The Flood & Geologic Giants

[Senator]

Talk about being easily duped!

Easily??

[semlogo]

Honestly, if the church still teaches that it was global, they're wrong, and I'm sure the error will be corrected eventually. Truth will win out.

[SkepticTheist]

Yes, it's the same myth.

I know that you say it is a myth. I understand why you say it is a myth.

But as I see it, this boils down to a number of possibilities. Bear with me because I am doing this for my own thought process more than just for this post. Because as I said, I'm trying to work this out in my mind, and please respond to these things and give me your thoughts on them:

As for the ark:

(1) Noah really did build an ark, or Noah did not and it is metaphorical. There is indeed another option.

(2) The Gnostic accounts mention a "luminous cloud" rather than an ark, something akin to the "rapture" where the faithful people were taken up and the rest perished, and this has also been conflated with the city of Enoch tradition being lifted up, according to Hugh Nibley. So the gnostic accounts are saying that the ark is not literal, but it is rather this "cloud". Oftentimes a parallel is made between the flood and the burning at the second coming. This luminous cloud option sure sounds a lot like the rapture where people will be taken up in the cloud to meet the Savior.

(3) If there really was a literal ark, you'd think that there would be some remnant on some mountain, but up until now, all of the ark hunters have come up with nothing. And these two new ark finds are flawed. The one in Iran is just a volcanic outcropping. The one on Ararat last year was a fraud that fooled a group of Evangelical ark hunters.

As for the number of people that were saved:

(1) The bible says there were 8. this is symbolic of the age of baptism. So therefore it could be just symbolic, and not literal.

(2) the Koran and other sources, including the gnostic accounts, seem to indicate a bigger number than 8

As for the animals:

(1) We could say that the animals that Noah took all filled the ark and that all else perished, but then what about the complexity of the animal life on the earth? This could be explained by the idea that there was more panspermia after the flood, where angels brought more animals to the earth afterward. But then what of the apparent continuity in species at various parts of the earth? If we invoke panspermia, then we might as well just adopt the luminous cloud option anyway, and say that the animals were all saved in the cloud rather than invoke panspermia from another world.

(2) The Book of Jasher and other sources seem to indicate that it was baby animals that were taken, which would allow for more room on the ark.

(3) If it was a "luminous cloud" rather than an ark, then conceivably there was much more room in this cloud or clouds to lift up any number of animals than on an ark.

As for the extent of the flood:

(1) To have the flood as a global event, we have to dismiss the results of science as it now stands.

(2) Is it likely that science is wrong at this point? Or is it the self corrective nature of science that will win here eventually to prove a global flood?

(3) Should I "cave in" here for lack of evidence at the moment, or should I be patient for evidence to appear?

(4) I believe in the historicity of the Book of Mormon, so is it any more unreasonable to patiently wait for evidence on the global flood than to, say, wait for evidence for steel swords and chariots and horses? I haven't seen the plates of the Book of Mormon either. I am a New York Cumorah believer, am not giving up just because BYU scholars accepted this thing from this dude that was an amateur arrowhead hunter that went around the hill and found nothing. Is it any different than to say that I shouldn't give up on the global flood just because nothing has been found yet? It is the same kind of leap of faith, is it not?

(5) Could we say that a "luminous cloud" explanation, rather than the ark, is a better explanation for how Noah got from America to Turkey? That he was simply lifted up and carried there once the flood was over? Even if the flood was not global, this luminous cloud option could explain how Noah got there.

(6) I like this explanation given as to why the Bible would say the flood was global, yet it was only regional, because of the extent of the known earth, but this doesn't explain how Noah got from America to Turkey. In this case, would the luminous cloud option go well with this explanation?

(7) Yes, I know some apologists are dismissing the Missouri Garden of Eden and so forth, and going in favor of a Garden of Eden in the old world instead. But I'm not ready to accept that and don't feel very good about that. In that case though, Noah would have already been in the old world. But then all LDS tradition on Adam in America has to be dismissed.

( 8 ) What of the age of man that was drastically reduced in the scriptures from almost a thousand years time to under a hundred years in just a matter of a few generations? Doesn't this indicate a major change in climate or something that effected man's age? Isn't that indicative of a major global cataclysm?

I'm trying to put together a list of things like this to reason through this thing. Please help me out if you guys can think of more stuff about other options of how all this stuff could fit together.

Ed Goble

[zelder]

(3) If there really was a literal ark, you'd think that there would be some remnant on some mountain, but up until now, all of the ark hunters have come up with nothing. And these two new ark finds are flawed. The one in Iran is just a volcanic outcropping. The one on Ararat last year was a fraud that fooled a group of Evangelical ark hunters..

Ed Goble

Genesis 8:4 states that the ark landed on the "mountains of ararat" not on the Mountain of Ararat. Its a region not a specific mountain top. I think G Edward Griffin presents something to think about in his ark documentary. Anybody who is open minded about a literal flood and a literal ark should at least take a look at this.

http://www.youtube.c...B9447D994E9A7AA

If you were refering to this site in your description of the "volcanic outcropping" then my apologies for wasting your time with something you already knew about. However, if any open minded person has not seen this specific video they might want to watch it. I think its worthwhile.

[Ron Beron]

I know that you say it is a myth. I understand why you say it is a myth.

But as I see it, this boils down to a number of possibilities. Bear with me because I am doing this for my own thought process more than just for this post. Because as I said, I'm trying to work this out in my mind, and please respond to these things and give me your thoughts on them:

There is a simpler argument. The OT redactor(s) who compiled what came to be known as the OT simply drew from a series of previous available mythopoesis to support a unifying Hebrew belief in a single loving and caring God for Israel. Did an ark exist? The earlier Mesopotamian accounts attest to one. Was it large? Probably not at all. Ostensibly it was round (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jan/01/noahs-ark-was-circular). Were there animals? Probably, but the OT references two types of counting. One is a priestly account which considers the cleanliness of the animals while another considers a different version. Was there a flood? There are always floods, both here and the Old World. If you combine natural occurrences, cataclysms, and other-worldly collisions then you will have a combined nexus for a single event. In other words, the flood was not just a single event, but a multitude of events which is reflected as one.

[Senator]

Genesis 8:4 states that the ark landed on the "mountains of ararat" not on the Mountain of Ararat. Its a region not a specific mountain top. I think G Edward Griffin presents something to think about in his ark documentary. Anybody who is open minded about a literal flood and a literal ark should at least take a look at this.

http://www.youtube.c...B9447D994E9A7AA

If you were refering to this site in your description of the "volcanic outcropping" then my apologies for wasting your time with something you already knew about. However, if any open minded person has not seen this specific video they might want to watch it. I think its worthwhile.

I have a question for ark enthusiasts?

Is it a held belief that the ark shipwrecked on a mountain side, or that it peacefully came ashore?

[SkepticTheist]

I'll definitely take that argument into consideration.

There is a simpler argument. The OT redactor(s) who compiled what came to be known as the OT simply drew from a series of previous available mythopoesis to support a unifying Hebrew belief in a single loving and caring God for Israel. Did an ark exist? The earlier Mesopotamian accounts attest to one. Was it large? Probably not at all. Ostensibly it was round (http://www.guardian....rk-was-circular). Were there animals? Probably, but the OT references two types of counting. One is a priestly account which considers the cleanliness of the animals while another considers a different version. Was there a flood? There are always floods, both here and the Old World. If you combine natural occurrences, cataclysms, and other-worldly collisions then you will have a combined nexus for a single event. In other words, the flood was not just a single event, but a multitude of events which is reflected as one.

[44Foxtrot]

I know that you say it is a myth. I understand why you say it is a myth.

But as I see it, this boils down to a number of possibilities. Bear with me because I am doing this for my own thought process more than just for this post. Because as I said, I'm trying to work this out in my mind, and please respond to these things and give me your thoughts on them:

As for the ark:

(1) Noah really did build an ark, or Noah did not and it is metaphorical. There is indeed another option.

(2) The Gnostic accounts mention a "luminous cloud" rather than an ark, something akin to the "rapture" where the faithful people were taken up and the rest perished, and this has also been conflated with the city of Enoch tradition being lifted up, according to Hugh Nibley. So the gnostic accounts are saying that the ark is not literal, but it is rather this "cloud". Oftentimes a parallel is made between the flood and the burning at the second coming. This luminous cloud option sure sounds a lot like the rapture where people will be taken up in the cloud to meet the Savior.

(3) If there really was a literal ark, you'd think that there would be some remnant on some mountain, but up until now, all of the ark hunters have come up with nothing. And these two new ark finds are flawed. The one in Iran is just a volcanic outcropping. The one on Ararat last year was a fraud that fooled a group of Evangelical ark hunters.

As for the number of people that were saved:

(1) The bible says there were 8. this is symbolic of the age of baptism. So therefore it could be just symbolic, and not literal.

(2) the Koran and other sources, including the gnostic accounts, seem to indicate a bigger number than 8

As for the animals:

(1) We could say that the animals that Noah took all filled the ark and that all else perished, but then what about the complexity of the animal life on the earth? This could be explained by the idea that there was more panspermia after the flood, where angels brought more animals to the earth afterward. But then what of the apparent continuity in species at various parts of the earth? If we invoke panspermia, then we might as well just adopt the luminous cloud option anyway, and say that the animals were all saved in the cloud rather than invoke panspermia from another world.

(2) The Book of Jasher and other sources seem to indicate that it was baby animals that were taken, which would allow for more room on the ark.

(3) If it was a "luminous cloud" rather than an ark, then conceivably there was much more room in this cloud or clouds to lift up any number of animals than on an ark.

As for the extent of the flood:

(1) To have the flood as a global event, we have to dismiss the results of science as it now stands.

(2) Is it likely that science is wrong at this point? Or is it the self corrective nature of science that will win here eventually to prove a global flood?

(3) Should I "cave in" here for lack of evidence at the moment, or should I be patient for evidence to appear?

(4) I believe in the historicity of the Book of Mormon, so is it any more unreasonable to patiently wait for evidence on the global flood than to, say, wait for evidence for steel swords and chariots and horses? I haven't seen the plates of the Book of Mormon either. I am a New York Cumorah believer, am not giving up just because BYU scholars accepted this thing from this dude that was an amateur arrowhead hunter that went around the hill and found nothing. Is it any different than to say that I shouldn't give up on the global flood just because nothing has been found yet? It is the same kind of leap of faith, is it not?

(5) Could we say that a "luminous cloud" explanation, rather than the ark, is a better explanation for how Noah got from America to Turkey? That he was simply lifted up and carried there once the flood was over? Even if the flood was not global, this luminous cloud option could explain how Noah got there.

(6) I like this explanation given as to why the Bible would say the flood was global, yet it was only regional, because of the extent of the known earth, but this doesn't explain how Noah got from America to Turkey. In this case, would the luminous cloud option go well with this explanation?

(7) Yes, I know some apologists are dismissing the Missouri Garden of Eden and so forth, and going in favor of a Garden of Eden in the old world instead. But I'm not ready to accept that and don't feel very good about that. In that case though, Noah would have already been in the old world. But then all LDS tradition on Adam in America has to be dismissed.

( 8 ) What of the age of man that was drastically reduced in the scriptures from almost a thousand years time to under a hundred years in just a matter of a few generations? Doesn't this indicate a major change in climate or something that effected man's age? Isn't that indicative of a major global cataclysm?

I'm trying to put together a list of things like this to reason through this thing. Please help me out if you guys can think of more stuff about other options of how all this stuff could fit together.

Ed Goble

You have certainly put together an extensive, and often contradictory, set of assumed exigencies here.

You asked very nicely for some help, and here is my contribution:

Simply eliminate any points from your lists that are found in scripture or are comments from people who are relying on the scriptures for their beliefs.

You might be surprised at what a simple, elegant and internally consistent picture emerges from the remaining points.

[zelder]

You have certainly put together an extensive, and often contradictory, set of assumed exigencies here.

You asked very nicely for some help and here is my contribution:

Simply eliminate any points from your lists that are found in scripture or are comments from people who are relying on the scriptures for their beliefs.

You might be surprised how simple, elegant and and internally consistent the picture is that emerges from the remaining points.

I would agree that something has to go. Either give up on a literal view of the scriptures or give up on old earth views. Did pangea split 250 million years ago or did it split 4,000 years ago? Was there really a continuation of civilation during Noah's day or are the dating methods completely whack? Could there be a beast/church of the devil/secret combination controlled by mondern day Korihor's or are scientific views developed and propagated purely through honest investigation? As soon as you give up on one side of your opposing views the cognitive dissonance goes away.

[cinepro]

The Bible does not teach a global flood, but talks only of a regional flood. The term used in the OT is "ha eretz". Eretz meaning the earth, but only the known earth. Since Earth was soon as a flatland and not a sphere that which was over the horizon was unknown and therefore not part of the known earth. Further, the waters only covered 15 cubits or around 20 feet above the known mountains. This does preclude that other parts of the world at some time had been covered by water as it was early in its history some 2.5 billion years ago. Noah missed that one.

So, why, exactly, did Noah need to bring any non-food animals into the ark?

Heck, why did he even need to build an ark in the first place? He just needed to walk to the nearest mountain that was more than 20 feet tall and set up camp.

When we theorize a local flood, we are negating almost all of the unique elements of the Genesis and official LDS accounts of the flood:

- Ark. No longer needed. They just had to get to high ground.

- Breeding pairs of animals. No longer needed. Few if any species would be wiped out by a local flood.

- Noah's family repopulating the planet. No longer needed. There would still be many other civilizations and tribes living outside the flood area. As we see in the Book of Mormon, God could have just had Noah go and join one of the many other surviving tribes and convert them to pre-Christianity.

- God promising Noah he would no longer send floods to kill people in isolated areas. Not true; it happens all the time.

As for your appeal to "what the Bible says", it should be noted that one of the Church's most educated experts on Biblical Hebrew strongly supports the global flood theory and rejects the local flood theories. I don't know if you know more about Hebrew than him, but I'm guessing you don't.

[zelder]

So, why, exactly, did Noah need to bring any non-food animals into the ark?

Heck, why did he even need to build an ark in the first place? He just needed to walk to the nearest mountain that was more than 20 feet tall and set up camp.

When we theorize a local flood, we are negating almost all of the unique elements of the Genesis and official LDS accounts of the flood:

- Ark. No longer needed. They just had to get to high ground.

- Breeding pairs of animals. No longer needed. Few if any species would be wiped out by a local flood.

- Noah's family repopulating the planet. No longer needed. There would still be many other civilizations and tribes living outside the flood area. As we see in the Book of Mormon, God could have just had Noah go and join one of the many other surviving tribes and convert them to pre-Christianity.

- God promising Noah he would no longer send floods to kill people in isolated areas. Not true; it happens all the time.

As for your appeal to "what the Bible says", it should be noted that one of the Church's most educated experts on Biblical Hebrew strongly supports the global flood theory and rejects the local flood theories. I don't know if you know more about Hebrew than him, but I'm guessing you don't.

Those are excellent points cinepro. You are not going to let that cognitive dissonance quiet down are you?

[Rob Osborn]

The Bible does not teach a global flood, but talks only of a regional flood. The term used in the OT is "ha eretz". Eretz meaning the earth, but only the known earth. Since Earth was soon as a flatland and not a sphere that which was over the horizon was unknown and therefore not part of the known earth. Further, the waters only covered 15 cubits or around 20 feet above the known mountains. This does preclude that other parts of the world at some time had been covered by water as it was early in its history some 2.5 billion years ago. Noah missed that one.

The "known" earth to Moses was the "entire planet"- he saw the whole thing. You really need to do better homework there.

[David T]

The "known" earth to Moses was the "entire planet"- he saw the whole thing. You really need to do better homework there.

[zelder]

The "known" earth to Moses was the "entire planet"- he saw the whole thing. You really need to do better homework there.

I'm not disagreeing with you Rob but I'm interested in seeing your homework on this subject.

[SkepticTheist]

You have certainly put together an extensive, and often contradictory, set of assumed exigencies here.

You asked very nicely for some help, and here is my contribution:

Simply eliminate any points from your lists that are found in scripture or are comments from people who are relying on the scriptures for their beliefs.

You might be surprised at what a simple, elegant and internally consistent picture emerges from the remaining points.

Good point. The problem is, complex truths cannot always be understood when reductionism is used. I'm not saying that there is a complex truth here, or that it cannot be simple. I have to wade through the morass though because of the fact that I want a concise and basically correct explanation in the end. Concise may or may not be as simple as what you say. The problem is, the scriptures are so insistent on the literalness of it, and the symbolism of the baptism of the earth loses its critical symbolism if the earth is not entirely inundated. And if I do not give appropriate consideration and pondering to each possible explanation, however unlikely, I can't expect to get personal revelation.

[Fifth Columnist]

The "known" earth to Moses was the "entire planet"- he saw the whole thing. You really need to do better homework there.

Wait, what? Are you saying that Noah knew the earth was a giant sphere? How many others knew this?

[cinepro]

I'm not disagreeing with you Rob but I'm interested in seeing your homework on this subject.

Moses chapter 1:

1 The words of God, which he spake unto Moses at a time when Moses was caught up into an exceedingly high mountain,

3 And God spake unto Moses, saying: Behold, I am the Lord God Almighty, and Endless is my name; for I am without beginning of days or end of years; and is not this endless?

4 And, behold, thou art my son; wherefore look, and I will show thee the workmanship of mine hands; but not all, for my works are without end, and also my words, for they never cease.

......................

7 And now, behold, this one thing I show unto thee, Moses, my son, for thou art in the world, and now I show it unto thee.

8 And it came to pass that Moses looked, and beheld the world upon which he was created; and Moses beheld the world and the ends thereof, and all the children of men which are, and which were created; of the same he greatly marveled and wondered.

So if we believe that Moses is the author of Genesis, it would appear that the author of Genesis had been shown the "the world", including "the ends thereof", and "all the children of men which are".

Doesn't sound like a local region in the middle east (or midwestern North America) to me...

[Rob Osborn]

Wait, what? Are you saying that Noah knew the earth was a giant sphere? How many others knew this?

Unbelievable....completely unbelievable....

Men did not live under rocks or in caves back then. They were knowledgable. The pre-flood prophets were shown the earth and it's inhabitants in vision leading up to the flood.

But, if you wish, you could go ask Noah, I am pretty sure that he can set things straight.

[Rob Osborn]

I'm not disagreeing with you Rob but I'm interested in seeing your homework on this subject.

27And it came to pass, as the voice was still speaking, Moses cast his eyes and beheld the earth, yea, even all of it; and there was not a particle of it which he did not behold, discerning it by the Spirit of God.

28And he beheld also the inhabitants thereof, and there was not a soul which he beheld not; and he discerned them by the Spirit of God; and their numbers were great, even numberless as the sand upon the sea shore.

(Moses 1:27-28)

[Ron Beron]

'cinepro' writes,

So, why, exactly, did Noah need to bring any non-food animals into the ark?

Heck, why did he even need to build an ark in the first place? He just needed to walk to the nearest mountain that was more than 20 feet tall and set up camp.

I would suppose you would have to ask him. The 20 foot number is in Genesis not Ron Beron.

When we theorize a local flood, we are negating almost all of the unique elements of the Genesis and official LDS accounts of the flood:

I am not theorizing a local flood, but a devastating regional flood. Global flooding is essentially impossible. As to "official" accounts of the flood...what exactly would those be?

As for your appeal to "what the Bible says", it should be noted that one of the Church's most educated experts on Biblical Hebrew strongly supports the global flood theory and rejects the local flood theories. I don't know if you know more about Hebrew than him, but I'm guessing you don't.

Why shouldn't I since the person in question is unknown, unreferenced, and uncelebrated. I would think that anything produced by BYU would have a certain cobbling effect connected with it since one would not expect a church expert to negate a literal view of the Bible. While I challenge the scientific plausibility of the situation as detailed in the OT I would agree with the church's spiritual interpretation of the event. In other words, it was a figurative lesson drawn on an actual cataclysmic event of unknown determination.

[Ron Beron]

27And it came to pass, as the voice was still speaking, Moses cast his eyes and beheld the earth, yea, even all of it; and there was not a particle of it which he did not behold, discerning it by the Spirit of God.

28And he beheld also the inhabitants thereof, and there was not a soul which he beheld not; and he discerned them by the Spirit of God; and their numbers were great, even numberless as the sand upon the sea shore.

(Moses 1:27-28)

And....was the Earth round? Is there a description of the physical characterizations of the Earth? What you seem to be ignoring is the ancient Hebrew concept of cosmology which shows a flat earth not a spherical one. We are not debating Moses' ability to see only your definition of what constitutes the Earth anciently.

[Calm]

Why shouldn't I since the person in question is unknown, unreferenced, and uncelebrated.

He is talking about Don Parry, whose bio you will be linked to if you click on the underlined 'him'.

[Rob Osborn]

And....was the Earth round? Is there a description of the physical characterizations of the Earth? What you seem to be ignoring is the ancient Hebrew concept of cosmology which shows a flat earth not a spherical one. We are not debating Moses' ability to see only your definition of what constitutes the Earth anciently.

Who even says that Moses adhered to any ancient Hebrew concept of cosmology? It seems very apparent that Moses saw things from the perspective of the Gods. The verses say that he discerened the entire earth through the eyes of the spirit. He didn't nor possibly couldn't have seen a flat earth.

Are you just making stuff up?

[zelder]

27And it came to pass, as the voice was still speaking, Moses cast his eyes and beheld the earth, yea, even all of it; and there was not a particle of it which he did not behold, discerning it by the Spirit of God.

28And he beheld also the inhabitants thereof, and there was not a soul which he beheld not; and he discerned them by the Spirit of God; and their numbers were great, even numberless as the sand upon the sea shore.

(Moses 1:27-28)

Well I have to agree with you Rob. Moses must have known the earth is a sphere.

[Ron Beron]

He is talking about Don Parry, whose bio you will be linked to if you click on the underlined 'him'.

Ahhh...thanks. Didn't see that and upon further research and the appropriate viewing of his impressive vitae I come away with some incredulity of his conclusions. While he might have an outstanding ability of linguistic interpretation I would really question him on early Hebrew belief. I would love to hear some qualification of his comments.