World Wide Flood Of Noah

[Franktalk]

I was asked to explain why I believe in a world wide flood. I was also asked why I don’t consider other historical writings of floods as similar to the Biblical story. Here is the original question:

But let's turn this around: why do you accept the Biblical Flood story and not, say, the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh, or the Hindu tale of Manu? They are definitely Flood narratives, but they contain quite significant differences from our account. Why does the Biblical version have to be a word-for-word record of exactly what God said? Why does the Flood have to be literally global in scale, killing all flesh (except eight people), while somehow neglecting to leave geological evidence of the incomprehensibly vast layer of fossils and sedimentary layers which would accumulate from the absolutely horrendous pile of dead bodies and churned-up soil?

Before getting into details I wish to make general statements on faith. I have determined for myself that the Bible contains a message from God. I accept that mistakes of copying and translation have occurred but I accept that God has a purpose for us receiving the message so the message is still there for us to find if we look for it. I have looked at other books and found that most do not contain a message from God. Only after years of study did I accept the Book of Mormon. I see it as a restatement of the message in the Bible but in an easier to read form. For me most of the information in the Book of Mormon is already in the Bible. But I do not use my own logic to determine if something is from God or not. I can not trust man’s logic for something so important. So I read and I study, then I pray. If the Spirit moves me to trust the message then I will.

I have asked myself why God would flood the world when He could have just taken all of the evil beings off the earth with just a Word. And would a flood of the world leave a mark on the earth that would be obvious for all to see? Then I thought that the purpose of our being here is to obtain faith and obtain spiritual eyes. So is the flood a test of our faith? I think it is. If when I read scripture it appears to me that a world wide flood occurred then that is what I will believe. Let us call that blind faith. But what of physical evidence? I am sure there are some traces left of the flood. But it was not God’s purpose to destroy the earth but to change it. And in the process wipe out the evil on the face of the earth.

We have a vision in our head of what a world wide flood looks like. But that may not be what actually happened. The event may have been a gentle change to the face of the earth. We see evidence of floods as catastrophic events causing massive erosion and damage. And in some places the land may have experienced those changes. But God limits the effects of waves and water.

Job 38:11 And said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed?

So as I get into some details let us leave our assumptions at the door and instead seek the truth.

[thesometimesaint]

Franktalk:

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

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

I do not use my own logic to determine if something is from God or not. I can not trust man’s logic for something so important.

That is itself a logical statement. "I cannot trust man's logic, therefore I will not use my own." Quite circular. On the other hand, Christ is a man who used parables to teach implicitly logical reasons to be righteous. In Isaiah, we are asked to "come now, and let us reason together." There is absolutely no virtue in having "blind faith" (which incidentally is a phrase found nowhere in scripture). We're supposed to study things out in our minds. As Matthew 15:14 says, "they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch."

If we are going strictly by what the Bible explicitly states, then it's pertinent to note that nowhere is it claimed that the lack of evidence for a worldwide flood is meant as a test of faith, despite the incongruity of other tests of faith (such as this mortal probation) being explicitly named as such.

Edit: Also, while they disagree in the particulars, I think there is a lot to gain from reading other ancient texts such as the ones mentioned above. They give context to the religious thought of the time, which is sometimes only subtly present in the Bible. For instance, I love the fact that the Epic of Gilgamesh - discovered after Joseph Smith's time - explicitly states that Utnapishtim, the Noah-figure, became Godlike through obedience to Ea.

Edited August 16, 2011 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Also:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNkcK2toExY&feature=related

[kolipoki09]

Does believing in a global or regional flood determine our salvation?

For a great deal of time, I believed in a global flood based on essentially the same reasons you've listed above. However, the more I learned about ancient texts and science, the more I came to realize that fundamentalist interpretations of scripture (i.e. literalism) became demonstrably problematic when weighed against the evidence at hand.

I won't take a shotgun approach to this by any means (and I easily could), but I'd like to focus on one issue that for me, discounts the theory of a global flood completely - trees.

Contrary to fundagelical assertions that there is no living thing on earth older than 5-6,000 years, Utah's own Trembling Giant predates the alleged global flood by an estimated 75,000 years.

[cinepro]

For a great deal of time, I believed in a global flood based on essentially the same reasons you've listed above. However, the more I learned about ancient texts and science, the more I came to realize that fundamentalist interpretations of scripture (i.e. literalism) became demonstrably problematic when weighed against the evidence at hand.

Maybe you just didn't learn enough about the ancient texts and science?

The worldwide flood of Noah’s time has been accepted as a benchmark historical event by Jews and Christians for thousands of years—and similar traditions appear among the Greeks, Mesopotamians, and some American Indian tribes. Yet the story is regarded skeptically today in our secular world. Most current geology texts ignore the Flood, ridicule it, or use it as an example of prescientific superstition.

Consequently, Latter-day Saints and other Christians sometimes find the apparent conflict between their faith in the scriptures and their education puzzling. The account of Noah’s flood is a typical illustration of the differences which occur between scriptural information and modern secular teachings about the history of the world.

The Gospel and the Scientific Worldview, Sept 1980 Ensign

Edited August 16, 2011 by cinepro

[kolipoki09]

Maybe you just didn't learn enough about the ancient texts and science?

Or perhaps, the Genesis account of the creation is merely a 6th or 7th Century B.C. revision heavily influenced by interior symbolism of the priestly-tabernacle and Solomon's Temple, which eventually rejected Wisdom and the structure and harmony of Creation. Rejected rather, in favor of a tradition which focused on the figure of Moses and the choice place of the Israelites in the eyes of God - a tradition which had no room for Creation theology, Atonement, or Prophets - that is, unless they agreed with what Moses said.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Amen, kolipoki.

[BCSpace]

Does believing in a global or regional flood determine our salvation?

It depends on whether or not disbelieving this case causes one to disbelieve the scriptures or the prophets in other areas. I personally don't accept a global flood because there is too much evidence against it. However, the fact remains that it is LDS doctrine and believer must treat it as such whether he accepts it or no.

I think this is one of those things in which there is no actual revelation (other nonBiblical references to it merely retelling or referring to the tale) and the Church is going to take the traditional Christian view until revelation, not science, says to take a different view. This is the proper way for the Church to treat it imho.

Edited August 16, 2011 by BCSpace

[mfbukowski]

Another global flood thread?

Just so we can hear cinepro spout off for the hundredth time?

[blackstrap]

It is always fun to read articles like the Trembling Giant and count how many fudge words are used. Such as,probably,could ,might be, is supposed ,is estimated. Following that certainty comes statements of other experts declaring problems with assumptions and throwing out estimates of one million years. Other scientists point out factual errors about seedlings etc.

How big the aspen growth is can,with some reasonable variance, be determined through on site measurements. How old it is often seems to be a matter of who you ask.

[kolipoki09]

It is always fun to read articles like the Trembling Giant and count how many fudge words are used. Such as,probably,could ,might be, is supposed ,is estimated. Following that certainty comes statements of other experts declaring problems with assumptions and throwing out estimates of one million years. Other scientists point out factual errors about seedlings etc.

How big the aspen growth is can,with some reasonable variance, be determined through on site measurements. How old it is often seems to be a matter of who you ask.

There are disputes about minor issues in most fields, but the consensus of the scientific community based on decades of extensive research in an ever-expanding field suggests that Pando is demonstrably older than 5,000 years, thus making the concept of a global flood extremely problematic. There are of course, other examples that bring the global flood theory into question as well.

Creationists and others allege the scientific consensus is merely engaging in an argumentum ad populum fallacy, though and appeal to Ethos is likely a much better fit.

[jo1952]

Franktalk:

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

It is interesting that mankind is still looking for physical evidence of any kind when our walk on the earth is supposed to be a walk of faith.

Since we cannot prove whatever the Holy Ghost has revealed to us, why do we still insist on trying to make our physical world determine what we will allow ourselves to believe is true that the Bible teaches us? Either the flood covered the entire earth, or it did not. Why does man want to prove things first, before he will believe what God has taught? Isn't this backwards?

Our salvation is achieved by believing and hoping in something unseen. Why are we trying to prove God's Creation as though we could prove it in any real physical sense?

Also, I believe that the flood did cover the earth because I see it as the baptism of the earth. In the end times, the entire earth will receive its baptism of fire. When we are physically baptized, it is required that our baptism is done by complete emersion. Why would the earth's baptism requirement be any different? The entire earth as we now know it will be gone; the earth will be new and re-born; the same thing happens to us.

Just some thoughts,

Regards,

jo

[jo1952]

It depends on whether or not disbelieving this case causes one to disbelieve the scriptures or the prophets in other areas. I personally don't accept a global flood because there is too much evidence against it. However, the fact remains that it is LDS doctrine and believer must treat it as such whether he accepts it or no.

I think this is one of those things in which there is no actual revelation (other nonBiblical references to it merely retelling or referring to the tale) and the Church is going to take the traditional Christian view until revelation, not science, says to take a different view. This is the proper way for the Church to treat it imho.

Hi BC!

I have had discussions with many anti-LDS on other websites who have said that if the LDS Church can provide substantial evidence that the events described in the Book of Mormon took place, that they would then believe that the Book of Mormon is a legitimate second Testimony of Christ. Therefore, until that evidence shows up, they will not believe.

Best regards,

jo

[Rivers]

Another global flood thread?

Just so we can hear cinepro spout off for the hundredth time?

Before he does, I just want to say that Cinepro is right. The LDS church officially teaches that the whole Noah's flood story is literal. I won't argue with that.

But I personally think the church is wrong on this issue. The church is dynamic entity. The church has a big enough track record of being wrong about things that I can assume it isn't the job of general authorities to be right about everything. The mission of the prophets and apostles is to bear witness of Jesus Christ and the restoration.

So Cinepro can bring up all the quotes he wants.

Edited August 16, 2011 by Rivers

[jo1952]

I don't know if any of the readers have read the Book of Enoch or not. It is extremely interesting reading and may or may not influence your current feelings about the Flood; regardless of whether you believe it was only local, or whether you believe it was world-wide. You should be able to catch inferences concerning LDS beliefs which have nothing to do with the flood, as well.

As an aside, so as to hopefully help others not to fear studying writings which are not canon, I have sometimes wondered if the Book of Enoch might be one of the precious things lost from the Bible. Anyway, it IS interesting to read; whenever I do so, I first ask for guidance from the Holy Ghost. As a result, many things in it have rung "true" to me, and have actually helped me to regard other teachings from our Standard Works with a deeper understanding. We ARE searching for Truth wherever we can find it. So, I keep trying to learn wherever I can - avidly (not just within the Standard Works; but also beyond them) - I trust that when Father thinks I am ready, He makes sure it is revealed to me. If I am not actively searching for it, it is more difficult for the Holy Ghost to reveal it.

Regards,

jo

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

I've read all the Books of Enoch.

1 Peter 3 is the only reference in our standard works that I can find that is even tangentially related to a symbolic baptism of the earth, and since Peter is using the story to illustrate why we honor Christ, I don't think we have to assume he's correct in taking the Flood narrative as a geologically accurate record.

"Walking by faith" is not a codeword for neglecting to study things out in our minds. We're supposed to "prove all things; hold fast that which is good." The Lord said way back in the 1830's that many great things will be revealed in the future; can't an increased understanding of, say, plate tectonics, be one of them? The implication that searching for physical evidence relevant to understanding the meaning of scripture is somehow less "faithful" than blithely dismissing vast swathes of empirical data is pretty tiresome.

Of course we let the physical world determine what we believe; we are a part of the physical world ourselves - spirit is refined matter, and everything we do is predicated on existing in a real environment which affects us just as we affect it.

Yes, we hope for things unseen. That has nothing to do with the parts of an ancient record which, if it is accurate, should yield considerable physical evidence. The Flood narrative, if it really describes a literal immersion of the entire planet resulting in the the death of all living things, should have left an incredibly vast deposit of geological evidence. It's simply not there. By contrast, the Book of Mormon peoples were a small group which interbred with local populations in Mesoamerica (assuming we subscribe to a limited geography model, which might not be safe to assume in this thread). They are completely different scales. The evidence needed to support a literal worldwide Flood is many magnitudes greater than believing in a currently-unproven history of the origin of a particular tribal bloodline. Even Moses parting the waters is a far smaller event, though I have my doubts on that score as well.

The Resurrection as described would not have left much physical evidence at all. The Flood would have. If it really has no particular relevance to our salvation (unlike the Resurrection, which currently has zero scientific evidence, but which is far more important to take on faith), then why try to force-fit our entire conception of physics into acceptance of an ancient story which takes up a few meager paragraphs of a book which has been heavily redacted over hundreds of years? What are we gaining?

Edited August 16, 2011 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[David T]

I don't know if any of the readers have read the Book of Enoch or not. It is extremely interesting reading and may or may not influence your current feelings about the Flood; regardless of whether you believe it was only local, or whether you believe it was world-wide. You should be able to catch inferences concerning LDS beliefs which have nothing to do with the flood, as well.

As an aside, so as to hopefully help others not to fear studying writings which are not canon, I have sometimes wondered if the Book of Enoch might be one of the precious things lost from the Bible. Anyway, it IS interesting to read; whenever I do so, I first ask for guidance from the Holy Ghost. As a result, many things in it have rung "true" to me, and have actually helped me to regard other teachings from our Standard Works with a deeper understanding. We ARE searching for Truth wherever we can find it. So, I keep trying to learn wherever I can - avidly (not just within the Standard Works; but also beyond them) - I trust that when Father thinks I am ready, He makes sure it is revealed to me. If I am not actively searching for it, it is more difficult for the Holy Ghost to reveal it.

Regards,

jo

I wrote an introduction to 1 Enoch on my blog nearly a year and a half ago. I still think it's a nifty-but-short introduction - it perhaps presents some implications you haven't thought about, jo. I changed servers and other things since it was posted, so apologies for broken images and some weird formatting.

[jo1952]

I wrote an introduction to 1 Enoch on my blog nearly a year and a half ago. I still think it's a nifty-but-short introduction - it perhaps presents some implications you haven't thought about, jo. I changed servers and other things since it was posted, so apologies for broken images and some weird formatting.

Thank you Nackhadlow!!! I have now read your introduction and have yet to read the other links you provided. As I had no knowledge of your commentary, nor of the links (especially for Margaret Barker or Hugh Nibley), I am always excited to discover that the Holy Ghost DOES lead us to Truth from whatever direction we are coming from. IOW, the message is going to get to us if we are diligently seeking for Truth! I smiled at your comment that this information has "rocked your world"; as, indeed, it has also rocked mine to the point where I cannot stop thinking and pondering it. If I might ask quickly, as we are derailing this thread...., did you catch the understanding that was made when the 200 angels who had made the secret oath were being rebuked, that included in it were words to the effect (in regards to their lusting after the daughters of men), that they had been unable to wait for their appointed time? IOW, they wouldn't have gotten themselves into so much trouble if they had just waited for the time when they would have come to the earth to receive their own physical body. At least, that is my understanding of that portion of their rebuke.

Thanks for sharing!!!

Best regards,

jo

[jo1952]

I've read all the Books of Enoch.

1 Peter 3 is the only reference in our standard works that I can find that is even tangentially related to a symbolic baptism of the earth, and since Peter is using the story to illustrate why we honor Christ, I don't think we have to assume he's correct in taking the Flood narrative as a geologically accurate record.

Actually, it is not anything taught in the NT that drew my mind to believe that the earth was baptized by the flood - in which understanding the earth was completely submerged. This was an understanding that came to me through the Holy Ghost. The Bible is filled with layers of understanding; I do not need to wait for the Church Leaders to come out and give me interpretations of scripture. When they do offer an interpretation, if it is something I have not already come to understand (and thereby their offer is an affirmation of what I already believe), then I will study it out and pray about it.

With that said, I just now looked up 1 Peter 3 to see if I could find your reference; which indeed shows up in 1 Peter 3:20-21. I would agree that there is not much to go on there. However, Franktalk just pointed out additional passages to me in 2 Peter 3:6-7. Here they are:

2 Peter 3:6-7

6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

The above seems much more clear that the earth WAS baptized by the waters of the flood because it states the world which was before the flood has perished. It is easy to liken this to our own baptism by water; we emerge new -- the old us is no longer. Then see how immediately Peter says earth is being kept in store unto fire. To me this indicates the similitude of our own fire by baptism. Both our baptism by water and by fire must be complete----not just partial.

"Walking by faith" is not a codeword for neglecting to study things out in our minds. We're supposed to "prove all things; hold fast that which is good." The Lord said way back in the 1830's that many great things will be revealed in the future; can't an increased understanding of, say, plate tectonics, be one of them? The implication that searching for physical evidence relevant to understanding the meaning of scripture is somehow less "faithful" than blithely dismissing vast swathes of empirical data is pretty tiresome.

For me personally, walking by faith is NOT a codeword for naglecting to study things out in my mind. I don't know why "science types" automatically think that someone who rejects a theory generated from science assumes that it is being rejected without a person's thinking about it and studying it first.

Of course we let the physical world determine what we believe; we are a part of the physical world ourselves - spirit is refined matter, and everything we do is predicated on existing in a real environment which affects us just as we affect it.

Don't forget that this temporal, physical world, is only temporary. The Creation itself is evidence of God's existence. Believers see God in His Creation, even though we realize that God is NOT His Creation.

Yes, we hope for things unseen. That has nothing to do with the parts of an ancient record which, if it is accurate, should yield considerable physical evidence. The Flood narrative, if it really describes a literal immersion of the entire planet resulting in the the death of all living things, should have left an incredibly vast deposit of geological evidence. It's simply not there. By contrast, the Book of Mormon peoples were a small group which interbred with local populations in Mesoamerica (assuming we subscribe to a limited geography model, which might not be safe to assume in this thread). They are completely different scales. The evidence needed to support a literal worldwide Flood is many magnitudes greater than believing in a currently-unproven history of the origin of a particular tribal bloodline. Even Moses parting the waters is a far smaller event, though I have my doubts on that score as well.

According to man's understanding of his physical world, one would think that the earth should yield plenty of evidence. For the agnostic and the atheist, the fact that the earth does not yield up the type of evidence that man is looking for, is enough to dissuade them from believing in and having faith in Christ. It is a stumbling block for them. God, in His own due time "allows" some evidences to be found. We know, for instance, that we do not yet have all of the records of God's dealings with mankind. So we must accept that they exist based on faith. God will reveal them when He wants to; He will know when that best time is in order to get the maximum use out of their being revealed for His own purposes. Meanwhile, I think that for man to determine what certain evidence SHOULD look like to them with a pre-conceived notion, that they are inevitably closing their minds to the evidence which may already exist right in front of them.

The Resurrection as described would not have left much physical evidence at all. The Flood would have. If it really has no particular relevance to our salvation (unlike the Resurrection, which currently has zero scientific evidence, but which is far more important to take on faith), then why try to force-fit our entire conception of physics into acceptance of an ancient story which takes up a few meager paragraphs of a book which has been heavily redacted over hundreds of years? What are we gaining?

I have done some studying of my own, and I DO see evidence of a world-wide flood. It is science that rejects that same evidence and has theorized that what they are seeing is something entirely different than what I am seeing. Doesn't this sound familiar? It is just like people talking about what the Holy Ghost has revealed to them. The anti-LDS claim the Holy Ghost has told them that Joseph Smith was NOT a Prophet of God; the LDS claim it is the Holy Ghost who told them Joseph IS a Prophet of God.

Best regards,

jo

[Franktalk]

That is itself a logical statement. "I cannot trust man's logic, therefore I will not use my own." Quite circular. On the other hand, Christ is a man who used parables to teach implicitly logical reasons to be righteous. In Isaiah, we are asked to "come now, and let us reason together." There is absolutely no virtue in having "blind faith" (which incidentally is a phrase found nowhere in scripture). We're supposed to study things out in our minds. As Matthew 15:14 says, "they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch."

If we are going strictly by what the Bible explicitly states, then it's pertinent to note that nowhere is it claimed that the lack of evidence for a worldwide flood is meant as a test of faith, despite the incongruity of other tests of faith (such as this mortal probation) being explicitly named as such.

Edit: Also, while they disagree in the particulars, I think there is a lot to gain from reading other ancient texts such as the ones mentioned above. They give context to the religious thought of the time, which is sometimes only subtly present in the Bible. For instance, I love the fact that the Epic of Gilgamesh - discovered after Joseph Smith's time - explicitly states that Utnapishtim, the Noah-figure, became Godlike through obedience to Ea.

Actually my statement may appear to be in error if it is viewed from man's logic and man's senses. The Spirit does not deal with maybes it deals with absolutes. If we ask a question of the Holy Ghost and the question is framed so it is not asking a yes or no question and the question is fuzzy then you will not get an answer. The Holy Ghost does not want to misdirect someone. So when I said I don't use man's logic I was referring to being directed by the spirit. That communication is not dependent on man's logic. And it is not dependent on the senses of the flesh. Think of it as off world knowledge that leads to faith and that faith may lead to changes in our world view which changes how we live our lives or even see the physical world around us. What I am saying may seem like total nonsense to you. I hope not. But there is a wide gap of vision between you and I. Where you may look with your eyes I look by the spirit, I don't trust my eyes.

Psa 141:8 But mine eyes are unto thee, O GOD the Lord: in thee is my trust; leave not my soul destitute.

Since it was told to people that to look upon God would mean death just what do you think this verse is saying? I think it is saying to look to God with our open heart and spiritual eyes, place our trust in Him and not the world.

When I look at scripture I weigh each verse against others. I look for the meaning and message. I have cast out the world so I don't bring it with me while I read scripture. To the best of my abilities I block out the logic of man. If we don't block it out we can be led astray.

Romans 1:20-23

20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

Just what is Paul saying here? If you view the Creation clearly then you will understand the eternal power and Godhead. You will not take part of the Creation and pray to it and make it an idol. Those who by man's standards declare them self wise are in actuality fools. It is the connection to the world which causes that. When you state that you place scripture in context using other historical documents just what does that mean? If I did that the Holy Ghost would run from me.

[cinepro]

Or perhaps, the Genesis account of the creation is merely a 6th or 7th Century B.C. revision heavily influenced by interior symbolism of the priestly-tabernacle and Solomon's Temple, which eventually rejected Wisdom and the structure and harmony of Creation. Rejected rather, in favor of a tradition which focused on the figure of Moses and the choice place of the Israelites in the eyes of God - a tradition which had no room for Creation theology, Atonement, or Prophets - that is, unless they agreed with what Moses said.

I guess that's one theory. For another view, here's LDS Hebrew scholar Donald Parry offering his opinion on the reliability of the story:

The most voluminous scriptural witness to Noah and the Flood is recorded in the writings of Moses, who dedicated a total of 57 verses in the King James Version to the account (Gen. 6:9–8:19). It is instructive to note that some of Noah’s actual words are preserved in the book of Moses, which introduces them with “And it came to pass that Noah continued his preaching unto the people, saying”—followed by his words: “Hearken, and give heed unto my words; Believe and repent of your sins and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, even as our fathers, and ye shall receive the Holy Ghost, that ye may have all things made manifest; and if ye do not this, the floods will come in upon you” (Moses 8:23–24). This text is significant in that it confirms that Noah, like his predecessors, understood the gospel covenant, including the baptismal ordinance and Jesus Christ’s role as Savior.

Moses may have received his information about Noah through direct revelation, or perhaps he used ancient records that were written by one of the eyewitnesses to the Flood, such as Noah himself or one of his sons. Such records, presuming they once existed, are now lost to the world. In the book of Genesis, Moses clearly states that a flood occurred, and the terminology definitely refers to a worldwide flood, as opposed to a localized flood. The Joseph Smith Translation backs up the Genesis account, modifying the wording only slightly.

Po-tay-to, Po-tah-to?

Edited August 17, 2011 by cinepro

[David T]

I guess that's one theory. For another view, here's LDS Hebrew scholar Donald Parry offering his opinion on the reliability of the story:

Perhaps your favorite and most cited thorn, right?

* Well, I doubly so, especially since it's in your sig

Edited August 17, 2011 by nackhadlow

[cinepro]

Perhaps your favorite and most cited thorn, right?

* Well, I doubly so, especially since it's in your sig

Yes, an LDS Hebrew Scholar publishing a relatively recent article in the official Church magazine clearly explaining all the reasons LDS unequivocally (should) believe in a worldwide flood.

I wonder what relevance that might have in a conversation on an LDS-themed message board about the scope of Noah's flood.

Edited August 17, 2011 by cinepro

[Bill Hamblin]

Yes, an LDS Hebrew Scholar publishing a relatively recent article in the official Church magazine clearly explaining all the reasons LDS unequivocally (should) believe in a worldwide flood.

I wonder what relevance that might have in a conversation on an LDS-themed message board about the scope of Noah's flood.

I am shocked, SHOCKED, that there are differences of opinions among Latter-Day Saints about Noah's Flood!!!!!!!!!

It is simply horrifying!!!!! This type of thing has NEVER happened before!

Thank you, thank you, thank you, Cinepro, for bringing this to our attention for the seven hundred and sixty-fifth time!