Does Genesis Teach a Worldwide Flood

[maklelan]

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:

[Uncertain]

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.

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

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.

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

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).

Hi Maklelan,

I have already been chastised by Cinepro for leading this thread astray so I will forbear. I appreciate your perspective the point I was trying to make is that doctrine does not exist independent of interpretation of scripture doctrine is in fact interpretation of revelation/scripture and that rarely do the brethren explicitly state their interpretation is supported by revelation. If I understand you correctly you agree on both counts in any case I will resist the temptation to go any further off topic.

[Mansquatch]

For me personally, I have not officially picked a side, as there are always a lot of good theories and possibilities. Since this is an unimportant matter and not relevant to salvation it is fun to shop around for ideas. I must say that right now I lean towards 'local' though and it is because of reading about Enoch.

When Enoch talked with God he was shown all the wicked people and told that they would be destroyed. Enoch asked "Wilt thou not bless the children of Noah?" with concern for their lives. We see God's reply: "And he sent forth an unalterable decree, that a remnant of his seed should always be found among all nations, while the earth should stand;"

If the decree had stated that, "all nations would be the remnant of his seed" it would tip me to 'global'. However, the Lord is reassuring Enoch that a "remnant of his seed" will be "among" the "nations". If all possible nations would have been Noah's seed anyway why would there be a concern? Hence my 'local' leaning.

Couple the above with the belief that scripture, and thus Genesis, is written "according to [the] understanding" of the author, as Mormon states, and it gives me more room to lean. I could be pushed back the other way if new information is provided though. It is nonessential but interesting.

[Zakuska]

ame='Tsjoeva' date='05 January 2010 - 04:27 AM' timestamp='1262690831' post='1208781392']

It seems to me these translations are trying to harmonize the text. "The women" are never introduced as the subject of the verb. The gender is clear from the conjugation, but the subject of the sentence is clearly "the whole city."

But arn't cities usually given feminine names, and since the feminine is plural it would be like saying "all of you guys" even though some of the people in the crowd were actually feminine.

The pronoun in Deut 21:6 is consonantally masculine, but it refers to a feminine noun (???, "city"). The Masoretes added vowels to make it feminine ("all the elders of the city which is nearest to the slain man"). The masculine is often found where we would expect the feminine, but rarely the other way around. See Ruth 1:9, for instance. Naomi is talking to her two daughters in law, but she says "May the Lord bless you" with the masculine plural "you" (???).

The people spoke to must have been masculine?

[cinepro]

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?

Well, obviously God had to do this after Noah, because He took the "Kill them with a Localized Flood" option off the table with the whole Rainbow-covenant thing.

[volgadon]

But why the feminine plural? A singular would be used if the city were speaking as an entity.

[volgadon]

ame='Tsjoeva' date='05 January 2010 - 04:27 AM' timestamp='1262690831' post='1208781392']

It seems to me these translations are trying to harmonize the text. "The women" are never introduced as the subject of the verb. The gender is clear from the conjugation, but the subject of the sentence is clearly "the whole city."

The pronoun in Deut 21:6 is consonantally masculine, but it refers to a feminine noun (???, "city"). The Masoretes added vowels to make it feminine ("all the elders of the city which is nearest to the slain man"). The masculine is often found where we would expect the feminine, but rarely the other way around. See Ruth 1:9, for instance. Naomi is talking to her two daughters in law, but she says "May the Lord bless you" with the masculine plural "you" (???).

OTOH, it could be that Ruth preserves the local, non-literary dialect of Bethlehem and that area.

[Vance]

Well, obviously God had to do this after Noah, because He took the "Kill them with a Localized Flood" option off the table with the whole Rainbow-covenant thing.

But that doesn't explain why God didn't do it with Noah.

Not sure how the whole Rainbow-covenant thing takes the "Kill them with a Localized Flood" option off the table. Could you explain?

[maklelan]

But arn't cities usually given feminine names, and since the feminine is plural it would be like saying "all of you guys" even though some of the people in the crowd were actually feminine.

Not in Hebrew. When there is any kind of mixture of feminine and masculine the plural is masculine. The word "city" is feminine, and so the personified cities are feminine. In Ruth, however, the reference can only be to a group of women.

The people spoke to must have been masculine?

The people spoken to were Ruth and her sister-in-law. The book of Ruth errs on the side of the masculine, but the feminine plural in the text in question is repeated several times. There's no mistake.

[maklelan]

OTOH, it could be that Ruth preserves the local, non-literary dialect of Bethlehem and that area.

The style is mixed, but there's nothing too enigmatic or non-literary. The paragogic nun is used all over the place, for instance.

[volgadon]

The style is mixed, but there's nothing too enigmatic or non-literary. The paragogic nun is used all over the place, for instance.

I was thinking of moments like veyaredeti, which has parralels in Arabic usage. I'm not saying that Ruth is not a literary construct, but that it quotes from the local dialect.

[cinepro]

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

No, I am genuinely curious. Brother Parry's article seems to fly in the face of those who would suggest a "scholarly" reading of Genesis = Local Flood. I find that fascinating.

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.

Much of my interest in this issue is precisely because the Church has been forthright in arguing for a Global Flood.

If one is interested in discussing the Church's position on things, conversations about issues for which the Church has declared "We have no position" tend to be non-starters.

[cinepro]

For me personally, I have not officially picked a side, as there are always a lot of good theories and possibilities. Since this is an unimportant matter and not relevant to salvation it is fun to shop around for ideas. I must say that right now I lean towards 'local' though and it is because of reading about Enoch.

When Enoch talked with God he was shown all the wicked people and told that they would be destroyed. Enoch asked "Wilt thou not bless the children of Noah?" with concern for their lives. We see God's reply: "And he sent forth an unalterable decree, that a remnant of his seed should always be found among all nations, while the earth should stand;"

If the decree had stated that, "all nations would be the remnant of his seed" it would tip me to 'global'. However, the Lord is reassuring Enoch that a "remnant of his seed" will be "among" the "nations". If all possible nations would have been Noah's seed anyway why would there be a concern? Hence my 'local' leaning.

Let me know if this tips you:

Moses 8

2 And it came to pass that Methuselah, the son of Enoch, was not taken, that the covenants of the Lord might be fulfilled, which he made to Enoch; for he truly covenanted with Enoch that Noah should be of the fruit of his loins.

3 And it came to pass that Methuselah prophesied that from his loins should spring all the kingdoms of the earth (through Noah), and he took glory unto himself.

[Mansquatch]

Let me know if this tips you:

I would say, yes that has had a slight tipping effect (I am a teeter totter) . I still must question, why the concern about continued progeny 'among all nations'? Why use the word 'among' and not just say "all nations would be the remnant of his seed" ?

[cinepro]

I would say, yes that has had a slight tipping effect (I am a teeter totter) . I still must question, why the concern about continued progeny 'among all nations'? Why use the word 'among' and not just say "all nations would be the remnant of his seed" ?

Perhaps at the time, it wasn't a given that all males on the ark would be descendants of Noah?

[cinepro]

But that doesn't explain why God didn't do it with Noah.

Not sure how the whole Rainbow-covenant thing takes the "Kill them with a Localized Flood" option off the table. Could you explain?

God works in mysterious ways. He may be the kind of God that likes to first kill people with a flood, and once that option is gone, move on to disease, famine, and soldiers in a faithful army.

The "Covenant of the Rainbow" was that God would no longer send a localized-flood to kill people in that part of the world. Or so they tell me.

[maklelan]

God works in mysterious ways. He may be the kind of God that likes to first kill people with a flood, and once that option is gone, move on to disease, famine, and soldiers in a faithful army.

The "Covenant of the Rainbow" was that God would no longer send a localized-flood to kill people in that part of the world. Or so they tell me.

This isn't how genuinely curious people assess things.

[Mansquatch]

Perhaps at the time, it wasn't a given that all males on the ark would be descendants of Noah?

Ten verses earlier:

"And Enoch also saw Noah, and his family; that the posterity of all the sons of Noah should be saved with a temporal salvation;" No mention of any one else.

Besides, to say it wasn't a given that all males would be from Noah is irrelevant, since the one making the "unalterable decree" which contained the phrase "among all nations" was God, who has all knowledge.

I think it must be admitted that this is possibly a piece of Official material from the church that could allow for a local flood. Today I really feel pretty neutral though. As a sign of how unimportant I feel it is I may be full-on global tomorrow.

[cinepro]

Ten verses earlier:

"And Enoch also saw Noah, and his family; that the posterity of all the sons of Noah should be saved with a temporal salvation;" No mention of any one else.

Besides, to say it wasn't a given that all males would be from Noah is irrelevant, since the one making the "unalterable decree" which contained the phrase "among all nations" was God, who has all knowledge.

I think it must be admitted that this is possibly a piece of Official material from the church that could allow for a local flood. Today I really feel pretty neutral though. As a sign of how unimportant I feel it is I may be full-on global tomorrow.

Of course, we should also consider the Joseph Smith Translation of Genesis 6:18:

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

18 But with thee will I establish my covenant; even as I have sworn unto thy father, Enoch, that of thy posterity shall come all nations; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons

[Mansquatch]

Of course, we should also consider the Joseph Smith Translation of Genesis 6:18:

If today, everyone in the world, in all nations has Noah blood in them, then that is fulfilled. That doesn't mean that everyone since then has had Noah blood. Using ancient texts for purposes of geological research and discovery is problematic for many reasons. But they are pretty good at letting me know about faith, repentance, etc.

Of course the reverse is true as well. Geologists not finding flood sediment around the entire earth at the time the flood occurred doesn't prove that there was no global flood. It only proves that they haven't found flood sediment on all lands for the same time period.

[Zakuska]

If today, everyone in the world, in all nations has Noah blood in them, then that is fulfilled. That doesn't mean that everyone since then has had Noah blood. Using ancient texts for purposes of geological research and discovery is problematic for many reasons. But they are pretty good at letting me know about faith, repentance, etc.

Of course the reverse is true as well. Geologists not finding flood sediment around the entire earth at the time the flood occurred doesn't prove that there was no global flood. It only proves that they haven't found flood sediment on all lands for the same time period.

Oooo... that could be an intresting DNA debate to have with Anti-Mormons.

[cinepro]

If today, everyone in the world, in all nations has Noah blood in them, then that is fulfilled. That doesn't mean that everyone since then has had Noah blood. Using ancient texts for purposes of geological research and discovery is problematic for many reasons. But they are pretty good at letting me know about faith, repentance, etc.

Of course the reverse is true as well. Geologists not finding flood sediment around the entire earth at the time the flood occurred doesn't prove that there was no global flood. It only proves that they haven't found flood sediment on all lands for the same time period.

"Of thy posterity shall come all nations" seems to be different than saying "thy posterity shall be among all nations".

To fix the grammar, it would say "All nations shall come of thy posterity." And I'm pretty sure the "of" = "from".

But if the Local/Global discussion can teach us anything, it's that we'll all do what we need to when we don't want to believe something.

[Mansquatch]

"Of thy posterity shall come all nations" seems to be different than saying "thy posterity shall be among all nations".

To fix the grammar, it would say "All nations shall come of thy posterity." And I'm pretty sure the "of" = "from".

But if the Local/Global discussion can teach us anything, it's that we'll all do what we need to when we don't want to believe something.

To truly 'fix' things up with what I was referring to it could say, "Of thy posterity shall come all nations that will ever be in existence, beginning immediately after this global flood which will encompass the entire spherical planet you live on, including the highest peak of every mountain." Then the Lord could just not use the phrase, "a remnant of his seed should always be found among all nations" in his decree in Moses 7.

My official position on this matter matches the church's official position. I have no official position. So the fact that I am well represented by the slash in the middle of your 'Local/Global' would take me out of any position of doing 'what I need to when I don't want to believe something.' I will defend either position.

Oooo... that could be an intresting DNA debate to have with Anti-Mormons.

Has that already happened? Sounds annoying.

[Calm]

The paragogic nun is used all over the place, for instance.

I am assuming that this means something besides a nun who is passing out a mild form of opium all over the place (not knowing the difference at the moment between "paragoric" and "paragogic").

[cinepro]

My official position on this matter matches the church's official position. I have no official position.

Interesting. Where has the Church said that it has no "Official Position" on the subject?