How literally do you take the creation story?

[semlogo]

'Twas a big shock to me too. You NEVER hear this kind of discussion in church. I had no idea ..... it still blows me away.

That's because we latter-day saints are polite and we go to church to learn doctrinal principals, not bicker about the historicity of ancient tribal creation myths. It's the spiritual principals that are important.

[Jeff K.]

True, but science is self-correcting. Genesis is what it is.

That is inaccruate. I suppose the Joseph Smith translations simply did not exist?

[Ceeboo]

That's because we latter-day saints are polite and we go to church to learn doctrinal principals, not bicker about the historicity of ancient tribal creation myths. It's the spiritual principals that are important.

Oh dear!

Peace,

Ceeboo

[semlogo]

Explain.

I've already gone over this - even if you had super-fast sedimentary layers forming, the layers we find don't fit what we'd have if there were a global flood.

Not to mention, in the global flood story, the waters from above the firmament (a solid dome covering the earth, like a biodome) open up and the waters from above poured down.

Such a structure doesn't exist. There are many impossibilities about the story. It doesn't add up. The archeology doesn't add up either - great civilizations around the world kept on existing before and after. Not to mention there isn't enough water in the world to cover all the land. Not to mention the earth isn't flat and doesn't sit on pillars. Not to mention Noah wasn't within walking distance of all animals in the world. Not to mention that it doesn't make sense to sacrifice animals right after going to so much trouble to save them. Not to mention that pangea is far, far older than the flood.

[semlogo]

That is inaccruate. I suppose the Joseph Smith translations simply did not exist?

The JST makes doctrinal corrections and clarifications only.

[Zakuska]

I've already gone over this - even if you had super-fast sedimentary layers forming, the layers we find don't fit what we'd have if there were a global flood.

Nice assurtion... and I note it's not backed up by a single credible source.

Not to mention, in the global flood story, the waters from above the firmament (a solid dome covering the earth, like a biodome) open up and the waters from above poured down.

Such a structure doesn't exist.

Doesn't need to have existed. Quit being such a literalist.

There are many impossibilities about the story. It doesn't add up. The archeology doesn't add up either - great civilizations around the world kept on existing before and after.

Possibly.

Not to mention there isn't enough water in the world to cover all the land.

Very true...

http://www.johnstons...waterworld.html

However. that is following a bath tub model. There are other ways to cover all the land with water other than a bath tub model. It was raining after all. All it would take is the entire surface of the earth to be under a milimeter of water, or have waves of water dumped down over it. 40 days for all the Sunamis to settle? Perhaps?

Not to mention the earth isn't flat and doesn't sit on pillars. Not to mention Noah wasn't within walking distance of all animals in the world. Not to mention that it doesn't make sense to sacrifice animals right after going to so much trouble to save them. Not to mention that pangea is far, far older than the flood.

But I was talking more about the beginning of the world and adam and eve than a Global flood in the first place. You seem to be conflating the conversation, and fleeing away from the fact that sedimentary rock isn't formed the way scientists thought it was.

[Calm]

Explain please.

From the middle link...

http://www.physorg.c...s116777974.html

1) They have proven that the way in which sedimentary rock forms and therefore the bones and other artifacts contained in it are depositing... has nothing what so ever to do with the age of the bones.

2) They have also proven that largely straified expanses of back filled sediments can be deposited in an instant. A matter of a few minutes to a few hours in fact.

The mud accumulates slowly at first, in the form of heart- or arrowhead-shaped ripples that point upstream. These ripples slowly move with the current while maintaining their overall shapes.

If I remember my geology properly, these shapes should be able to be identified, thus allowing for differentiation between fast and slow layering events.

Pardon if this has been answered before, I have not read all of the thread but here and there, but is it not enough to demonstrate that in some parts of the world there were fast buildup of sedimentary layers. For a layer to be indicative of a global flood, would not its presence have to be demonstrated to be continuous over the entire surface of the world (allowing for later geological events as well as minor variations due to local specifics)?

[Zakuska]

If I remember my geology properly, these shapes should be able to be identified, thus allowing for differentiation between fast and slow layering events.

What if these shapes were hundreds or thousands of miles wide?

[semlogo]

Nice assurtion... and I note it's not backed up by a single credible source.

Doesn't need to have existed. Quit being such a literalist.

Possibly.

Very true...

http://www.johnstons...waterworld.html

However. that is following a bath tub model. There are other ways to cover all the land with water other than a bath tub model. It was raining after all. All it would take is the entire surface of the earth to be under a milimeter of water. or have waves of water dumped down on it.

But I was talking more about the beginning of the world and adam and eve than a Global flood in the first place. You seem to be conflating the conversation, and fleeing away from the fact that sedimentary rock isn't formed the way scientists thought it was.

You'll find that no credible source takes the flood story seriously. But if we think about what a flood would look like, it would result in one massive, mixed up layer of sediment of all types, in which we'd have millions of people from all cultures, dinosaurs, building, cattle, etc. Such a layer doesn't exist.

It doesn't add up. The moment you say, "don't be so literal," is the moment you've lost the argument. There was no literal global flood to begin with. The story is probably an exaggeration of a real event - a localized flood, which is something that happens all the time all over the world.

[SilverKnight]

That's because we latter-day saints are polite and we go to church to learn doctrinal principals, not bicker about the historicity of ancient tribal creation myths. It's the spiritual principals that are important.

As a youth I was a bit of a science nerd (big shock I know) and struggled mightily with the Adam & Eve story.

The scriptures made it sound like that's the way it happened, it was all literal, and it was not open for interpretation or even discussion.

Then one Sunday a wise GD teacher talked about how 'days' could mean creative periods, 'nakedness' meant innocence, 'fruit' was knowledge, a 'serpent was Satan, and a 'tree' represented the human family.

Then the teacher related all the metaphors of Lehi's dream and how the creation account shares much of the same symbolism.

Clearly this teacher was onto something.

The moment it all clicked was my first trip to the temple. A few minutes into the temple drama it flat-out said "you all represent Adam".

It couldn't have been more clear, the narrator just said I represented Adam.

The entire ritual drama of the endowment was a massive metaphor, rich in symbolism with layers of meaning.

Later study of ancient temple rights, historic ritual dramas, mystery plays, fraternal initiations and literary allegory reinforced the fact again and again.

The more I learned, the more a literal genesis account seemed absurd, and the more the endowment seemed like a brilliant stoke of genius (dare I say inspiriation) for Joseph Smith.

I am astounded (actually I'm not) that some endowed members continue to be so obtuse with this issue.

How many more times do you need to be hit over the head with a "flaming sword" before you get it?

[Zakuska]

You'll find that no credible source takes the flood story seriously. But if we think about what a flood would look like, it would result in one massive, mixed up layer of sediment of all types, in which we'd have millions of people from all cultures, dinosaurs, building, cattle, etc. Such a layer doesn't exist.

You didn't watch the movie. Nor read the articles.

Sand settles based on weight of particles, and speed of water flow. Bones and wood and things that tend to float can also move upwards and even downwards in the strata through this process. Theres even erosion and restratification.

We saw this when Mt. St. Helens blew up and millions of gallons of snow and water poured down and made some rather large sedimentary deposits. We see various layers of sand being deposited in a couple hours, stratified etc. We can look at Mt. St Helens and see see exactly what a flood event would look like. And it looks nothing like this... " it would result in one massive, mixed up layer of sediment of all types, in which we'd have millions of people from all cultures, dinosaurs, building, cattle, etc. Such a layer doesn't exist"

Second... what makes you think the polulation was in the millions at the time of Noah?

[semlogo]

You didn't watch the movie. Nor read the articles.

Sand settles based on weight of particles, and speed of water flow. Bones and wood and things that tend to float can also move upwards and even downwards in the strata through this process. Theres even erosion and stratification. We saw this when Mt. St. Helens blew up and millions of gallons of snow and water poured down and made some rather large sedimentary deposits. We see various layers of sand being deposited in a couple hours, stratified etc. We can look at Mt. St Helens and see see exactly what a flood event would look like. And it looks nothing like this... " it would result in one massive, mixed up layer of sediment of all types, in which we'd have millions of people from all cultures, dinosaurs, building, cattle, etc. Such a layer doesn't exist"

Second... what makes you think the polulation was in the millions at the time of Noah?

A gigantic global flood followed by a gigantic global drain would look nothing like mount st helens.

No, I didn't watch the movie. I don't read the Weekly World News either, because I'm not gullible and I believe in the principle of GIGO.

[semlogo]

As a youth I was a bit of a science nerd (big shock I know) and struggled mightily with the Adam & Eve story.

The scriptures made it sound like that's the way it happened, it was all literal, and it was not open for interpretation or even discussion.

Then one Sunday a wise GD teacher talked about how 'days' could mean creative periods, 'nakedness' meant innocence, 'fruit' was knowledge, a 'serpent was Satan, and a 'tree' represented the human family.

Then the teacher related all the metaphors of Lehi's dream and how the creation account shares much of the same symbolism.

Clearly this teacher was onto something.

The moment it all clicked was my first trip to the temple. A few minutes into the temple drama it flat-out said "you all represent Adam".

It couldn't have been more clear, the narrator just said I represented Adam.

The entire ritual drama of the endowment was a massive metaphor, rich in symbolism with layers of meaning.

Later study of ancient temple rights, historic ritual dramas, mystery plays, fraternal initiations and literary allegory reinforced the fact again and again.

The more I learned, the more a literal genesis account seemed absurd, and the more the endowment seemed like a brilliant stoke of genius (dare I say inspiriation) for Joseph Smith.

I am astounded (actually I'm not) that some endowed members continue to be so obtuse with this issue.

How many more times do you need to be hit over the head with a "flaming sword" before you get it?

Some people just prefer the "baby story" version of events. They're not prepared to deal with complex metaphors.

[Zakuska]

Pardon if this has been answered before, I have not read all of the thread but here and there, but is it not enough to demonstrate that in some parts of the world there were fast buildup of sedimentary layers. For a layer to be indicative of a global flood, would not its presence have to be demonstrated to be continuous over the entire surface of the world (allowing for later geological events as well as minor variations due to local specifics)?

Bath tub model. yes.

What about two super sunamis hiting the whole land. How long would it take for that water to drain off?

A global flood need only cover the land and all surfaces by a millimeter of water anyways for it to be a global flood.

And remember liquid water isn't the only form. How about those Global ice sheets the Scientists keep talking about around that time?

[Calm]

All it would take is the entire surface of the earth to be under a milimeter of water

This would not be described as a global flood though (there could and likely would be local floods associated with it though) or result in geological layers of significant size, would it?

[Zakuska]

because I'm not gullible and I believe in the principle of GIGO.

I can see that as demonstrated here...

" it would result in one massive, mixed up layer of sediment of all types, in which we'd have millions of people from all cultures, dinosaurs, building, cattle, etc. Such a layer doesn't exist"

They did the science and proved that the Scientists assumptions of sedimentary rock has to be re accessed.

http://www.physorg.com/news116777974.html

But since you choose to keep your head in the sand so be it.

[Zakuska]

This would not be described as a global flood though (there could and likely would be local floods associated with it though) or result in geological layers of significant size, would it?

More than probably yes. global ice sheets could do it as well.

[Ahab]

Folks, in the last thread I oppened, some people (quite more than I expected, actually) expressed that they took the creation story not as a hard historical fact but as a symbol. The obvious question now is, how literally do you take the genesis as accounted in LDS scripture to be?

Totally literally, in the sense that all of it actually happened as it is written, but a lot of the language is symbolic and needs to be understood in the proper context, otherwise a person could get the wrong impression.

For example, who or what kind of "snake" is the "snake" who spoke, and what is it that made him/it a "snake"?

Also, did the "snake" slither around on the ground or in trees/bushes before the "snake" was cursed, or was the "snake" cursed to that only after the curse?

Also, what kind of "fruit" was it that gave knowledge of good and evil, other than it being some kind of fruit that gave that knowledge? Was it actually an apple, or a pear, or was the fruit, itself, the "knowledge" of both good and evil?

etc, etc.

In particular, how much of the "Adam and Eve" story do you take as actually having occured?

All of it.

Also, how much of what goes on in the temple do you take as actually having occured and how much just as a symbol that didn't necessarily happen? ...obviously, without getting too specific.

All of it actually occurred. The language is symbolic, not the events.

[Zakuska]

Totally literally, in the sense that all of it actually happened as it is written, but a lot of the language is symbolic and needs to be understood in the proper context, otherwise a person could get the wrong impression.

For example, who or what kind of "snake" is the "snake" who spoke, and what is it that made him/it a "snake"?

Also, did the "snake" slither around on the ground or in trees/bushes before the "snake" was cursed, or was the "snake" cursed to that only after the curse?

Also, what kind of "fruit" was it that gave knowledge of good and evil, other than it being some kind of fruit that gave that knowledge? Was it actually an apple, or a pear, or was the fruit, itself, the "knowledge" of both good and evil?

I beleive this video answers all your questions!

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=5EJTe14yPfo

[Ahab]

I beleive this video answers all your questions!

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=5EJTe14yPfo

Yes, but with the wrong answers.

[Zakuska]

Yes, but with the wrong answers.

You call her a "wrong answer"? What planet do you live on?

[SilverKnight]

For example, who or what kind of "snake" is the "snake" who spoke, and what is it that made him/it a "snake"?

Why do you think in the temple, Satan is depicted as a sinister, guileful human - and not an actual reptile slithering on the ground?

[Hughes]

It's not a matter of belief, it's a matter of fact. The earth isn't flat or covered by a dome. It's older than 6000 years, and humans evolved from other animals. These are facts and facts do not disappear simply because you want them to.

Here is a very simple point of contention. What is belief and what is fact?

The earth isn't flat or covered by a dome... yes you are correct, we can test this today and verify it's not flat or covered by a dome (which, by the way the bible calls the earth a sphere.)

The Earth is older than 6,000 years old. This isn't a fact, it's a belief. It can't be tested or verified (ie the scientific method which requires observation). Either way, no matter what age you or I give to the Earth, it's belief. Period.

Human's evolved from other animals. This isn't a fact either, but a belief. It can't be repeated tested or observed. It's pure belief.

If you disagree please point to the direct observable evidence that proves beyond all doubt that these aren't beliefs at all.

[Zakuska]

Why do you think in the temple, Satan is depicted as a sinister, guileful human - and not an actual reptile slithering on the ground?

You mean like this?

[Zakuska]

Here is a very simple point of contention. What is belief and what is fact?

The earth isn't flat or covered by a dome... yes you are correct, we can test this today and verify it's not flat or covered by a dome (which, by the way the bible calls the earth a sphere.)

Not quite. More like a plate.

1. Isa. 40: 22 22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

There is a prefeclty good Hebrew word for sphere, but its not the word used here.