The Flood & Geologic Giants

[Rob Osborn]

Rob Osborn:

Nope. However I am perfectly free to not believe that someone's interpretation of what they said is factually accurate.

"We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God." should strike a bell with you.

Yea, and even the BoM prophets believe the flood. Even Christ believed in the flood. How is your argument any different than us believing in the resurrection?

[cinepro]

The only beliefs that are enfored are the ones asked about in the temple recommend questions. We don't need to believe in a literal flood or a literal Adam and Eve.

They are mostly concerned about our behaviour. We are expected to believe in God, the atonement of Jesus, and the restoration of the gospel, thats about it.

That's great to hear. I have a friend who has serious doubts about the historicity of the Book of Mormon and the literal resurrection of Jesus, and he'll be relieved to know he can still be counted as worthy and faithful.

[David T]

This isn't a dialogue. This is a series of monologues. Or maybe even this.

Rob, any chance of responding to (or even acknowledging the existence of) my post, which is a direct response to one of your key arguments?

[thesometimesaint]

Rob Osborn:

I believe in the flood too. I just don't believe it involved covering the entire earth, as we know it, with many feet of water. I do allow others to believe whatever they want about it without questioning their commitment to their religions.

[semlogo]

I read somewhere that Noah's story was originally just about the wine thing - he was supposed to be the first man to have figured out the art of wine-making, and that possibly the flood story was something that just got attached to him later. I have no idea how much validity there is to that - I haven't found a lot on it.

[thesometimesaint]

semlogo:

I don't know as I'd put much stock in that idea. Wine making and beer making have been around for a long time.

http://wine.lovetoknow.com/wiki/Who_Invented_Wine

The Origin of Wine

Answering the question "Who invented wine?" isn't really possibly because scientists and historians alike believe that wine was not really invented, it was more discovered than anything. Basically, they believe that the discovery of wine was made by ancient peoples when they found their grapes had spoiled and fermented, creating fermented grape juice. Many believe that this is when the wine making process was invented and this is where most stories about the origins of wine begin. First, some historical and archaeological facts before we delve into myth and fables.

[semlogo]

semlogo:

I don't know as I'd put much stock in that idea. Wine making and beer making have been around for a long time.

http://wine.lovetoknow.com/wiki/Who_Invented_Wine

The Origin of Wine

Answering the question "Who invented wine?" isn't really possibly because scientists and historians alike believe that wine was not really invented, it was more discovered than anything. Basically, they believe that the discovery of wine was made by ancient peoples when they found their grapes had spoiled and fermented, creating fermented grape juice. Many believe that this is when the wine making process was invented and this is where most stories about the origins of wine begin. First, some historical and archaeological facts before we delve into myth and fables.

I wouldn't put stock in the story literally, but I'm just wondering if Noah wasn't perhaps a fictional character like Paul Bunyan (or a real one like Johnny Appleseed) who got inserted into a couple of myths at different points.

[cinepro]

I wouldn't put stock in the story literally, but I'm just wondering if Noah wasn't perhaps a fictional character like Paul Bunyan (or a real one like Johnny Appleseed) who got inserted into a couple of myths at different points.

LDS are pretty committed to the idea of Noah being an actual human being, regardless of the scope of the flood.

Since the surety of LDS beliefs is often inversely proportional to the likelihood of that belief's falsification, I'd say we're safe in being 100% sure that there was a man named "Noah" who lived several thousand years ago.

[thesometimesaint]

cinepro:

As liberal with the gospel as I am. I'd have a hard time with someone who did not believe in the divinity of Christ holding a Temple Recommend. IIRC question number 1 is: Do you have faith in and a testimony of God the Eternal Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost?

[semlogo]

LDS are pretty committed to the idea of Noah being an actual human being, regardless of the scope of the flood.

Since the surety of LDS beliefs is often inversely proportional to the likelihood of that belief's falsification, I'd say we're safe in being 100% sure that there was a man named "Noah" who lived several thousand years ago.

While I AM a believing Latter-day Saint, I never assume that a doctrine or idea in the church could not possibly wrong (as opposed to the "unofficial" designation people like to throw around). Especially when belief conflicts with science. Apparently church leaders have taught that there was a literal, global flood - respectfully, they are wrong about that.

[Rob Osborn]

This is all moot if Moses 1 was a modern inspired pseudepigraphon wherein Joseph wrote of his visionary experiences and revealed principles in the framework of a Mosaic revelation, to give renewed and greater authority to the Biblical text.

Thomas Paine wrote, in "The Age of Reason", in criticism to the lack of authority Genesis itself claimed, that the Book of Genesis account of Creation "begins abruptly. It is nobody that speaks. It is nobody that hears. It is addressed to nobody. It has neither first, second, nor third person. It has every criterion of being a tradition. It has no voucher. Moses does not take it upon himself by introducing it with the formality that he uses on other occasions, such as that of saying, "The Lord spake unto Moses, saying."

Now compare with how Moses 2 begins: "And it came to pass that the Lord spake unto Moses, saying: Behold, I reveal unto you concerning this heaven , and this earth;writethe words which I speak. I am the Beginning and the End, the Almighty God; by mine Only Begotten I created these things; yea, in the beginning I created the heaven, and the earth upon which thou standest." - it's a direct answer to a very well known and familiar attack on the authority to the Bible as Scripture.

Before you object this as being out of hand and cry the very idea of Joseph properly writing himself in the form of a historical biblical prophet as absurd for any believing member, take in consideration that Joseph plainly did the exact same thing very shortly thereafter, except using Enoch instead of Moses. This occured in more than one revelation, most clearly in what is now Section 78, and 82. It wasn't just code words that were substituted, the entire context of the document was presented to be a historic enochic-era revelation.

Here's one example from the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants, section LXXV:

Compare with current D&C 78. - where it was (mostly) returned to an 1832 United States context. The names were changed back, but some of the other contextual elements were not.

Inspired Pseudepigrapha was a genre Joseph approved of and is known to have worked with. It's perfectly fine to understand certain scriptural texts this way, and still consider it to be sacred and valuable scripture, and that Joseph Smith was inspired, and a prophet.

I know that, because I understand it this way, I consider it to be sacred and valuable scripture, and I believe that Joseph was an inspired prophet of God. In fact, to me, it places Joseph even more strongly in the tradition of the ancient biblical writers - many of whom did the same exact thing!

I know some individuals can't grasp the idea that intelligent members can indeed understand scriptural history in a very different way than they do and still be worthy, faithful members whose studies aren't the results of trying to get glory from the world. But it's a fact.

You still can't get around the fact that it truly was Noah and Moses who both knew of the flood and it's extent. Noah was told 120 years in advance about the flood. Noah went around the land for the next 120 years warning of the flood.

So whether or not Moses and Genesis are word for word documents it still doesn't get around the facts of the events of the past, events that we consider solid and truthful doctrines.

[thesometimesaint]

Rob Osborn:

There is little to no evidence that either Noah or Moses knew the extent of the Flood. Remember the raven and the dove after the flood.

[David T]

You still can't get around the fact that it truly was Noah and Moses who both knew of the flood and it's extent. Noah was told 120 years in advance about the flood. Noah went around the land for the next 120 years warning of the flood.

So whether or not Moses and Genesis are word for word documents it still doesn't get around the facts of the events of the past, events that we consider solid and truthful doctrines.

Your lack of response to anything actually presented in the post, added to what you did post, can only lead me to two conclusions:

• You didn't actually read the post
• You didn't understand it.

Those are the only ways your response makes any sense.

[Areabird]

Have you ever heard of what Christians call the "creation"?

I thought Christians believe that God created all matter because he has always existed and was there to create the matter. Isn't it only Mormons who believe that matter always existed and that God(s) created the universe out of that pre-existing matter?

[Rob Osborn]

We could go back and forth and argue whether or not Moses and Noah realized the world was round. We are getting nowhere. So unless someone has something new to bring to the table I am done debating what Moses knew about the planet.

[thesometimesaint]

Rob Osborn:

That is your choice.

[Ron Beron]

Rivers:

Possibly maybe even probably. I don't know as the whole story of ancient floods has been told. My currant thinking is that the flood of Noah's time was a massive flood in the area of the Bosporus about 5600 BCE.

http://en.wikipedia....a_deluge_theory

But my ideas will probably change as new information becomes available.

I followed the above story quite closely and while interesting it probably was a bit too early for the flood motif. More recently and just as documented is an account of a comet collision in the Indian Ocean that could have sent 600 foot tsunamis around the world The entire story is printed here.... http://discovermagazine.com/2007/nov/did-a-comet-cause-the-great-flood

It is probably the best account of a flood scenario of the same impact that the Biblical Flood presents. It is missing, however, a connect with Noah.

[Ron Beron]

I guess if you do not believe the scriptures than of course, no, we do not have a way of knowing what they thought. But, if one does believe the scriptures then it's a mute point because the scriptures state that Moses and Noah knew th eearth was round.

Where does it say this?

[Ron Beron]

LDS are pretty committed to the idea of Noah being an actual human being, regardless of the scope of the flood.

Since the surety of LDS beliefs is often inversely proportional to the likelihood of that belief's falsification, I'd say we're safe in being 100% sure that there was a man named "Noah" who lived several thousand years ago.

I don't know about Noah, but I am partial to Utnapishtim. Now, he was a real Noah!

[Ron Beron]

'Rob Osborn' comments,

I also live in a society whose scientific teachings do not believe in the global flood in Noah's day.

It is not global flood that scientists react to it is the extent of such a flood. To cover the mountains of the Himalayas is an gross example of such blind allegiance to the literalness of the Bible. To sweep such a event away by saying it was the flood itself which created the mountains is scientific foolishness.

So, let's say that 4,000 years from now someone was writing about my beliefs. Do they go off of what was currently taught in my day or do they go with my personal beliefs. I would sure hope they go off my personal beliefs over what my contemporaries believed! So how is this any different than with Moses? It's no different at all. We cannot assume that Moses believed in the popular teachings of his day, especially in light of the fact that he was taught by God, not by man. This actually makes your case harder to prove.

Noah or his Sumerian contemporary believed in a flat earth.

And whether it be Noah or Moses it doesn't really matter because Moses is credited with writing and keeping the record from the which he saw the events unfold in part at least by vision.

That is another debatable issue. More so because Moses wrote of his own death and secret burial.

[Rob Osborn]

'Rob Osborn' comments,

It is not global flood that scientists react to it is the extent of such a flood. To cover the mountains of the Himalayas is an gross example of such blind allegiance to the literalness of the Bible. To sweep such a event away by saying it was the flood itself which created the mountains is scientific foolishness.

Global flood believers do not believe the flood waters covered the tops of the Himalayas. Global flood believers believe that the Himalayas did not exist at the time of the flood but later came into existance after the flood.

[thesometimesaint]

Rob Osborn:

The Himalayan mountains are 55 millions of years old.

[David T]

We could go back and forth and argue whether or not Moses and Noah realized the world was round. We are getting nowhere. So unless someone has something new to bring to the table I am done debating what Moses knew about the planet.

I did, and you chose not to address it.

[Rob Osborn]

Rob Osborn:

The Himalayan mountains are 55 millions of years old.

Perhaps that is an "opinion". I believe the Himalayan mountains to be no more than 4,000 years old.

[Rob Osborn]

I did, and you chose not to address it.

?