World Wide Flood Of Noah

[cinepro]

I've started a thread for people to share their thoughts about religion and public education here.

[thesometimesaint]

Lehi:

I believe that would be too political to comment on.

[Hughes]

Evolution is a fact. We have the bones. The explanation of that fact is the theory of evolution.

BTW; BYU has one of the largest collection of those bones in the world.

Bones don't demonstrate evolution occurred in the past. Need a little more than that to establish it as a fact of history.

Okay so you are basically looking for reasons to distrust all of science altogether. Once you have that worldview, nothing matters except what you choose to believe. A single anomaly is not a good enough reason to toss an otherwise valid theory. It is simply an anomaly. It could possibly be explained in numerous ways if more data becomes available. Now, when enough anomalies exist to cast doubt on an entire body of supporting evidence, a theory should be reevaluated and tweaked. This is exactly how science does work. This is really neither here nor there for me as far as a worldwide flood goes.

Evidence against a worldwide flood in historic times extends across many different disciplines: Geology, Botany, Anthropology, Archaeology, Genetics (just to name a few.) When you talk about a worldwide flood as literally written about in the Bible, the implications are absolutely enormous.

1) We would see genetic lines of every species dating back to a single breeding couple (or three or four for humans) who lived 5-6 thousand years ago.

2) We would see evidence everywhere on the planet in the rocks.

3) We would see pottery, weapons, buildings, bodies distributed in a particular way all dating from exactly the same year.

4) We would have all of the animals which are completely unique to Australia (and shown to have an unbroken record of life there for many tens of thousands of years) living in the Middle East or at the very least, show that they once lived in the Anatolia area (or wherever Noah's Ark landed.)

5) There would have had to have been penguins, kangaroos, three toed sloths, Pandas, (you get the picture) which somehow managed to migrate back to where they originally were from without leaving any evidence of their existence behind, and evidence that they did NOT exist in their native lands for a period of time. I must say that I have a very difficult time understanding how any thinking, educated human being can simply discard everything that seems to be in order to believe in the literal interpretation of an ancient story (which was recorded by people who's knowledge of the world was much smaller and very different from our own. Now, a local flood is an entirely different scenario.

The flood of the Black Sea was in the right place and at the right time. It most certainly would have seemed like a worldwide flood to the people (Noah and his family perhaps) who survived it because that probably was the only world they knew. If I were God, I would most likely teach my people about Me and the important lessons I want them to understand by using methods they would understand. I think some of the early stories of Genesis fall in to this category. The lesson is the important thing and these lessons seemed to have been pointed at the people of the covenant of Moses.

I noticed that you mention at least 5 things (I edited your post to insert numbers) that you would expect to see if Noah's flood was global. Interesting that you hold that these things must have occurred. Isn't it possible that things occurred differently than you might have imagined they must have?

For example, Carbon 14 has now been found in Fossils, and actual blood cells in fossil bones as well. Doesn't that sort of throw a wrench in your trusted dating paradigm?

I'm not saying I have all the answers, but I am pointing out that those scientists who are dogmatic on the issue, actually don't have all the answers either.

As to your Black sea flood hypothesis, it would be even a greater miracle to have killed all those people and animals with just a local flood.

[katherine the great]

I noticed that you mention at least 5 things (I edited your post to insert numbers) that you would expect to see if Noah's flood was global. Interesting that you hold that these things must have occurred. Isn't it possible that things occurred differently than you might have imagined they must have?

I'm all ears. Am I wrong to assume that the worldwide flood (as described in scripture) wiped out all human beings on the planet besides Noah and family, and all land animals except for the ones on the ark? This is my understanding of what "worldwide flood" believers believe.

[thesometimesaint]

jo1952:

I am just as committed to the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ as you are. I converted over 40 years ago and haven't looked back. I'm 60 now so you do the math. That being as I have no problem with the great men(and women) of our Church being just men. With all the faults, strengths, wrong ideas, and good ideas as is common to man. These great men(women) don't become "Sock Puppets" for God just because of their leadership roles.

Science by definition can not be based on, or support any religious belief. It just can't. Individual scientists are free believe or not believe as any other person on this planet.

You speak of the knowledge gains we've made since 1900. In 1900 cars were just being invented so the fastest man could go was on horse back. It has been not only a geometric increase in knowledge it has been a Quantum Leap, to barrow a phrase. Yet all we know is but a thimble in a vast ocean of what we do't know.

Who knows Evolution may turn out to be completely wrong. I doubt it, but no one has given me that Crystal Ball to the future. What we have so far is a huge set of bones that look like for all the world to be long extinct animals. They show changes over time. The theory of evolution explains those changes that doesn't violate any known principles of science. So far every time the Creationists point out some gap in our knowledge up pops a fossil that fills that gap. It is to the point of the rediculuous; "God of the Gaps".

I have made this same offer to others on this MB. Want to disprove Evolution even to us scientists? It is rather easy. It takes no special training beyond a willingness to write accurate descriptions of what you did, and what you found. It takes no special tools beyond a shovel, paper, and a writing tool. No special abilities beyond a strong back. Now go out and find a modern human skeleton in a previously undisturbed layer of Pre-Cambrian dirt. Are you up to the task? Go for it.

Edited August 25, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[katherine the great]

For example, Carbon 14 has now been found in Fossils, and actual blood cells in fossil bones as well. Doesn't that sort of throw a wrench in your trusted dating paradigm?

Well, you aren't really giving me enough data to answer that question. Do you have a link to the publication with details of the finds? Fossils can occur in different ways. Most take millions of years to form, but things can petrify or even calcify in a relatively short amount of time. If genetic material is found in several true fossils from different areas that are absolutely dated to a million plus years then yes, that would definitely give reason to doubt an established assumption.

[thesometimesaint]

KtG:

I'm all eyes.

Genesis 7:21-23

New International Version (NIV)

21 Every living thing that moved on land perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.

C-14 can't measure dates beyond about 40-60,000 years. Millions of years can't happen. Potassium-Argon date can.

[katherine the great]

KtG:

I'm all eyes.

Genesis 7:21-23

New International Version (NIV)

21 Every living thing that moved on land perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.

Thank you for the quote. In such a case we could expect to see all humans to share common parents just a few thousand years in the past. The same with all animals in the world. To a person who does not accept Biology though, it doesn't matter because all of our methods are faulty--with the exception of course, of modern medicine (which is founded on the same principles.) I suppose it doesn't do any good to argue with such people because it really is fruitless.

[thesometimesaint]

katherine the great:

You're probably right. It is like ramming my head into a brick wall expecting the wall to budge. The wall doesn't care, and all I get is a headache.

[jo1952]

I reviewed all the links Frank posted. I never said you are making this stuff up. Scientists are human beings and they sometimes interpret the same data in different ways. I generally agree with the status quo when I look at information because it usually makes sense to me. You and Frank seem to favor the one in a hundred who either spin information or else look at it with a firm scriptural literalist lens in place from the get go. I don't consider this the proper way view scientific data. Now if you will please kindly point me to all of this scientific data that supports a worldwide flood because I am simply not seeing it, although I have provided you with many examples of data that disproves it. I'm sorry that you feel we are in apostasy. It is kind of you to worry about our souls, but I consider you dead wrong on these issues. I feel that your type of inflexible thinking is a greater danger to people's souls than true science.

Hi Katherine!

I do not believe you are an apostate - if you have spent time in discussions on this board about the apostasy, I am surprised that you would think this. I believe it is the institutions of religion and the leaders who took their doctrines down the road of apostasy, NOT the members of those denominations who are apostate. IOW, it is the doctrine that is corrupt; not the people. There is a big difference.

What is your explanation of the passages in the Bible which point to the promise God made to Noah and his sons wherein He would never again destroy the people or the earth with a world wide flood? If the flood was a localized one, then this alone puts God's promise in question. Obviously, the earth still suffers floods which destroy people and the land. How do you reconcile with this?

Regards,

jo

[cinepro]

What is your explanation of the passages in the Bible which point to the promise God made to Noah and his sons wherein He would never again destroy the people or the earth with a world wide flood? If the flood was a localized one, then this alone puts God's promise in question. Obviously, the earth still suffers floods which destroy people and the land. How do you reconcile with this?

Interestingly, here's what Elder Hunter said on that very subject:

The Lord made a covenant with Noah, and the rainbow became the token of that eternal covenant with all mankind. (See Gen. 9:13.)

Elder Howard W. Hunter, “Commitment to God”. October 1981 Conference.

I too can't figure out how God's covenant works in a local-flood setting.

[katherine the great]

What is your explanation of the passages in the Bible which point to the promise God made to Noah and his sons wherein He would never again destroy the people or the earth with a world wide flood? If the flood was a localized one, then this alone puts God's promise in question. Obviously, the earth still suffers floods which destroy people and the land. How do you reconcile with this?

Regards,

jo

I don't spend a lot of time trying to reconcile what I believe about the natural world with what I believe spiritually because I don't expect to have all the answers in this lifetime. I leave plenty of room in my brain to accommodate ancient literary devices, human foibles, mistranslations, misunderstandings, and all of the shortcomings of this mortal world. If I had to hypothesize about your question I would probably favor an explanation such as: The flood story obviously was written down sometime after the flood and the story we read in the Bible was the version that was around when it was first written down by the Israelite scribes--probably many generations after it happened.

[jo1952]

Interestingly, here's what Elder Hunter said on that very subject:

I too can't figure out how God's covenant works in a local-flood setting.

Hi Cinepro!

I have been pondering many things about the OT including how it was, or what it was that could influence man to so quickly turn from God in the OT. Of course, this pattern is also repeated many times in the BoM. It only takes a few generations for people to start to stray, though they have received many great blessings for having repented and returned their attention to God. That's what got me thinking about what it was that other societies might have that would have appeared attractive to the Children of Israel. This led me to start considering first what they might have in common which could begin the thought processes in a man's mind - since he IS a thinking being - in which he could justify choosing to change the convictions his father may have taught him.

My first idea was that both pagans of the OT and the Israelites shared the practice of sacrificing live animals to their gods. Now, today, many orthodox Christians are thoroughly disgusted with paganism BECAUSE they made live sacrifices. Yet the Children of Israel ALSO made live sacrifices. But I digress....

For the most part, the ancient Israelites were nomadic. Rarely did they build cities out of more permanent types of materials as was the practice of pagan/gentile peoples. As such (and is still seen today), the Jews of the OT may easily have assimilated themselves into the societies of peoples who lived near them. Their trade with other people would have facilitated such actions; thus exposing them to the ways and traditions of those other societies. Perhaps one of the reasons it was frowned upon and/or forbidden to intermarry with non-Jews was due to the inherrant dangers of picking up the traditions and ways of the non-Jews (aka pagans or Gentiles). Once they could see that religious traditions were similar in their live sacrifices, and in a natural desire to fit in with those around them (especially if they inter-married and wanted to keep peace with their now extended families), it is not difficult to see how these pagan traditions could easily then be adopted by the Jews because they had such a big similarity in the way they worshiped God. Within a few short generations, therefore, the majority of the Hebrews would have strayed.

The point I am getting to is this. Man is easily persuaded to become part of the "status quo"; it is much easier to do so and to come up with their own justifications for doing so, than it is to fight the majority. I don't think it is in the nature of man to change his nature and proclivities to repeat what man has done in past times.

When we come to Christ, repent, and are baptized, we are taught how we are re-born and how a process begins from within to change us. I believe this change very much is to give up the world (though we can certainly still learn from it) and allow our spiritual self to develop which, in turn, helps us to make those choices which teach us how to become more like Christ. Thus, we are still in the world, but we recognize that our spirit is not of the world - and our efforts should be to assist this process along according to what we are able to bear as the Holy Ghost leads us down the path we have now chosen to take. It is a spiritual path; not an earthly one.

Perhaps this helps explain how it is that even in the world of science, man begins to justify in their own mind how they can begin to adjust what they believe God was teaching when we see the stories of the Creation and the Great Flood, from a literal translation into something less. Inasmuch as I have spent time learning what man has to offer which ranges from supporting a literal worldwide flood to supporting local flood to supporting no flood, I still cannot change my stance even when the status quo, or show of hands, thinks I am being ignorant because I refuse to join them. And boy, does this not sound EXACTLY like what happened with Orthodox Christianity? For instance, if we refuse to accept the dogma of the Trinity, their religious institutions teach that we are damned.

Regards,

jo

[jo1952]

I don't spend a lot of time trying to reconcile what I believe about the natural world with what I believe spiritually because I don't expect to have all the answers in this lifetime. I leave plenty of room in my brain to accommodate ancient literary devices, human foibles, mistranslations, misunderstandings, and all of the shortcomings of this mortal world. If I had to hypothesize about your question I would probably favor an explanation such as: The flood story obviously was written down sometime after the flood and the story we read in the Bible was the version that was around when it was first written down by the Israelite scribes--probably many generations after it happened.

Hi Katherine!

Thank you for offering an explanation. I would offer that the entire NT was also written down AFTER Jesus' birth, death, Resurrection, and Ascension. Indeed, the Bible was not made canon until many generations after these events.

Best regards,

jo

[katherine the great]

Hi Katherine!

Thank you for offering an explanation. I would offer that the entire NT was also written down AFTER Jesus' birth, death, Resurrection, and Ascension. Indeed, the Bible was not made canon until many generations after these events.

Best regards,

jo

The New Testament was also written much more recently...

[shalamabobbi]

If we take the dates between generations in the Bible as without gaps (using the Septuagint) then the earth is young. I don't know if it is or not but I allow for that possibility. I have read many things written about how the universe could look old but actually be young. All of these papers suffer the same direct "knowing" barrier. If we say that the Bible is a witness of events and people then the Bible becomes our only written witness of the past. If we trust it literally then we do in fact have a young earth. Now I also believe that the past was forced by supernatural events so exactly what trace evidence would be left over would be a guess at best. But in this environment we can still look at the trace evidence and see if alternative theories could be formed to fit the evidence into a short time scale. I have been following Barry Setterfield's theory on changes to the fabric of space. I mentioned this earlier but I wish to expand a little on the subject.

We have some quantities in physics we call constant but we don't know if they have always been constant. Many things in physics link back to the fabric of space in which they rest. If we think of this fabric as cloth then we can see this expressed in scripture in many places. We see that God stretched out the heavens and one day will roll it up. The word stretched can be applied to the fabric of space and we can imagine what that would do to space itself. If we say that that space was stretched and then settled over time what would that look like and what would it do to those constants in physics? Here is a link to one such theory. I don't know if it is true but I find the theory interesting.

http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_5349.pdf

What prompted this paper was not a fitting of the past to the Bible but some observations of large bodies in space and atomic clocks. That history is here.

http://www.setterfield.org/report/report.html

Since I do not trust man I look for anomalies in his theories. Once I find a valid anomaly I toss the theory. Science does not do this. They instead push the anomaly aside and keep marching along. Of course they do not teach about the anomalies in school. Here is a good link on anomalies.

http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2010/07/18/dominant_paradigms_in_science_and_their

So when all of things are taken together I can with a reasonable mind and faith see a flood occurring in 3554 BC. Where many see me and think that I have not studied science I say that it is they that have not studied. If you focus on one thought you will learn one thought. Open your mind, don't trust, check things out for yourself.

I read through the first paper in which QM is dumped for interaction with the zero point energy of space. This does not address the two slit experiment at all and seems to be disproved by it. Are you aware of this being addressed at all by the author in another paper?

[jo1952]

The New Testament was also written much more recently...

I think you are on a slippery slope.

So, are you saying that according to when something was written down - even though they may have been recorded with a similar time gap - they are somehow more truthful if only 2000 years have gone by since they were written? Since man is fallible, and the Bible, especially, the NT, has been effected by even more translations than the OT, how do justify that it (the NT) may not be filled with as many problems, if not moreso, than the OT? Is the Resurrection only local lore? Even the Great Flood, at the very least, is held as lore by peoples from all over the earth. But the Resurrection is definitively localized. In fact, there is NO physical evidence whatsoever that supports Jesus was the Christ. For instance, anyone can point to an empty tomb and claim that Jesus was put into it and that His body disappeared later.

It appears that what some of mankind is willing to do is this. If they think they have found physical evidence which, in their minds, can alter what the Bible claims, that this is okay due to the amount of "evidence" which they claim supports their pov rather than the pov of the Bible, and, therefore has no affect on their beliefs (though this certainly has detrimental effect on the non-believer's ability to see past such apparent confliction). This would be especially okay if the event being described happened a really long time ago. OTOH, you have no problem believing the Bible when there is absolutely NO physical evidence to support its claims. So, where you are able to accept based on faith, that Jesus came in the flesh, was crucified, Resurrected, and Ascended, without the need for physical evidence, you are unable to accept based on faith anything that is written in the Bible which does present physical evidence, instead you cannot accept the Bible literally at that point because of the antiquity of what is recorded.

So, where do you draw the line? When does physical evidence stop pre-empting the Bible? Where does faith begin, or at the least, where is faith applicable? If physical evidence turned up in Bethlehem which, through the process of scientific study and eventually scientific peer review, shows that Jesus is just a myth or only a local hero, would you lose your faith because now you have physical evidence which points you to a different conclusion if that became the status quo? If you didn't lose your faith, then what is the difference between the OT evidence and NT evidence which would cause you to apply your conclusions to only the OT and not the NT?

I am not trying to badger you; I truly and sincerely want to understand how you process your beliefs concerning God and what has been revealed in the Bible. At this point, they appear inconsistent to me.

Best regards,

jo

Edited August 25, 2011 by jo1952

[katherine the great]

I think you are on a slippery slope.

Hold on and let me grab the ledge...Jesus lived in historic times and the world He lived in is easy to understand and believe because there are so many outside sources that support the details of the story. The books of the New Testament were likely also written down within a generation or two of the events. Noah's story is very nebulous in it's details. We can't really locate it or understand the people involved. There is nothing in it that I can really relate to except that the world was very wicked and Noah was righteous. It's also eerily similar to an earlier tale called the Epic of Gilgamesh but with a distinctly Hebrew flavor.

[Hughes]

I'm all ears. Am I wrong to assume that the worldwide flood (as described in scripture) wiped out all human beings on the planet besides Noah and family, and all land animals except for the ones on the ark? This is my understanding of what "worldwide flood" believers believe.

Yes, all humans came from Noah and his family (8 people if I recall). And before that all humans came from just 2 people.

Well, you aren't really giving me enough data to answer that question. Do you have a link to the publication with details of the finds? Fossils can occur in different ways. Most take millions of years to form, but things can petrify or even calcify in a relatively short amount of time. If genetic material is found in several true fossils from different areas that are absolutely dated to a million plus years then yes, that would definitely give reason to doubt an established assumption.

Two quotes:

"One thing that is agreed upon is that if a material is claimed to be 30 million years old there should be no carbon 14 atoms left. No matter how old the carbon material is science labs almost always find some carbon 14. "

"Dinosaur bones from Texas to Alaska have been tested by our group for the presence of Carbon 14 and the following table shows some of the results of our findings over the years."

http://www.dinosaurc14ages.com/carbondating.htm

Another quote concerning Blood in Dinosaur bones:

"During the recent "60 minutes" T.V. program of November 15, 2009, the scientists admitted they were shocked that soft tissue and blood vessels could survive 65 million years. Not once did they ever consider that the bones were NOT 65 million years old. If they were good logical scientists they would then raise the question: Perhaps this bone is not 65 million years old after all? If that is possible what other test could be run to determine the age of the soft tissues? You don't have to be a rocket scientist to think: What about radiocarbon (RC) dating of the soft material or collagen? This would be an independent way of determining the age of the tissues and raise serious questions about the age of the strata. What you could determine with radiocarbon dating is that when you find no radiocarbon present you have proven that the material is older than 80 thousand years old. However if you find any radiocarbon present then we must conclude that the soft tissue is only thousands of years old! Perhaps that particular bone is not 65 million years old. Perhaps the postulate "that the bone came from a 65 million year old strata and therefore it must be that old" is also wrong. Since we at the Paleo Group have no sacred dogma to defend, we will plan to carbon date some of that soft material. We challenge other scientists to do the same including collagen and bio-apatite and let the chips fall where they may! We therefore say: Date the fossils, NoT the rocks!"

http://www.dinosaurc14ages.com/dinoblood.htm

[Franktalk]

I read through the first paper in which QM is dumped for interaction with the zero point energy of space. This does not address the two slit experiment at all and seems to be disproved by it. Are you aware of this being addressed at all by the author in another paper?

I fail to see how the wave nature of energy is changed to that extent in this paper. You will have to give me more information about your concerns.

[Franktalk]

Hold on and let me grab the ledge...Jesus lived in historic times and the world He lived in is easy to understand and believe because there are so many outside sources that support the details of the story. The books of the New Testament were likely also written down within a generation or two of the events. Noah's story is very nebulous in it's details. We can't really locate it or understand the people involved. There is nothing in it that I can really relate to except that the world was very wicked and Noah was righteous. It's also eerily similar to an earlier tale called the Epic of Gilgamesh but with a distinctly Hebrew flavor.

I imagine for a moment that you are Satan or one of his buddies. You witness the flood and see all of your plans to destroy the line of flesh from Adam come to nothing. Then you hear the story of the flood by oral tradition being spoken from generation to generation. So you find some receptive ears and give other versions which conflict with what actually happened. So in time many stories come from all over about some kind of flood but future generations don't know what to believe. Remember in the garden what Satan said:

Genesis 3

1Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

2And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:

3But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

4And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

5For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

First Satan questions what was actually said by God. Then Satan replaces what God said with a lie. Then to seal the deal Satan appeals to our pride. This has worked so well for Satan he has never changed his argument.

Does the following seem reasonable?

With having all of these flood stories how can we know what was said by God. The local flood seems a better story and who can trust those old guys anyway. And if I believe in a local flood then all of my science friends will treat me like one of them, I will be accepted and not appear as some nut job with a Bible.

[shalamabobbi]

I fail to see how the wave nature of energy is changed to that extent in this paper. You will have to give me more information about your concerns.

I suspected that stochastic electrodynamics was a hidden variable theory and I was right.

Turns out it has been tested and it has failed:

This clear violation of the Clauser-Horne (CH) inequality with non-maximally entangled states represented an interesting progress toward a loophole free test of local realism. Furthermore, this experiment allowed a clear negative test of stochastic electrodynamics, a theory built for reproducing quantum electrodynamics results in a classical field theory framework when a zero-point field is introduced. In its subpart concerning the quantum properties of radiation, named stochastic optics, it was forecasted that Bell inequalities should not be violated below a certain level of detection rate. Indeed a clear violation of CH inequality was observed in our experiment even well below this threshold (by many orders of magnitude).

A little more in detail...

Thus, taken together, all these negative results clearly falsify this theory.

Here is the reference for the abstract:

http://iopscience.iop.org/1742-6596/67/1/012047

Google "Experimental tests of hidden variable theories from dBB to stochastic electrodynamics" and you should get the above reference followed by a PDF download of the paper.

Other references for the masochistic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_variable_theory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerard_%27t_Hooft

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_electrodynamics

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c-decay.html

http://www.setterfield.org/Quantum_Mechanics.html#doubleslit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdeterminism

[katherine the great]

I imagine for a moment that you are Satan or one of his buddies. You witness the flood and see all of your plans to destroy the line of flesh from Adam come to nothing. Then you hear the story of the flood by oral tradition being spoken from generation to generation. So you find some receptive ears and give other versions which conflict with what actually happened. So in time many stories come from all over about some kind of flood but future generations don't know what to believe. Remember in the garden what Satan said:

Genesis 3

1Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

2And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:

3But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

4And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

5For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

First Satan questions what was actually said by God. Then Satan replaces what God said with a lie. Then to seal the deal Satan appeals to our pride. This has worked so well for Satan he has never changed his argument.

Does the following seem reasonable?

With having all of these flood stories how can we know what was said by God. The local flood seems a better story and who can trust those old guys anyway. And if I believe in a local flood then all of my science friends will treat me like one of them, I will be accepted and not appear as some nut job with a Bible.

I don't relate to a God who would plant false evidence or hide evidence so that it looks like there was never any worldwide flood. I relate to a God of reason who allows human beings to find the truth relatively easily.

[TAO]

Shambboi, the idea of only 'local' hidden variables is a theory in and of itself... not proven, just assumed. In fact, the exceptions to the rule we call... 'the laws of physics'... those are non-local, if you know what I mean. And they can be hidden too. That's why we are reverse-engineering them to find the universal theory =P.

Edited August 26, 2011 by TAO

[jo1952]

Hold on and let me grab the ledge...Jesus lived in historic times and the world He lived in is easy to understand and believe because there are so many outside sources that support the details of the story. The books of the New Testament were likely also written down within a generation or two of the events. Noah's story is very nebulous in it's details. We can't really locate it or understand the people involved. There is nothing in it that I can really relate to except that the world was very wicked and Noah was righteous. It's also eerily similar to an earlier tale called the Epic of Gilgamesh but with a distinctly Hebrew flavor.

And still not a single piece of scientific evidence to prove the story which was recorded in the NT. Do you believe in Christ only because you perceive His story as easy to understand and because "there are so many outside sources that support the details of the story"?

Do you believe the story presented in the Book of Revelation of how the earth will be destroyed with fire? Or do you think that that will also only be a localized event? I know that it has not happened yet, so there is no physical evidence for you to investigate. I am just wondering what you believe about it.

Also, Cinepro brought up a very good point about the covenant which God made with Noah and his sons and the earth. In fact if Thesometimesaint is reading this post, I would also like his thoughts on this:

Genesis 9:8-17

8 And God spake unto Noah, and to his sons with him, saying,

9 And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you;

10 And with every living creature that is with you, of the fowl, of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go out of the ark, to every beast of the earth.

11 And I will establish my covenant with you, neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.

12 And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations:

13 I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth.

14 And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud:

15 And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.

16 And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.

17 And God said unto Noah, This is the token of the covenant, which I have established between me and all flesh that is upon the earth.

Do you believe this conversation ever took place? Covenant making is pretty serious business with God. Moses is the Prophet who recorded Genesis. Do you believe Moses was a Prophet of God? Do you believe he might have gotten this particular covenant wrong? What are your thoughts on this?

Best regards,

jo