Evidence for or against Global Flood

[J Green]

A few notes on Cinepro's favorite

:

He's likely right that the vast majority of Church members assume the flood to be global. Probably the vast majority also think the events in the BoM to be hemispheric. The ones I talk to don't think about either one--they simply assume the simplest reading from tradition and assumption. Not many Saints actually read the OT often, and when they do they are often confused about how to interpret the events of the primeval history before the patriarchal period.

In every conversation on this subject Cinepro routinely overstates the case that all the leaders have taught this as doctrine. I've gone through his quotes and even more on LDS.org. Many of the passages he linked me to in the past didn't even mention the scope of the flood. The ones that did mention the scope mostly did so in passing as a narrative about something completely different. The point of the narrative was a conversation about preparation, faith, etc. and not about the scope of the flood and what we believe as LDS. In other words, the evidence points to leadership and members having assumed a common interpretation of most Christian congregations throughout history. It does not point to the brethren having raised this as a question and come to an inspired consensus about what LDS doctrine should be as they have done in other instances.

An analogy I've used before is that of the scriptural record on who killed Goliath. There are two accounts, with one of them mentioning David. Most of us have simply assumed through tradition that it was David, but I doubt that there has been any actual discussion among the brethren about textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible and whether we need revelation to decide which part of the text about Goliath is accurate and establish it as doctrine. I doubt many of them know it is in doubt or have discussed it or prayed about it together to establish officially-binding doctrine. It simply has been tradition, it's a minor point, and so they frequently mention it in passing to illustrate points about courage, faith, trust in the Lord, etc. But the fact that they frequently mention it in passing is different than if they had given a discourse addressing the core issue of whether or not David actually killed Goliath or whether it is official doctrine or if acceptance of the tradition that it was David somehow establishes some test of orthodoxy among the saints.

Regards

[sunstoned]

The leaders of the restored church have repeatedly taught the flood was global. This teaching is clearly stated in several official instruction manuals. References to these manuals have been made in this thread. Yet there are many on this very thread that refuse to acknowledge this. The length some people will go to discount clear teachings of the brethren that they do not agree with is pathetic.

[J Green]

Re the OP, there are many layers at work in the biblical record, making it difficult to understand the true "global-ness" of the flood:

1. The biblical account contains two separate strands of the event (J, P), each reflecting different theological frameworks.

2. These separate strands are further edited after the exile by priestly redactors with a pronounced political/theological agenda.

3. Both the original separate strands as well as the late overall redaction reflect a strong relationship to early flood stories from elsewhere in the Ancient Near East--e.g., Sumerian (Ziusudra), Akadian (Gilgamesh), and Babylonian (Atrahasis and Berossus).

4. Many of the numbers and details in the current text are idealized and very likely not literal. Some show a dependency on the sacred Babylonian sexagesimal (base 60) system: the ark's length is 60 x 5, the height is half of 60, etc. (Same with the ages of people.) Others are focused on the sacred number seven: 7 days, 7 pairs, God speaks to Noah 7 times, important words (destroy, covenant, etc.) are used exactly 7 times, etc. The narrative has been redacted carefully by priests who are even counting words as they craft the narrative a certain way.

5. The redactors of the Genesis narrative from chapters 1-11 (the primeval history) appear to make the case that the whole world is contained in the Mesopotamian flood plain. Geographical and topographical names and markers all point to a small geographic area in Mesopotamia. This was the entire world to the authors, from Eden to the flood, to the tower.

6. Redactors of the flood story appear to have edited the entire early chapters of Genesis as some kind of temple text that ties the flood back to the waters of chaos in the creation episode and to temple ceremonies where the divine king restores order throughout the universe by conquering Levianthan and stilling the waters above and below by renewing the eternal covenant. In this construct, the flood is as universal as the creation--it's not a question of scope on this planet but rather a cosmic event. The flood is the creation chaos of waters above and below renewed.

7. Translation affects understanding. Words are polysemous and thus ancient texts can obscure the focus and intent of a given statement. In this case, the Hebrew eretz can mean land or earth, har can mean mountain or hill, etc.

I could go on this vein for a while. The point is that there is only one primary text on the flood (Genesis) and that this text has been edited multiple times over centuries. Textual critics are fairly unanimous on this point, and LDS Doctrine is clearly sympathetic to the idea that biblical texts have been edited over the years. Given this state of affairs, making a case either way dogmatically is problematic. You're talking about multiple layers of editing compounded by nuances of language, culture, and translation. I personally feel that the original text would likely have represented a local reading, but that's me.

[J Green]

The leaders of the restored church have repeatedly taught the flood was global. This teaching is clearly stated in several official instruction manuals. References to these manuals have been made in this thread. Yet there are many on this very thread that refuse to acknowledge this. The length some people will go to discount clear teachings of the brethren that they do not agree with is pathetic.

I think you're overstating the case here, as does Cinepro. There are certainly many references to the flood by the brethren over the years. Most do not mention the actual scope, while some do. Most of those that do are not addressing the issue of the scope of the flood at all, they are using the flood narrative as a context within which to teach ideal principles like preparedness, etc. The statements are not constructed as sermons dealing with the issue of whether the flood was global or not.

The single text in the Standard Works that we have on this subject is problematic, which brings up the question of whether a global flood reading among Church members and leaders in the past and present is based on tradition or revelation. We as LDS recognize that the Bible has been edited and changed, and that some things have been removed. Prophets have occasionally sought revelation about the interpretation of specific passages, so when we read in the D&C about revelation based on a prophet asking what something meant, we can get pretty close to a doctrinal read. Otherwise, as with the Bible Dictionary, many of the interpretations over the years have simply been that of tradition within a certain conservative type of protestant biblical scholarship.

But some of this is changing. Several generations have passed and old assumptions are being challenged. We see the reworking of chapter headings in the Book of Mormon and other areas of scholarship are being explored. For example, most members have assumed that Josiah's reform as appears in the 2 Kings account was a great event. You will find this in manuals, lessons, and sermons by the brethren. Yet is this the product of assumption based on the common interpretation by conservative Christian scholars over the years or did the brethren run into multiple questions about it and end up going to the Lord seeking revelation? There is no indication of the latter. Yet recently President Cecil O. Samuelson of the Seventy invited Margaret Barker to speak to the religion department at BYU on the very subject of what Josiah reformed. This presentation very clearly challenged the old assumptions and interpretations about Josiah's reforms as given in the manuals and sermons. If the mention of this event in passing by the brethren in sermons intended to teach something different by application or the reliance on the best conservative Christian scholarship at the time in lesson and CES manuals constitutes the establishment of doctrine, then what was the reason for Pres. Samuelson asking Barker to challenge the assumptions of his religion department? Would this not be some type of heresy? Is it perhaps because he feels that the common interpretation of the account in 2 Kings is not the product of united inquiry and revelation and is simply an interpretation that may or may not be valid and may be usefully explored? If so, how does this apply to the flood issue?

Regards

[Rob Osborn]

I find it interesting that according to the bible and church doctrine, the flood is pretty much in the global definition, and yet people seem to think it is the other way around. The reality is that those wishing or believing it to be a regional and limited flood must first prove their case with the scriptures and with doctrine. But, nowhere in church doctrine or the scriptures does it say it was a localized event. The cloesest they come is in trying to redefine words like "earth" and also assuming that a prophet of God did not understand nor see things beyong yonder hill. It's interesting because Moses, who wrote the account saw it all in vision- he saw the whole thing- including our entire globe and all the other planets.

Localized flood believers can dream all they want about it being a small regional flood but the word of God says otherwise.

[J Green]

Localized flood believers can dream all they want about it being a small regional flood but the word of God says otherwise.

I'll be dreaming of sugar plums instead.

Merry Christmas, Rob.

[Jeff K.]

I find it interesting that according to the bible and church doctrine, the flood is pretty much in the global definition, and yet people seem to think it is the other way around. The reality is that those wishing or believing it to be a regional and limited flood must first prove their case with the scriptures and with doctrine. But, nowhere in church doctrine or the scriptures does it say it was a localized event. The cloesest they come is in trying to redefine words like "earth" and also assuming that a prophet of God did not understand nor see things beyong yonder hill. It's interesting because Moses, who wrote the account saw it all in vision- he saw the whole thing- including our entire globe and all the other planets.

Localized flood believers can dream all they want about it being a small regional flood but the word of God says otherwise.

You presume it to be doctrine, and yet, it isn't required to believe such for a temple recommend, nor is it required for any calling within the church. Surely if we refute such "doctrine" we would find ourselves rejecting the Lord? And yet, here are many members, myself included who are of the opinion that the flood was localized. What I find worrisome is tjat upi conflated the issues and painted the "church" in a way it is not. Simply because it does not say "everything" that occured does not mean as such it did not occur. Much that prophets write they write with their own eyes and understanding.

As to your reference of Moses, such has already been addressed in this thread, I think it is reasonable to presume that the issue is not entirely clear to anyone at this point.

[cinepro]

In every conversation on this subject Cinepro routinely overstates the case that all the leaders have taught this as doctrine. I've gone through his quotes and even more on LDS.org. Many of the passages he linked me to in the past didn't even mention the scope of the flood. The ones that did mention the scope mostly did so in passing as a narrative about something completely different.

Just to be clear, I've never said that "all leaders have taught this as doctrine". I've only said that whenever any leader or Church publication or curriculum has addressed the issue, it is stated as being global.

There are obviously many statements that don't address the scope of the flood one way or another, and many leaders who have never brought the subject up. But whenever it is addressed, it is without exception specified to be global.

[cinepro]

Some believe it is global and others believe it is regional. There is room for both in the gospel since there isn't any clear doctrine to establish one or the other. There are many statements made by both sides that have strong validity and we unfortunately don't have time in this short period to discuss them to their fullest.

I hope you weren't implying that "statements from both sides" have been made by Church leaders in any Church publications. If so, that would be incorrect.

And your statement that there "isn't any clear doctrine" is also incorrect. By any standard of "doctrine", and especially the Church newsroom's, it is about as clear as can be.

[cinepro]

You presume it to be doctrine, and yet, it isn't required to believe such for a temple recommend, nor is it required for any calling within the church.

Something can be doctrine and not be a required belief for entry to the Temple or the holding of a calling.

I love it when issues like this inspire people to create whole new classes of "doctrines" out of thin air in an attempt to produce wiggle room. As I've said before, that's one of the reasons I find this whole "flood" thing so interesting.

Suddenly, everything that isn't required for Temple attendance is optional! It's like magic!

[Jeff K.]

I disagree and I think it is disengenuous to believe classes of doctrine are made up, unless of course you mean Christ made up the new classes when he healed a man on the sabbath.

I suggest you get over your limited view of the church and perhaps read with more of the spirit and less of the condescending imagined elitism. It really hasn't helped you understand the gospel very well now has it? Or is that some of your personal interpretation?

[Jeff K.]

I hope you weren't implying that "statements from both sides" have been made by Church leaders in any Church publications. If so, that would be incorrect.

And your statement that there "isn't any clear doctrine" is also incorrect. By any standard of "doctrine", and especially the Church newsroom's, it is about as clear as can be.

Leaders opinions have varied and not every opinion is pulbished.

It seems you don't fully appreciate the commentary you linked, I would think it supports me more than the somewhat limited view you attempt to place on the church.

[J Green]

Just to be clear, I've never said that "all leaders have taught this as doctrine". I've only said that whenever any leader or Church publication or curriculum has addressed the issue, it is stated as being global.

There are obviously many statements that don't address the scope of the flood one way or another, and many leaders who have never brought the subject up. But whenever it is addressed, it is without exception specified to be global.

I think I can agree that this is a fair statement.

By any standard of "doctrine", and especially the Church newsroom's, it is about as clear as can be.

Of course we've had this conversation, but I feel that the Church's statement makes it clear that it isn't doctrine.

Merry Christmas, Cinepro!

[thesometimesaint]

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_science/Global_or_local_Flood

THE GREAT FLOOD. The Old Testament records a flood that was just over fifteen cubits (sometimes assumed to be about twenty-six feet) deep and covered the entire landscape: "And all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered" (Gen. 7:19). Scientifically this account leaves many questions unanswered, especially how a measurable depth could cover mountains. Elder John A. Widtsoe, writing in 1943, offered this perspective: The fact remains that the exact nature of the flood is not known. We set up assumptions, based upon our best knowledge, but can go no further. We should remember that when inspired writers deal with historical incidents they relate that which they have seen or that which may have been told them, unless indeed the past is opened to them by revelation. The details in the story of the flood are undoubtedly drawn from the experiences of the writer. Under a downpour of rain, likened to the opening of the heavens, a destructive torrent twenty-six feet deep or deeper would easily be formed. The writer of Genesis made a faithful report of the facts known to him concerning the flood. In other localities the depth of the water might have been more or less. In fact, the details of the flood are not known to us [Widtsoe, p. 127].

[Jeff K.]

OOOooh sometimessaint, the undercover thread assassin.

[Rob Osborn]

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_science/Global_or_local_Flood

THE GREAT FLOOD. The Old Testament records a flood that was just over fifteen cubits (sometimes assumed to be about twenty-six feet) deep and covered the entire landscape: "And all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered" (Gen. 7:19). Scientifically this account leaves many questions unanswered, especially how a measurable depth could cover mountains. Elder John A. Widtsoe, writing in 1943, offered this perspective: The fact remains that the exact nature of the flood is not known. We set up assumptions, based upon our best knowledge, but can go no further. We should remember that when inspired writers deal with historical incidents they relate that which they have seen or that which may have been told them, unless indeed the past is opened to them by revelation. The details in the story of the flood are undoubtedly drawn from the experiences of the writer. Under a downpour of rain, likened to the opening of the heavens, a destructive torrent twenty-six feet deep or deeper would easily be formed. The writer of Genesis made a faithful report of the facts known to him concerning the flood. In other localities the depth of the water might have been more or less. In fact, the details of the flood are not known to us [Widtsoe, p. 127].

[cinepro]

I disagree and I think it is disengenuous to believe classes of doctrine are made up, unless of course you mean Christ made up the new classes when he healed a man on the sabbath.

I suggest you get over your limited view of the church and perhaps read with more of the spirit and less of the condescending imagined elitism. It really hasn't helped you understand the gospel very well now has it? Or is that some of your personal interpretation?

I'm not sure I understand.

If I am seeking the Church's doctrine on whether or not the flood were global or regional, I would go to the Church's website and search the words of the Prophets and Apostles, as well as the articles from correlated publications and curriculum (after all, a stated goal of Correlation is to "Maintain purity of doctrine").

In doing so, I would find many clear, unambiguous statements saying the flood was global, and even a few explicitly saying that it was not a regional or allegorical story. I would also find other teachings that are attached to the global flood, such as "Earth's Baptism" and "Noah as a second Adam".

Yet, now I am being told that if someone believes these clear, Church-published statements, it is somehow a sign of "imagined elitism"? How strange.

[cinepro]

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_science/Global_or_local_Flood

? ?

If someone had told me it was possible to write an article about the Church's position on something, and out of 11 end notes for the article three would be to a Sunstone article, three would be to Church publications from the 1800's, one would be to the "Common Consent" blog, two would be to JFS "Answer to Gospel Questions", one to an oceanography text book, and one to an Ensign article, I would have told them no one would take such an article seriously.

And yet, here we are.

I can only imagine the reception awaiting if a critic were to create an article with such references and cite it in a discussion on this board.

Finally, if Hugh Nibley can believe in a massive albeit regional(local) flood and remain a faithful, knowledgeable, and highly regarded Saint. I'm in good company.

Like I said before, I love this subject because it brings out the most unique perspectives on LDS doctrine. Now we have a "Nibley" standard of some sort! I'm definitely going to have to keep that one in my back pocket.

[thesometimesaint]

Rob Osborn:

Science as such can neither "Prove or "Disprove" any religion. Religion is a statement of beliefs. Science can not say anything about the supernatural with any authority. Only to the extent that religions make falsifiable statements about the physical world(universe).

For examples the Saints believe in a pre-mortal life with Heavenly Father. We can safely believe it to our hearts content. There is nothing in science that can falsify that statement. Also the Bible makes a statement about the physical world in that Pi is equal to exactly 3. This is demonstratively false.

http://www.abarim-publications.com/Bible_Commentary/Pi_In_The_Bible.html

[Tarski]

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

Evidence that would have to be there-massive evidence.

Look around the room right now folks and ask what is the evidence against the entire room having been under water while you were out?

[cinepro]

You've definitely piqued my interest.

Next time it is appropriate and relevant to the lesson, I am going to ask my GD class straight up who believes the flood was global, and who believes it was regional.

If you ever do, I would obviously be very interested in hearing how it goes. I suspect that until that moment, some members of the class would never even have entertained the thought that a non-global interpretation could be possible in a LDS context.

It would be like asking a class whether or not they believe Adam and Eve were real, actual people.

[Jeff K.]

Evidence that would have to be there-massive evidence.

Look around the room right now folks and ask what is the evidence against the entire room having been under water while you were out?

Evidence of tectonic plate shifting? There would have to be massive evidence, and there is, but sometimes science just filters it out. The argument that there has to be massive evidence is phallacious at best. Massive things can occur with evidence that is well hidden. Chixilub comes to mind. It always depends on where you look, and the instruments you have and if you are looking the right way.

Science should be better than poor arguments. It would be better and more accurate to say that evidence is limited and other explanations are more likely. Even science knows absolutes are a dangerous thing.

[Jeff K.]

If you ever do, I would obviously be very interested in hearing how it goes. I suspect that until that moment, some members of the class would never even have entertained the thought that a non-global interpretation could be possible in a LDS context.

It would be like asking a class whether or not they believe Adam and Eve were real, actual people.

Its a shame you hold saints in such low esteem. I certainly don't. Perhaps you haven't known too many of them. In my travels I have found most saints to be educated and intelligent and inquisitive enough to question many things both inside and outside the church. The issue of a global versus local flood is even discussed in the young mens groups I have been to (three times I have heard it discussed. Now if young men, high priests, and elders are in on the discussion, what makes you think that most or even some saints haven't been exposed to the idea. While my view tends towards the idea of a regional flood of some sort, I would not deem saints too dumb or too blind to have not discussed it.

[cinepro]

Its a shame you hold saints in such low esteem. I certainly don't. Perhaps you haven't known too many of them. In my travels I have found most saints to be educated and intelligent and inquisitive enough to question many things both inside and outside the church. The issue of a global versus local flood is even discussed in the young mens groups I have been to (three times I have heard it discussed. Now if young men, high priests, and elders are in on the discussion, what makes you think that most or even some saints haven't been exposed to the idea. While my view tends towards the idea of a regional flood of some sort, I would not deem saints too dumb or too blind to have not discussed it.

Why is it holding the "saints" in low esteem to hypothesize that most believe what they are taught in the scriptures and by the Prophets and Apostles and the Church publications? If I suggested that most LDS probably believe that Jesus was literally resurrected or Adam's fall was ~4,000 BC based on what they read in the scriptures and what they've been taught in Church publications, is that any more insulting? Some might even call it faith.

As with so many other things in the Church, our perceptions can only be shaped by the experiences we've had. It sounds like you've been in some really forward-thinking Church classes.

I've had the pleasure of being in wards that would be considered very "liberal" when it comes to certain gospel doctrines, teachings and policies, but I've never heard the possibility of a local or allegorical flood brought up in a Church setting. Maybe 2014 will be the year it happens for me...

[Jeff K.]

I've had the pleasure of being in wards that would be considered very "liberal" when it comes to certain gospel doctrines, teachings and policies, but I've never heard the possibility of a local or allegorical flood brought up in a Church setting. Maybe 2014 will be the year it happens for me...

Then you need to get out more. That question was fielded in seminary class 1979 in Bristol Virginia, one year after I joined the church, a branch. The question came up again in other wards I have been in, including several in CA, and more than a few in Texas, Provo/Orem. In other words not sure how a convert can hear more about it over the years in different wards than you have (along the same lines polygamy and other items were addressed.