Evidence for or against Global Flood

[Socratic Spelunker]

I was reading another thread on the issue of the Global Flood. There were some interesting arguments on both sides. I wonder if we can compile a list here. Please don't just say things like, "There was no flood! It's stupid!". Please describe the reasons. Thank you

[Nathair/|\]

The only reason I can think of that would necessitate a global flood is if the myth is correct that it was the Earth's baptism. Otherwise, it doesn't matter.

Yours under the legendary oaks,

Nathair /|\

[semlogo]

Against: contemporary civilizations existed before and after the estimated date of the flood.

[ELF1024]

I for one do not believe that there is enough water on the planet to flood the entire earth in the way that the bibical account claims.

I think it is far more likley that there was a regional flood, and not a "Global" one.

A possible evidence for a the tale is the "Ararat anomaly".

[Jason]

The strongest argument for is that it appears in the Old Testament and is referred to in all of the scriptures as a real event, and the assumption seems to be that it was global, at least as far as humanity was concerned.

[Deborah]

The only reason I can think of that would necessitate a global flood is if the myth is correct that it was the Earth's baptism. Otherwise, it doesn't matter

Ditto. This was the reason I was taught for many years, but since God himself hasn't specified just how global the flood was it doesn't matter. I personally have always believed in regional floods where humanity has resided, as there are many legends of such floods in different societies.

[semlogo]

It's quite possible that whoever first wrote about that flood really thought it was global, not being aware of the true size (or shape) of the earth.

[Doug the Hutt]

piggybacking on Nathair's & Deborah's comments

IF

1. the Earth did indeed need to be baptized

2. AND the Flood was merely regional

THEN what does that tell us about baptism-by-immersion? It may sound strange but that actually starts to support non-immersive baptism assuming #1 & #2 are correct.

If all that's required to baptize the Earth is to have it covered in H2O then I suggest the Earth was baptized by snow 650 million years ago when it went through its total ice age phase.

http://en.wikipedia..../Snowball_Earth

[Mansquatch]

I have always found the text of Moses 7:52 to be interesting. After Enoch expresses concern for Noah and his seed the Lord then:

" And he sent forth an unalterable decree, that a ^aremnant of his seed should always be found among all nations, while the earth should stand;"

It is interesting that he didn't say that all nations would be his seed, but that his seed would be among all nations.

Also interesting is Moses 1:29. Moses beheld different lands on earth and each land is referred to as earth. So when water covered the face of the earth it could have just been that it covered the face of that land, using the meaning of earth from Moses 1:29

I must always say that I don't really care much one way or the other, as many do passionately. I just like to throw these out there.

[Jason]

Also interesting is Moses 1:29. Moses beheld different lands on earth and each land is referred to as earth. So when water covered the face of the earth it could have just been that it covered the face of that land, using the meaning of earth from Moses 1:29

Moses beheld different worlds all called Earth, not different lands on this Earth all called Earth.

[Mansquatch]

Moses beheld different worlds all called Earth, not different lands on this Earth all called Earth.

"And he beheld many lands; and each land was called ^aearth, and there were ^binhabitants on the face thereof."

Sorry the phrase "he beheld many lands" led me to believe that he beheld many lands. The context of verse 29 is Moses seeing the earth. Other worlds aren't mentioned until verse 33. But since you say he saw different worlds called earth....

[cinepro]

I was reading another thread on the issue of the Global Flood. There were some interesting arguments on both sides. I wonder if we can compile a list here. Please don't just say things like, "There was no flood! It's stupid!". Please describe the reasons. Thank you

What kind of "evidence" are you looking for? I mean, do you consider LDS teachings as "evidence", or statements from the Bible? Or do you mean scientific evidences based on geology or biology only?

In general, here's the "evidence" for a global flood:

- The need for an ark. A regional flood would only require Noah and his family to walk to the foothills above the flood plain, or migrate to another land outside of the region (Lehi-style).

- The need to collect animals that could survive in other regions, or in the foothills above the flood plain. Very, very few (if any) species would face extinction from a regional flood. Probably a few very rare insects at most. And I doubt any species of birds would be extinguished by a regional flood.

- Water depth is given as "fifteen cubits" (Genesis 7:20), covering the "tops of the mountains". That's about 22 feet deep. The ark itself is said to be thirty cubits high (6:15). If the general water depth is fifteen cubits, I don't know how the ark would have floated. If the water was fifteen cubits over the tops of the mountains, then it's not a localized flood (see: the next point).

- The Biblical statement that the water covered the "all the high hills" (7:19), and it's only after the waters abate that the "tops of the mountains" are seen (8:5). A flood plain, no matter how big, is bounded by hills or mountains (otherwise there wouldn't be a flood). Even at its greatest depth, a localized flood would be ringed by the taller mountains.

- God establishes a post-flood covenant with Noah that "the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh." (9:15) If "all flesh" is referring to animals killed by localized floods, then God has broken this covenant numerous times as there have been countless localized floods in the last 4,000 years. Whether the covenant was meant to be limited to specific region of the planet or applies globally, President Hunter said the covenant was "with all mankind".

- Some argue that the author(s) of Genesis had a limited view of the size of the planet, and thus to them the "earth" might just be referring to the lands they knew of. The Book of Moses claims that Moses was shown every particle of the planet, and every inhabitant on the entire planet (Moses 1:27-28), so if Moses was involved in the retelling of the flood story, he knew about the entire planet, not just a parcel in the middle east.

- For LDS, in addition to the numerous specific teachings by Prophets and Apostles about the global scope of the flood, we are taught that the Earth needed a baptism by immersion. Also, we are taught that Noah was a "second Adam" (meaning all mankind is descended from Noah). LDS also believe Adam lived, at some point, in North America. Biblical events are understood to have taken place in the Middle East. A global flood is the preferred explanation for how people got there.

Arguments against a global flood:

- Other than the points mentioned above, everything.

[thesometimesaint]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

[Jason]

"And he beheld many lands; and each land was called ^aearth, and there were ^binhabitants on the face thereof."

Sorry the phrase "he beheld many lands" led me to believe that he beheld many lands. The context of verse 29 is Moses seeing the earth. Other worlds aren't mentioned until verse 33. But since you say he saw different worlds called earth....

The sequence of events is:

Verse 27: Moses beholds the entire Earth.

28: Moses beholds the inhabitants of the entire Earth.

29: After having beheld the entire Earth and all the inhabitants, he observes many lands, all called Earth, and each possessing inhabitants.

30: Moses asks God for an explanation for all these creations.

31-34: God explains that He has done it for His own wise purpose, through the Son, and has created worlds without number, and many "Adams".

35-42: God says He will tell Moses only about this world, and Moses agrees.

So since Moses already beheld all of the Earth and its inhabitants in verse 27-28, the other lands called Earth and their inhabitants are other worlds, and after this brief glimpse of all these worlds God and Moses agree to confine further visions to just this Earth. The next chapter begins the creation story.

Verse 31-34 is a partial explanation of what Moses has just seen - worlds without end, each with inhabitants, and each beginning with an Adam.

[BCSpace]

There is no scientific evidence whatsoever for a global flood. However, unlike the Book of Mormon, there is plenty of scientific evidence against. One could start here.

[Mansquatch]

The sequence of events is:

Verse 27: Moses beholds the entire Earth.

28: Moses beholds the inhabitants of the entire Earth.

29: After having beheld the entire Earth and all the inhabitants, he observes many lands, all called Earth, and each possessing inhabitants.

30: Moses asks God for an explanation for all these creations.

31-34: God explains that He has done it for His own wise purpose, through the Son, and has created worlds without number, and many "Adams".

35-42: God says He will tell Moses only about this world, and Moses agrees.

So since Moses already beheld all of the Earth and its inhabitants in verse 27-28, the other lands called Earth and their inhabitants are other worlds, and after this brief glimpse of all these worlds God and Moses agree to confine further visions to just this Earth. The next chapter begins the creation story.

Verse 31-34 is a partial explanation of what Moses has just seen - worlds without end, each with inhabitants, and each beginning with an Adam.

Since the words "lands" and "worlds" have their own definitions I will go with them until a revelation changes it to:

""And he beheld many worlds; and each world was called ^aearth, and there were ^binhabitants on the face thereof.""

Seeing as how there is no problem with using the word "worlds" in later verses I am going to say lands does not equal worlds.

One could also take 35-42 to mean that Moses never saw different planets since God would only give him an account of this world even though He told him that others exist.

[SilverKnight]

There is not one particle of evidence for a global flood.

The entire geologic record of the earth counts as evidence against a global flood.

I would be curious to know what percentage of active, temple-recommend holding LDS actually believe in a global flood.

I would guess that in the internet age it has probably finally tipped below 50%.

[Jason]

Seeing as how there is no problem with using the word "worlds" in later verses I am going to say lands does not equal worlds.

But it could.

Why is it mentioned that Moses saw all of the Earth and its inhabitants and then also mentioned that he saw many other lands and their inhabitants if it's all this Earth?

One could also take 35-42 to mean that Moses never saw different planets since God would only give him an account of this world even though He told him that others exist.

God did give him only an account of this world - after this preamble where he saw "many lands each called Earth" and after both agreed that the rest of the vision would be about this Earth. A glimpse of all of creation before focusing on the part pertinent to Moses.

[Jeff K.]

What kind of "evidence" are you looking for? I mean, do you consider LDS teachings as "evidence", or statements from the Bible? Or do you mean scientific evidences based on geology or biology only?

In general, here's the "evidence" for a global flood:

- The need for an ark. A regional flood would only require Noah and his family to walk to the foothills above the flood plain, or migrate to another land outside of the region (Lehi-style).

- The need to collect animals that could survive in other regions, or in the foothills above the flood plain. Very, very few (if any) species would face extinction from a regional flood. Probably a few very rare insects at most. And I doubt any species of birds would be extinguished by a regional flood.

- Water depth is given as "fifteen cubits" (Genesis 7:20), covering the "tops of the mountains". That's about 22 feet deep. The ark itself is said to be thirty cubits high (6:15). If the general water depth is fifteen cubits, I don't know how the ark would have floated. If the water was fifteen cubits over the tops of the mountains, then it's not a localized flood (see: the next point).

- The Biblical statement that the water covered the "all the high hills" (7:19), and it's only after the waters abate that the "tops of the mountains" are seen (8:5). A flood plain, no matter how big, is bounded by hills or mountains (otherwise there wouldn't be a flood). Even at its greatest depth, a localized flood would be ringed by the taller mountains.

- God establishes a post-flood covenant with Noah that "the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh." (9:15) If "all flesh" is referring to animals killed by localized floods, then God has broken this covenant numerous times as there have been countless localized floods in the last 4,000 years. Whether the covenant was meant to be limited to specific region of the planet or applies globally, President Hunter said the covenant was "with all mankind".

- Some argue that the author(s) of Genesis had a limited view of the size of the planet, and thus to them the "earth" might just be referring to the lands they knew of. The Book of Moses claims that Moses was shown every particle of the planet, and every inhabitant on the entire planet (Moses 1:27-28), so if Moses was involved in the retelling of the flood story, he knew about the entire planet, not just a parcel in the middle east.

- For LDS, in addition to the numerous specific teachings by Prophets and Apostles about the global scope of the flood, we are taught that the Earth needed a baptism by immersion. Also, we are taught that Noah was a "second Adam" (meaning all mankind is descended from Noah). LDS also believe Adam lived, at some point, in North America. Biblical events are understood to have taken place in the Middle East. A global flood is the preferred explanation for how people got there.

Arguments against a global flood:

- Other than the points mentioned above, everything.

Even local floods leave people stranded, it all depends on geography, and a regional flood may indeed leave the group stranded.

The collection of animals may mean something other than protection from annihilation. They could be "sacred animals" or some other decision we are not aware of.

Plains need not be plainly in sight of mountains and flooded plains (as opposed to flood plains) may also suffer (prior to the flood) atmospheric debris (dust and sand) which lowers the distance one sees things.

The covenant depends on the definition of flood. For instance massive flood versus small flood, or world wide versus local. There may also be more involved in the covenant than merely the flood itself, something we may not be aware of.

In regard to Moses, Moses may have accurately retold the story from the point of view from Noah and not necessarily from the actual events. This may have been done to more closely follow the known rituals and religion of the time.

And while we do have many prophets and apostles who have voiced their opinions (some of them strong opinions), they aren't necessarily revelatory pronouncements.

Now I personally believe that the flood was regional and not global, but I also know that if I am wrong, its not that important to my testimony. I don't think we will know for sure until God wants us to know for sure.

[Jeff K.]

There is not one particle of evidence for a global flood.

The entire geologic record of the earth counts as evidence against a global flood.

I would be curious to know what percentage of active, temple-recommend holding LDS actually believe in a global flood.

I would guess that in the internet age it has probably finally tipped below 50%.

I don't think the internet has anything do with it since opinions on matters tend to wax and wane with passing generations. Consider this, why would some in the past (pre polling you might say ) be so insistent in the past of a global flood if the regional question were considered so minor and moot?

[Jason]

There is not one particle of evidence for a global flood.

The entire geologic record of the earth counts as evidence against a global flood.

Except, as has been mentioned, that this has been the consistant teaching of the Church and Church leaders.

I would be curious to know what percentage of active, temple-recommend holding LDS actually believe in a global flood.

I would guess that in the internet age it has probably finally tipped below 50%.

I do. I don't see any convincing reason to think that a miracle like the Flood should have followed any of the physical laws we are most familiar with, and therefore have no problem with the lack of evidence for the Flood.

[thesometimesaint]

The whole story can be dismissed as a series of supernatural miracles. There is no way to contradict such an argument. However, one must wonder about a God who reportedly does one thing and then arranges every bit of evidence to make it look like something else happened. It's entirely possible that a global flood occurred 4000 years ago or even last Thursday, and that God subsequently erased all the evidence, including our memories of it. But even if such stories are true, what's the point?

[Jason]

The whole story can be dismissed as a series of supernatural miracles. There is no way to contradict such an argument. However, one must wonder about a God who reportedly does one thing and then arranges every bit of evidence to make it look like something else happened. It's entirely possible that a global flood occurred 4000 years ago or even last Thursday, and that God subsequently erased all the evidence, including our memories of it. But even if such stories are true, what's the point?

You mean the same God who deliberately removed all our memories of Him and our life with Him before placing us on a confusing, dangerous world, and then refused to provide any physical evidence of His presence that cannot be explained away by the skeptical?

[SilverKnight]

I don't think the internet has anything do with it since opinions on matters tend to wax and wane with passing generations. Consider this, why would some in the past (pre polling you might say ) be so insistent in the past of a global flood if the regional question were considered so minor and moot?

Because those in the past, including early LDS leaders, were not privy to the mountain of evidence against the idea.

Likewise, if Joseph Smith lived in the dark ages, there's a good chance he would have held had a geocentric view of the universe, and would have been a flat-earther.

Except, as has been mentioned, that this has been the consistant teaching of the Church and Church leaders.

Do you think even one BYU science professor believes in a global flood?

Why wasn't my bishop disciplined when he told the Gospel Doctrine class that he believed the Flood was a regional event?

I do. I don't see any convincing reason to think that a miracle like the Flood should have followed any of the physical laws we are most familiar with, and therefore have no problem with the lack of evidence for the Flood.

In that case, evidence is worth nothing. Everything our eyes and brains tell us could be an illusion.

See thesometimesaint's previous post about God performing monumental globe-altering miracles then erasing the evidence.

[cinepro]

There is not one particle of evidence for a global flood.

The entire geologic record of the earth counts as evidence against a global flood.

I would be curious to know what percentage of active, temple-recommend holding LDS actually believe in a global flood.

I would guess that in the internet age it has probably finally tipped below 50%.

I too would be very curious.

Based on the clarity with which it continues to be taught by the Church, and the absence of any Church-published alternative views, I would guess that the global-flood view is probably held by 80-95% of active Church members.

The global flood is an interesting example of a teaching that has persisted through the decades even against the many good scientific arguments against it. It isn't something that was taught 150 years ago and then forgotten or abandoned. It isn't a teaching that has evolved over time as science and logic have been brought to bear. Church teachings and publications are still 100% global flood, as they always have been.

Even with something like evolution, where there has been public disagreement among the Apostles, and much more monumental scientific evidence and public acceptance of it, LDS are wary, as shown by the PEW forum survey when they asked