geological evidence disproving global flood (noah)

[nickleus]

No one told me Christmas was coming early this year!

No one told *ME* Christmas was coming early this year! =) thanks for your post and the links! =)

[Kevin Christensen]

SNIP

no apologetic responses required here because that would disprove the apparent logic/reasonableness of these points

The logic here of course, depends on a demand for perfection. Logically, against a claim of perfection, any perceived imperfection appears as decisive. Moreover, against a claim of perfection, ONLY imperfection is decisive. So any listing of competing virtues is not only irrelevant but impertinent. However, if the entity being judged against this standard never actually makes the claim of perfection, the logic, however irrefutable and self evident it may appear, is based on a false premise.

From this:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=7&num=2&id=193

Our perception of proportion and significance is subjective, relative to emotion and preconception, desire and fear. I find it striking that all the arguments given by scriptural people who rejected the prophets reflect measures taken against either fear (that is, submission to preconceptions

[thesometimesaint]

cinepro:

Take it up with The FAIR Wiki. I guess if Hugh Nibley can believe in a massive but local flood and remain a loyal valued member of the Church so can I.

[Kevin Christensen]

While your statement is technically true, it deftly dodges the issue of what the scriptures and latter-day Prophets and Apostles have taught on the subject.

Yes. And while we are, with endearing boyish enthusiasm, erecting favorite straw men to knock over (yet again and again....), let's not forget the firm foundation specified in D&C 1, regarding Church leaders that "inasmuch as they erred, it shall be made manifest."

This being a discussion board centered around LDS beliefs, and Noah's flood being a teaching from the LDS scriptures about which LDS leaders have spoken, it is oddly curious that actual Church teachings are being so studiously avoided.

Early on in this thread, I linked to Duane Jeffery's interesting Sunstone article which discusses all sorts of things in LDS and Jewish and Christian traditions, along with some newly intriguing possibilities.

Jeffery's article, Noah's Flood: Modern Scholarship and Mormon Traditions," which has attracted so little notice in this thread, despite its profound relevance, quotes Apostle Stephen L. Richards in the Improvement Era in 1933:

https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/134-27-45.pdf

[so] what if Hebrew prophets, conversant with only a small fraction of the surface of the earth, thinking and writing in terms of their own limited geography and tribal relations did interpret [God] in terms of a tribal king and so limit His personality and the laws of the universe under His control to the dominion with which they were familiar? Can any interpreter even though he be inspired present his interpretation and conception in terms other than those with which he has had experience and acquaintance? Even under the assumption that Divinity may manifest to the prophet higher and more exalted truths than he has ever before known and unfold to his spiritual eyes visions of the past, forecasts of the future, and circumstances of the utmost novelty, how will the inspired man interpret? Manifestly, I think, in the language he knows and in

the terms of expression with which his knowledge and experience have made him familiar. So is it not therefore ungenerous, unfair and unreasonable to impugn the validity and the whole worth of the Bible merely because of the limited knowledge of

astronomy and geography that its writers possessed[].

[semlogo]

Ah yes, a source from 1906. Also note that sources are not given for that assertion. As I pointed out, the verses regarding the raqia do not require it to be a dome in order for the verses to work, nor does the etymology of the word really support such a cosmology. Why come up with a word that doesn't really apply to your concept, when there are others better suited? You are going to need to provide somethinbg a lot more substsntial in defence of your dome.

What does the date of the source have to do with anything? We're dealing with ancient peoples. The scholarly consensus is that the ancient Hebrews thought of their firmament as a solid, dome-like structure. Since you have been unable to provide any alternate theories or explanations, I can only assume that your quibbling and equivocation is made in lieu of an actual argument based on facts. You have not been able to answer the CFR.

[volgadon]

What does the date of the source have to do with anything?

In biblical studies? Quite a lot, actually. There are a lot of extremely important, revolutionary finds and studies discovered and published since 1906 that have turned biblical studies upside down.

We're dealing with ancient peoples.

Then do please provide an Old Testament verse that would require a dome for the cosmology.

The scholarly consensus is that the ancient Hebrews thought of their firmament as a solid, dome-like structure.

Again, how was it reached?

Since you have been unable to provide any alternate theories or explanations,

Wow. It looks like you have been ignoring it, so here it is in print so large as to be unmistakable.

The raqia is just as likely to have been conceived of as an extended solid surface stretched out above the earth. This takes into account the etymology, as well as parallel imagery such as it being stretched out like a tent.

I can only assume that your quibbling and equivocation is made in lieu of an actual argument based on facts. You have not been able to answer the CFR.

Oh please. I've answered the CFR, you don't like the answer. Your facts are wiki and the JE.

[volgadon]

* blessed is he who believe without seeing (good recipe for getting scammed). its more like "foolish is he who believe without seeing."

Belief has to do with a relationship of trust that you build up. seeing is believing is also a good recipe for a scam.

[semlogo]

In biblical studies? Quite a lot, actually. There are a lot of extremely important, revolutionary finds and studies discovered and published since 1906 that have turned biblical studies upside down.

Then do please provide an Old Testament verse that would require a dome for the cosmology.

Again, how was it reached?

Wow. It looks like you have been ignoring it, so here it is in print so large as to be unmistakable.

The raqia is just as likely to have been conceived of as an extended solid surface stretched out above the earth. This takes into account the etymology, as well as parallel imagery such as it being stretched out like a tent.

Oh please. I've answered the CFR, you don't like the answer. Your facts are wiki and the JE.

No, you have not answered the CFR. Please respond or give a retraction.

Also, CFR on the claim in red as applied to the firmament.

[volgadon]

No, you have not answered the CFR. Please respond or give a retraction.

I have answered the CFR. You wanted to know my sources for making the assertion that the dome concept of the raqia is a modern attempt to reconstruct an ancient Hebrew cosmology, I provided them. You are welcome to disagree with my conclusions, but I have honoured the CFR.

Also, CFR on the claim in red as applied to the firmament.

Ok, here is one reference specifically in regards to the sky. The Olam ha-Tanach volume on Ezekiel, the portion dealing with chapter one.

[semlogo]

I have answered the CFR. You wanted to know my sources for making the assertion that the dome concept of the raqia is a modern attempt to reconstruct an ancient Hebrew cosmology, I provided them. You are welcome to disagree with my conclusions, but I have honoured the CFR.

Ok, here is one reference specifically in regards to the sky. The Olam ha-Tanach volume on Ezekiel, the portion dealing with chapter one.

You still have not addressed the CFR. A reminder:

Again, CFR, please. If I am incorrectly representing their cosmology, please present the correct version.

Which Hebrew scholarship paints the Hebrew cosmology differently than I have portrayed it? Simply pointing out different definitions of the word raqia does not answer the CFR. A glass is a container and a material - pointing that out does not erase the existence of drinking glasses, nor does it speak to the shape of drinking glasses as understood by people who use the word "glass." Please present the scholarship that refutes my assertions about Hebrew cosmology. Please include actual textual citations that refute this concept, for those of us who don't own The Olam ha-Tanach volume on Ezekiel.

[cinepro]

Why quote Hebraist Parry, but not Apostle Richards?

Because Hebraist Parry's statement was published by the Church in 1998, and to this day remains on the Church website and is an excellent summary of every other statement made by Apostles and Prophets in current Church publications found on the website including conference talks and curriculum, whereas Apostle Richard's comment was made almost 70 years ago and hasn't been supported by any other Church-published statement of any Church leader that I have been able to find, and even now is only popularized by Sunstone magazine.

That's why I quote Hebraist Parry and not Apostle Richards.

Again, for those interested in what the Prophets and Apostles and official Church publications have taught about the scope of the flood, be sure to check out this post here. If anyone can find any statements anywhere on the Church website that acknowledge even the remotest possibility of the flood being local or allegorical, please let me know and I'll add them to the page.

A fun exercise when thinking about the flood is to read the LDS Newsroom statement on what constitutes "doctrine", and then ask yourself whether or not the teachings on a global flood fill the bill:

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four

[Rob Osborn]

no, *you* are implying that dawkins is a bad researcher. *CFR*. here is another well-educated, well-known atheist, sam harris' evaluation of mormonism, from the debate sam harris vs rabbi david wolpe:

Dawkins is so deeply biased towards his atheism that it clouds his judgment. Doing his research in Christianity he aknowledges nothing that has been good to come forth from Christianity. He has chalked it all up as bad.

He is a bad researcher. We as Christians know he is a liar. What else can I say?

[cinepro]

cinepro:

Take it up with The FAIR Wiki. I guess if Hugh Nibley can believe in a massive but local flood and remain a loyal valued member of the Church so can I.

If the FAIR Wiki wants to discuss the teachings and beliefs of the LDS Church without actually quoting Church publications and the teachings of latter day Apostles and Prophets, then there's really nothing I can do to help them.

I didn't know the Church classifies members by their degree of loyalty and value. I've searched LDS.org and can't find anything about the criteria used, so if you have any information on the subject (and how it relates to doctrinal teachings), I would be interested in learning more.

At the very least, I would be interested in knowing the doctrines for which doubt makes someone a disloyal and un-valued member.

[Rob Osborn]

CFR. i would be interested to see a poll of random scientists answer logical/illogical or reasonable/unreasonable to the following issues:

* blessed is he who believe without seeing (good recipe for getting scammed). its more like "foolish is he who believe without seeing."

* adam and eve being transplanted here from outer space and being the first male and female on the earth

* pay us 10% of your income and you wont be burned at jesus' second coming, and dont ask us how we use the money, we're not going to tell you

* dont criticize church leaders even when the criticism is true (dallin oaks). excommunicating members who publicly express a difference of opinion with church "authorities".

* mark hofmann tricking the prophet, first presidency and apostles into buying false documents/artifacts. getting convicted of murder, then offered a plea bargain by utah state so as to not have to bring the church leaders to the stand to testify, so as to avoid embarrassment for being tricked

* joseph smith and polygamy and polyandry

* joseph smith being married/sealed to at least 203 women, one of which was born 169 years before him and 1 woman who was born 15 years after his death (these are only the most extreme cases, but there are many instances of this)

* the church's need for an apologist organization

* faith is necessary for god to perform "miracles" supported by the laws of science

* immaculate conception

* jeffrey holland saying he is holding hyrum's copy of the book of mormon in general conference when there is proof he wasnt

* joseph smith claiming to have done greater things even than jesus did (HOC)

* 170 years of "native americans are lamanites", but then the church changes the BOM intro in 2007 from "the principal ancestors" to "among the ancestors".

* baptism of 8 year olds, as if an 8 year old is in any position to make a life-binding decision

* whispering to small children what they should say they "know" when bearing a testimony in church (brainwashing)

* missionaries (young and old, even mission presidents) who already pay 10% of their income must also pay themselves to serve their church, full time, for 2 years (still 1.5 years for young women? 3 years for mission presidents?)

* great inconsistencies among church leaders regarding sexual practices within marriage. some say oral sex is forbidden, others say it isnt.

* the principle of faith: if there's too much evidence that the church is true, then faith would be destroyed (god has to keep some things hidden/unproven)

* no public testimonies of living apostles/prophets ("special witnesses") saying they have seen/personally met jesus christ

* members asked in the temple to give their own lives if necessary to build up the kingdom of god

* lds campaigning to be identified as christians, yet denying flds to be identified as mormons

* denying blacks the priesthood until 1978, (note: the Civil Rights Act was passed in the US in 1964, 14 years earlier)

* no church art of joseph smith with his head in a hat, "translating" the gold plates

* boyd packer telling the church educational system teachers "There is a temptation for the writer or teacher of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not. Some things that are true are not very useful."

* church prophets giving supposedly sacred handshakes to powerful political leaders who are members of other similar secret societies: monson+bush, hinckley+cheney. lay members would most likely be excommunicated for this and "bring upon themselves the judgements of god, for god will not be mocked"

* jesus christ's church suing people for copyright infringement who post church materials online

no apologetic responses required here because that would disprove the apparent logic/reasonableness of these points

What does science has to do with answering these points? It seems quite apparent that you dislike the mormon church and have biased your questions to the point of it being unrealistic and some what untrue. Why don't you just start your own mormon bashing thread if that is your bottom line?

[volgadon]

You still have not addressed the CFR. A reminder:

Which Hebrew scholarship paints the Hebrew cosmology differently than I have portrayed it? Simply pointing out different definitions of the word raqia does not answer the CFR. A glass is a container and a material - pointing that out does not erase the existence of drinking glasses, nor does it speak to the shape of drinking glasses as understood by people who use the word "glass." Please present the scholarship that refutes my assertions about Hebrew cosmology. Please include actual textual citations that refute this concept, for those of us who don't own The Olam ha-Tanach volume on Ezekiel.

Sorry, you don't get to make up the rules for a CFR. I have honoured it.

[nickleus]

Dawkins is so deeply biased towards his atheism that it clouds his judgment. Doing his research in Christianity he aknowledges nothing that has been good to come forth from Christianity. He has chalked it all up as bad.

He is a bad researcher. We as Christians know he is a liar. What else can I say?

maybe you didnt see the *CFR*? you are making claims without any evidence and your claim cant be taken seriously until you "honor the CFR" (as someone put it previously).

[nickleus]

What does science has to do with answering these points? It seems quite apparent that you dislike the mormon church and have biased your questions to the point of it being unrealistic and some what untrue. Why don't you just start your own mormon bashing thread if that is your bottom line?

"robert f. smith" claimed that scientists, if they researched lds religion, would see that it is reasonable and logical. i simply made a list of points they most likely wouldnt see as reasonable nor logical. it is not served to bash, but simply answer a claim and promote discussion. if you want to make a claim you need to be prepared that other people might see things differently. if you just want to read about how fine and dandy things are, then "dialogue between LDS and those of other religious groups" might not be the thing for you.

being ... some what untrue

what is "some what" (sic) untrue? *CFR*

i'll repeat it again, since it seems you need it at least twice: *CFR*

[nickleus]

Belief has to do with a relationship of trust that you build up. seeing is believing is also a good recipe for a scam.

those who require evidence for a claim are much less likely to get scammed

[nickleus]

let's not forget the firm foundation specified in D&C 1, regarding Church leaders that "inasmuch as they erred, it shall be made manifest."

one of the more overused get-out-jail-free-cards used by apologists.

"we're not perfect"

"nobody's perfect"

"he was speaking as a man"

etc

people use this rhetoric in *support* of their belief as if this is a plus. to an outsider it just serves as further evidence that prophets really are just writing as men, that an all knowing (past and present) god actually ISNT feeding them with info. it could also make god look like someone who doesnt know how to communicate clearly enough to his spokesman, e.g. because the spokesman interpreted incorrectly what god told him.

it serves rather to paint a picture for unbelievers that GOD is not perfect or that there really is no god.

note: no need to reply about "look here, this is what god/prophets say about how god communicates with his people" bc its rather pointless in the context of a non-believer perspective.

[semlogo]

Sorry, you don't get to make up the rules for a CFR. I have honoured it.

If I am incorrectly representing their cosmology, please present the correct version. How hard is that?

[Rob Osborn]

maybe you didnt see the *CFR*? you are making claims without any evidence and your claim cant be taken seriously until you "honor the CFR" (as someone put it previously).

Obviously Dawkins is not trying to find and research the truth. He only wants to bash upon those things he seems to find wrong without any real and truthful research.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Richard_Dawkins

[semlogo]

Obviously Dawkins is not trying to find and research the truth. He only wants to bash upon those things he seems to find wrong without any real and truthful research.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Richard_Dawkins

Conservapedia is obviously not a credible source of information about anything.

I don't think, however, that Dawkins is a particularly knowledgeable critic of religion.

[Kevin Christensen]

one of the more overused get-out-jail-free-cards used by apologists.

"we're not perfect"

"nobody's perfect"

"he was speaking as a man"

etc

Just as an unreasonable demand for perfection is a "jail all apologists" warrant.

people use this rhetoric in *support* of their belief as if this is a plus. to an outsider it just serves as further evidence that prophets really are just writing as men,

At FAIR you can read my long study of Biblical Keys for Discerning True and False Prophets. Among other things, it provides a check on naive tendencies to project unrealistic, unreasonable, unsupported demands for omniscience and perfection on prophets. It also introduces evidence that outsiders characteristically don't bother to discover what to realistically expect from a prophet before they go about erecting arbitrary expectations of them.

that an all knowing (past and present) god actually ISNT feeding them with info. it could also make god look like someone who doesnt know how to communicate clearly enough to his spokesman, e.g. because the spokesman interpreted incorrectly what god told him.

Prophets are not God's sock puppets. Joseph Smith taught that God adapts himself to our capacity to understand, and that understanding on our part requires effort. Studying things out in our own minds, searching, learning about other cultures and people, "continuing in his word", etc.

I find that it make huge difference whether I approach Joseph Smith asking whether his inspiration is real compared to asking whether it is perfect (with the unavoidable and unspoken corollary that in my present state, I am capable and qualified to judge perfection). It turns out that the difference between asking what is real and asking what is perfect involves completely different methods, completely different problem fields, and completely different standards.

You continue to demonstrate this with your focus on imperfection, and tolerance of imperfection, as decisive, the only truly telling and significant information.

it serves rather to paint a picture for unbelievers that GOD is not perfect or that there really is no god.

And it is the expectation that paints that picture. Thomas Kuhn observes that "anomaly emerges against a background of expectation." As long as you use the standards, methods, and problem fields that go along with demands for perfection, the outcome is rather predictable.

note: no need to reply about "look here, this is what god/prophets say about how god communicates with his people" bc its rather pointless in the context of a non-believer perspective.

Why define the problem in a different way than supports a non-believer perspective? I've found that it changes things.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Kevin Christensen]

Because Hebraist Parry's statement was published by the Church in 1998, and to this day remains on the Church website and is an excellent summary of every other statement made by Apostles and Prophets in current Church publications found on the website including conference talks and curriculum, whereas Apostle Richard's comment was made almost 70 years ago and hasn't been supported by any other Church-published statement of any Church leader that I have been able to find, and even now is only popularized by Sunstone magazine.

It was published in the Improvement Era, which was the Ensign back then. It is not on the Church website only because no issues of the Improvement Era are there. And the Parry article is on the church website because all Issues of the Ensign are there, not because it represents the pinnacle of LDS thinking on the topic. That it appears in Sunstone does not cancel out the fact that he was an Apostle and he published in the Improvement Era, and addressed it to LDS students, category that still exists and still has concerns with those issues.

A fun exercise when thinking about the flood is to read the LDS Newsroom statement on what constitutes "doctrine", and then ask yourself whether or not the teachings on a global flood fill the bill:

A fun exercise is looking for whether the LDS Newsroom statement appears in the standard works. Which means it is not scripture. And who wrote it? Thus said the Lord, or Thus Saith some guy who passed it to an editor?

Another fun exercise would be discussing what is found in the standard works concerning the flood, and whether what is found there interprets itself, or whether there is some reader interaction, colored by cultural assumptions, language, background, study, etc. Of course, I'm an English major, and I spent a semester studying postmodernism and deconstruction, and know that the relationship between the signifiers of language, and the things signified is not as straight forward and static as some people might imagine when it is convenient for privileging one interpretation over another.

I think the Biblical and Pearl of Great Price accounts actually support other readings.

I also checked and noticed that D&C 93 does not define truth as a knowledge of things as they were published in the Times and Seasons according to consensus of the time, as they are Published in the Ensign according to the consensus of the Time and as they always Will be Published because we have nothing left to learn.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[nickleus]

Obviously Dawkins is not trying to find and research the truth. He only wants to bash upon those things he seems to find wrong without any real and truthful research.

http://www.conservap...Richard_Dawkins

thanks for the link, although its rather poor form to post a link to a multiple page article, not providing any specific examples of what you are talking about. but i can make some based on that page:

* dawkins displays true characteristics of a scientist. he is asked by ben stein to try and provide counter evidence to his own claims, something scientists are supposed to do, they are supposed to try and disprove their own theories (theists do not), its a part of the scientific process, so dawkins provides a possibility that the author of that page compares to raelian philosophy:

all life on earth was created by advanced scientists (read: gods) from another world (read: near kolob).

sound familiar? yet this was used to try and make dawkins looked crazy:

Ho,ho! That is precisely what the Raelians (read: mormons) say

dawkins didnt say that this is what he believed, he was simply trying to think outside of the box, unlike his accusers.

then ben stein goes on to summarize (not in the company of dawkins, not to his face) how he was asking dawkins to put a number on how sure he was that there was no god and dawkins says "i dont feel comfortable putting a number on it", then ended up giving 99% since ben wanted him to pick a number, then ben says "so why not 97%?" and continued pestering with different numbers "so it could be 45%?" and dawkins says "i dont know". again, true to the scientific method. compare this with theists who say they "know" that god exists.

* paparazzi slander in the intro bio about dawkins' divorces, as if that has anything to do with anything.

*

He is an ardent opponent of religion, which he dismisses as mere superstition.^[1] However, Dawkins has offered no effective rebuttal to studies which show that the irreligious are more likely to be superstitious than evangelical Christians.

actually it shows that atheists are LESS superstitious since theists are per dawkins' definition superstitious, every one of them. some atheists are superstitious, only about different superstitions than god. some atheists are not superstitious. all theists are superstitious (as per dawkins' definition). any easy mathematical equation.

the article seemed to use quite a lot of page space on this topic.

*

atheist philosopher Dr. Michael Ruse declared concerning Dawkins' book The God Delusion: "The God Delusion makes me embarrassed to be an atheist."

not all atheists agree with each other, just like not all theists agree with each other.

*

Richard Dawkins has established a reputation for avoiding debates with his strongest opponents.

im sure dawkins said somewhere that he does not debate, e.g. young earth creationists because he doesnt want to give credence to their (in his view) ridiculous views. there is no point in debating them. lds missionaries also are told something similar, that there's no point in bible-bashing. same thing.

* the author even admits "Many of Richard Dawkins detractors are conservative Christians which is not surprising."