is a good start.

[volgadon]

Chronicles is a post-exilic text that often draws upon different sources than the Deuteronomic histories from the pre-exile. I also don't recall anyone claiming that biblical historical narrative is or ever was inerrant.

That was a dig at a recent inerrantist poster.

[maklelan]

We were down in that area recently, my mom was quite pleasently surprised that they have been excavating Tel e-Safi, as she remembers from her kibbutz Beit-Nir days that people suspected it as being Gath.

Zak, I just remebered a decent work on the Philisitnes and their origins, by Moshe and Trude Dothan. The People of the Sea.

Some of their conclusions are debatable, as with any archaeologist, and being husband and wife they fight about it themselves too, but it is a good start.

Aren has a blog for the dig and a website.

[Zakuska]

Chronicles is a post-exilic text that often draws upon different sources than the Deuteronomic histories from the pre-exile. I also don't recall anyone claiming that biblical historical narrative is or ever was inerrant.

Sorry Mak, I was being Facecious. The Evangelical RocMonkey in my sigline sure thinks its Innerrant.

Thanks for all the Links guys. This will keep me busy for some time.

[mfbukowski]

I'm thinking of the French, tout le mond, "All the world," when what is meant is everybody in the room.

And that is why this discussion would not happen in French.

[mfbukowski]

And the prize for the Most Cogent Short Answer goes to: (drumroll.....)

LOAP for this wonderful gem:

Given that the cosmology of the account is entirely different from the current scientifically accepted cosmology, I don't know that it is much of a meaningful question to ask whether it teaches a "global flood" because the very concept of "globe" itself isn't equivalent.

With runner up awards to those with linguistic/philological replies!

If you think of the context of Genesis as being Martian, you are probably still not far enough removed culturally from where we are today.

[Vance]

If I am not mistaken, God usually has His people flee into the wilderness before building the boat. If it wasn't going to be global, why not have Noah (and the animals) just flee "into the wilderness" so to speak, or high ground?

[USU78]

And that is why this discussion would not happen in French.

And thus we see that what JSJr kept saying is absolutely right:

Those who fight him are ignorant.

It's hard to have a cogent discussion with people who are so ignorant they don't know what they don't know.

[sunstoned]

The general impression I get is that Brother Parry (and the Church in general) have erred in taking the account too "literally", misunderstanding the scope of Noah's story as told by the author, and perhaps relying too much on the English translation (admittedly, an odd error for a professor of Hebrew to make...?).

I agree with your conclusions, but believe this will be a hard sale to make to your class. There is ample references of modern prophets confirming the idea of a global flood. This includes Joseph Smith. Chapel Mormons tend to take the worlds of their leaders seriously.

[Tsjoeva]

But some parts of the Hebrew Bible may indicate ??? can be used rhetorically. In Ruth 1:19, for instance, when Naomi returns to Bethlehem the texts says "the whole town (???????) was stirred up because of them, and they said (???????), 'Is this Naomi?'" The interesting part is that the verb for "and they said" is third feminine plural (???????). There's no indication of any subject change. Is "the whole town" exclusively feminine, or does "the whole town" really just mean all the women in the town? Something to consider.

Well you got a good point. But in this case Bethlehem wasn't a big city. It was a city with a few habitants. Everybody knew the house (or family) from Elimelech. And in this case Naomi is coming back alone with a goyim. A non-Israelite. In their eye's a pagan worshipper.

And when the word Kol, is used here. I think it is the whole city, Man and woman.

The kol, isn't used here in generally sentence... (like as an example we said in Holland: Everybody knows it, and when we investigate this, it are a few people who knows)

[maklelan]

Well you got a good point. But in this case Bethlehem wasn't a big city. It was a city with a few habitants. Everybody knew the house (or family) from Elimelech. And in this case Naomi is coming back alone with a goyim. And when the word Kol, is used here. I think it is the whole city, Man and woman.

The kol, isn't used here in generally sentence... (like as an example we said in Holland: Everybody knows it, and when we investigate this, it are a few people who knows)

But with ??? ???? as the antecedent, why is the verb in the feminine plural?

[Tsjoeva]

But with ??? ???? as the antecedent, why is the verb in the feminine plural?

[/quoute]

???????? ????-?????? ????????

Well like I read it ( I hope I translate it in English) well In came, all of the city, she concern about them.

: I can refer you to, the Jewish Targum where is write about Ruth 1:19:

The two of them went until they came to Beth Lehem. And it happened that when they came to Beth Lehem all the inhabitants of the city became excited over them and the women said, "Is this Naomi?"

The standard Jewish translation JPS: So they two went until they came to Beth-lehem. And it came to pass, when they were come to Beth-lehem, that all the city was astir concerning them, and the women said: