The Flood & Geologic Giants

[thesometimesaint]

Rob Osborn:

You are a laugh a minute. Thanks for the laugh.

[David T]

?

You're basing your argument on the assumption that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. This is not ever claimed in the Pentateuch itself, and is generally recognized to be a later tradition to bolster up its authority. You use scriptures in the modern Book of Moses to prove that not only did Moses write it, but the he saw the whole spherical planet.

What I presented from history and the text itself shows that it is a distinct possibility that Moses 1 and the JST (like later Joseph Smith produced Enochic revelations) are not, in fact, ancient historical reconstructions of text, but modern revelations and insights presented in a pseudepigraphical / targumic framework context.

It very much applies to your argument, and you didn't address it at all, just dismissed in general, with the appearance that nothing anyone says has, or what any text says, has or will say will have any bearing on your firm stone-set traditional belief.

[zelder]

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.

I'm not the judge but it seems to me that doubting the historicity of the Book of Mormon is doubting the restoration of the gospel and doubting the resurrection of Jesus is doubting the atonement. The resurrection was part of the atonement and the Book of Mormon is a key component of the restoration.

[semlogo]

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

Wait, seriously?

[cinepro]

I'm not the judge but it seems to me that doubting the historicity of the Book of Mormon is doubting the restoration of the gospel and doubting the resurrection of Jesus is doubting the atonement. The resurrection was part of the atonement and the Book of Mormon is a key component of the restoration.

Yes, but however logical those inferences may be, they are not specifically mentioned in the interview.

After all, it would be just as logical to assume that "sustaining" the General Authorities means accepting what they say about the scope of Noah's flood.

[Ron Beron]

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.

That is what I said, but hearing you say it only makes more ludicrous.

[Ron Beron]

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

Would you be interested in buying a bridge in Brooklyn, perchance?

[Rob Osborn]

Rob Osborn:

You are a laugh a minute. Thanks for the laugh.

Thanks, I try to keep the masses entertained

[Rob Osborn]

You're basing your argument on the assumption that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. This is not ever claimed in the Pentateuch itself, and is generally recognized to be a later tradition to bolster up its authority. You use scriptures in the modern Book of Moses to prove that not only did Moses write it, but the he saw the whole spherical planet.

What I presented from history and the text itself shows that it is a distinct possibility that Moses 1 and the JST (like later Joseph Smith produced Enochic revelations) are not, in fact, ancient historical reconstructions of text, but modern revelations and insights presented in a pseudepigraphical / targumic framework context.

It very much applies to your argument, and you didn't address it at all, just dismissed in general, with the appearance that nothing anyone says has, or what any text says, has or will say will have any bearing on your firm stone-set traditional belief.

We could debate who actually wrote the first few chapters pf Genesis and you know what? I don't really care. The point is that we are informed from reading the JST version (Moses) that God revealed himself to Moses and he saw everything from the beginning before the creation clear up at least until the flood. So, it doesn't really matter- it's mute point.

[Rob Osborn]

Wait, seriously?

Yeah, I go to sleep each night with peace knowing the truth on this matter. It's such a great and peaceful feeling.

[SkepticTheist]

Ok, so I think I've come to a tentative conclusion after taking all the information I have studied in the last couple of weeks on this issue.

I believe I have concluded that there was a Global Flood.

I think the biggest issue standing in my way was continuous habitation.

After studying the evidence for Jericho, for example, it seems there was some evidence of habitation not long after an archaeological layer characterized by flood and intense erosion.

This is not proof of a global flood by any means, but it does show a general pattern after flood situations, where the people simply came back later.

The same with the floods in the archaeological record for Ur and Kish in Mesopotamia. The people simply came back and rebuilt on top of the old ruins.

So while we will likely never know which flood coincides perfectly with Noah's flood, we can extrapolate from this that the ancient people after a global flood simply rebuilt on top of older cities destroyed in the global flood.

This explains the "continuous habitation" issue sufficiently in my mind to sway me back towards a global flood scenario, though there isn't sufficient geologic evidence to prove a global flood yet.

Much like the Book of Mormon archaeologial dataset, I have to have as much of a plausible scenario as possible while admitting that the dataset has huge holes in it and will never be perfect, and to some people, will never be enough.

And at some point, the earth had to be repopulated with some of the species that died out by angelic means, because it is not rational for the ark to have even scratched the surface on saving the amount of biodiversity that exists on the planet.

To me, the reports of a global flood from all the legendary material from all over the earth is consistent to me to justify this assumption to take a leap of faith on the global flood notwithstanding the lack of geologic evidence.

Nobody should assume that just because I'm coming to this conclusion, that I'm a young earth creationist, nor should you assume that I think absurd things like the flood carved out the grand canyon or laid down all the strata or something. But I believe I've finally worked out a decent tentative position in my own mind after reasoning through this.

Ed

[zelder]

Ok, so I think I've come to a tentative conclusion after taking all the information I have studied in the last couple of weeks on this issue.

I believe I have concluded that there was a Global Flood.

I think the biggest issue standing in my way was continuous habitation.

After studying the evidence for Jericho, for example, it seems there was some evidence of habitation not long after an archaeological layer characterized by flood and intense erosion.

This is not proof of a global flood by any means, but it does show a general pattern after flood situations, where the people simply came back later.

The same with the floods in the archaeological record for Ur and Kish in Mesopotamia. The people simply came back and rebuilt on top of the old ruins.

So while we will likely never know which flood coincides perfectly with Noah's flood, we can extrapolate from this that the ancient people after a global flood simply rebuilt on top of older cities destroyed in the global flood.

This explains the "continuous habitation" issue sufficiently in my mind to sway me back towards a global flood scenario, though there isn't sufficient geologic evidence to prove a global flood yet.

Much like the Book of Mormon archaeologial dataset, I have to have as much of a plausible scenario as possible while admitting that the dataset has huge holes in it and will never be perfect, and to some people, will never be enough.

And at some point, the earth had to be repopulated with some of the species that died out by angelic means, because it is not rational for the ark to have even scratched the surface on saving the amount of biodiversity that exists on the planet.

To me, the reports of a global flood from all the legendary material from all over the earth is consistent to me to justify this assumption to take a leap of faith on the global flood notwithstanding the lack of geologic evidence.

Nobody should assume that just because I'm coming to this conclusion, that I'm a young earth creationist, nor should you assume that I think absurd things like the flood carved out the grand canyon or laid down all the strata or something. But I believe I've finally worked out a decent tentative position in my own mind after reasoning through this.

Ed

I feel warm and fuzzy knowing you are on the global flood side. You have formed a good logical theory. Why do you think catastrophism is absurd? The Book of Mormon seems to describe catastrphism surrouding the Christs' coming to the America. Valleys becoming mountains and mountains becoming valleys etc.

[SkepticTheist]

I feel warm and fuzzy knowing you are on the global flood side. You have formed a good logical theory. Why do you think catastrophism is absurd? The Book of Mormon seems to describe catastrphism surrouding the Christs' coming to the America. Valleys becoming mountains and mountains becoming valleys etc.

It's difficult to ascertain people's intent from just words when they use certain words. It almost sounds like you are mocking me with the warm and fuzzy statement. I will choose not to take offense at this time. If you are not intending that effect in your words, perhaps you should not choose to use those words in that manner.

Limited catastrophism being the "exception" rather than the "rule" is not absurd. Catastrophism trying to explain everything is absurd. Only Uniformitarianism and an old earth with a good healthy mix of catastrophies over time explain things well, such as asteroid impacts and supervolcanoes. Destructions at the time of Christ fit this same pattern, and we need not adhere to young earth creationist catastrophism to explain that.

[krose]

This explains the "continuous habitation" issue sufficiently in my mind to sway me back towards a global flood scenario, though there isn't sufficient geologic evidence to prove a global flood yet.

The problems are not just geological, and a simple matter of the people and animals "repopulating" the land.

A global flood would have wiped out not only the creatures and plants on land, but also those in the seas. It would have destroyed the fragile balance required for most ocean life to exist. Just look at how minor changes in water temperatures have killed coral reefs. In 1998, more than 16% of the world's coral reefs died just from the warming caused by an El Ni

[SkepticTheist]

I acknowledge the issue you bring up as a possible problem. Nevertheless, to me, it is a lesser concern. That may seem strange.

Your reasoning does have the potential of being a problem for the global flood theory.

You know, in stuff like this, naysayers to a certain point of view can invent incessant "reasons" why something cannot be so.

Miyamoto Musashi called this kind of stuff the "clouds of bewilderment" that keeps one from the "true void," or clarity on the matter.

I'm saying that I am on my own search for truth here, and I have to weigh things in my own mind that in my own heart bother me about something before I will make a leap of faith towards something.

If things don't bother me emotionally in an issue very much, then at some point I am willing to make a leap of faith and accept something in spite of certain arguments.

Its that at some point, in my own search for truth, I have to make a choice about the things that I will allow to be a true concern for me and things that I choose to just let go or put on the "shelf" that are lesser concerns.

Otherwise I'm going to go crazy with trying to figure this out. I have already made a list so to speak of things that were true concerns for me personally, preventing me from making a leap of faith towards the global flood.

The issue you bring up, I acknowledge is something I don't have an answer for, but in my own search for truth, I categorize it as a lesser concern, because for some reason, it doesn't bother me.

For other people, it might be something that is a bigger concern for them.

Ed Goble

The problems are not just geological, and a simple matter of the people and animals "repopulating" the land.

A global flood would have wiped out not only the creatures and plants on land, but also those in the seas. It would have destroyed the fragile balance required for most ocean life to exist. Just look at how minor changes in water temperatures have killed coral reefs. In 1998, more than 16% of the world's coral reefs died just from the warming caused by an El Ni

[thesometimesaint]

SkepticTheist:

I don't believe that the Scriptures were ever meant to be a science book. To paraphrase Galileo; They tell me how to go to Heaven, not how the heavens go.

The answer is simple to me. The Flood of Noah's time was a massive albeit local/regional event. God told Noah to prepare a boat and load it with the animals Noah knew about. It makes sense, it works scientifically and Scripturally.

[SkepticTheist]

Well, to me, this is finding a rational and emotional balance on an issue where the things that I categorize as lesser issues in my mind melt away because the bigger issues that emotionally bother me are dealt with.

There is that nagging scripture in Ether that says:

"after the waters had receded from off the face of this land it became a choice land above all other lands"

(Ether 13:2)

It emotionally bothers me to explain this one away. My heart won't let me explain it away. Each time I do, it starts once again to gnaw at me. The only way I can have peace on this is to accept this one as literal, not explain it away.

Unfortunately, a local flood scenario means that we must explain this scripture away as a mythical or legendary piece of material.

I am not just into this for harmonization of scripture and science, but to find a position that feels good to me.

To some people, it might be enough to be mentally satisfied about something, and to them, the heart doesn't really have anything to do with it.

To me, I need to have emotional and mental satisfaction on an issue in a balance between the two. That doesn't mean I have a "testimony." It means I'm on a certain track to working it out in my mind.

Ed Goble

SkepticTheist:

I don't believe that the Scriptures were ever meant to be a science book. To paraphrase Galileo; They tell me how to go to Heaven, not how the heavens go.

The answer is simple to me. The Flood of Noah's time was a massive albeit local/regional event. God told Noah to prepare a boat and load it with the animals Noah knew about. It makes sense, it works scientifically and Scripturally.

[zelder]

It's difficult to ascertain people's intent from just words when they use certain words. It almost sounds like you are mocking me with the warm and fuzzy statement. I will choose not to take offense at this time. If you are not intending that effect in your words, perhaps you should not choose to use those words in that manner.

Limited catastrophism being the "exception" rather than the "rule" is not absurd. Catastrophism trying to explain everything is absurd. Only Uniformitarianism and an old earth with a good healthy mix of catastrophies over time explain things well, such as asteroid impacts and supervolcanoes. Destructions at the time of Christ fit this same pattern, and we need not adhere to young earth creationist catastrophism to explain that.

No mocking was intended. This is a serious topic and a serious group of people so I agree, I should have used different language. I sincerely feel good knowing there are intelligent people who believe the same crazy things that I believe. Its nice to see someone with a strong knowledge or the secular position but still chooses to believe the scriptures. That's rare. I like it.

[SkepticTheist]

Sounds good.

Ed Goble

No mocking was intended. This is a serious topic and a serious group of people so I agree, I should have used different language. I sincerely feel good knowing there are intelligent people who believe the same crazy things that I believe. Its nice to see someone with a strong knowledge or the secular position but still chooses to believe the scriptures. That's rare. I like it.

[SkepticTheist]

That is what I said, but hearing you say it only makes more ludicrous.

This is not necessarily true that global flood believers believe that the Himalayas were not around at the time of the flood.

There is a model in my mind that I keep coming back to, though to some it may seem ludicrous.

It is kind of a modification on plate tectonics, but doesn't seem to be an impossibly contradictory idea to it.

http://en.wikipedia....Expanding_Earth

In this theory, something makes the volume of the earth change in size, though the mass of the earth remains constant.

The scriptures mention the "fountains" of the deep, and the waters under the earth.

I'm not saying that there are huge unknown reservoirs of water like the oceans of Europa. I'm making more of a comparison to a sponge analogy, where the earth's current volume, or space that its mass occupies, to a degree is dependent on the amount of water absorbed in the interior in general.

It is not absurd to suggest that the earth has water in its interior.

So, if something caused all of this water to be squeezed out like a sponge, then naturally, it would all come to the surface, and the volume of the earth would shrink slightly, enough for all this water that suddenly came to the surface to cover the earth's surface. If the volume of the earth shrunk, then there would be less surface area for the water to cover. Once the water is re-absorbed, and the surface returns back to its original volume, then the water subsides back into the oceans.

I find an analogy to this in the expansion of the planet Mercury that is known now to have happened.

Ed Goble

[thesometimesaint]

SkepticTheist:

Mythical isn't a bad word it simply means its origins are not known/unfalsifiable. IE; That the King Arthur of early English history more than likely did exist, and he probably did some really outstanding things. But I seriously doubt many of the stories that have grown up around him over the centuries. Same with the Scriptures I believe Adam and Eve really did exist. But talking snakes? Not so much. That Noah really did live, that he was a prophet of God, really did build a boat, and put animals in it. That he faithfully recorded what he saw.

That a flood of water covered the entire planet including the highest of hills with many feet of water? No so much.

[SkepticTheist]

Maybe I should start a talking snakes thread..... There is always the snake with legs in the JS Book of the Dead Papyrus.............

SkepticTheist:

Mythical isn't a bad word it simply means its origins are not known/unfalsifiable. IE; That the King Arthur of early English history more than likely did exist, and he probably did some really outstanding things. But I seriously doubt many of the stories that have grown up around him over the centuries. Same with the Scriptures I believe Adam and Eve really did exist. But talking snakes? Not so much. That Noah really did live, that he was a prophet of God, really did build a boat, and put animals in it. That he faithfully recorded what he saw.

That a flood of water covered the entire planet including the highest of hills with many feet of water? No so much.

[SkepticTheist]

There, I created a snake with legs thread...

Ed

[facie ad faciem]

There is that nagging scripture in Ether that says:

"after the waters had receded from off the face of this land it became a choice land above all other lands"

(Ether 13:2)

It emotionally bothers me to explain this one away. My heart won't let me explain it away. Each time I do, it starts once again to gnaw at me. The only way I can have peace on this is to accept this one as literal, not explain it away.

Unfortunately, a local flood scenario means that we must explain this scripture away as a mythical or legendary piece of material.

All it would take for this passage to make it through to publication was for Moroni and/or Ether (or their respective peoples) to have believed in a global flood. The peoples of the BoM often believed/misunderstood far worse things. Heck, the great prophet Alma didn't even know what would happen in the afterlife until an angel revealed it to him (Alma 40:11).

Also, neither Moroni nor Ether makes any clarification as to whether "the waters" were in liquid form... (See 2 Ne 1:5-7)

[thesometimesaint]

SkepticTheist:

Yes there are forms of snakes with no legs.

http://news.discovery.com/animals/snakes-lost-legs-evolution-110207.html

But what I said was TALKING snakes. Are you seriously suggesting that literal snakes at one time also had vocal cords and human language?