World Wide Flood Of Noah

[Jeff K.]

Why are all your quotes over 130 years old?

That is like asking why diamonds are old.

Edited August 17, 2011 by Jeff K.

[mfbukowski]

I'm agnostic on this subject. The fact is that we don't know exactly when the Flood took place, and we need to know that before anything else. Unfortunately, the Lord simply hasn't revealed an exact timeline yet, so we're left with the chronologies that others have developed. The best thing for us to do right now, in my opinion, is to simply admit, "We don't know yet."

Sorry, won't do for this thread.

We are required to flog the dead horse for at least another 20 pages.

[cinepro]

cinepro:

Does truth have an expiration date?

Was "science" in 1860 the same as "science" today?

[David T]

There was actually a post on this subject today over at Faith Promoting Rumor. The Flood: Global or Localized?

[thesometimesaint]

cinepro:

Yes.

http://www.scientificmethod.com/sm5_smhistory.html

[cinepro]

I'm agnostic on this subject. The fact is that we don't know exactly when the Flood took place, and we need to know that before anything else. Unfortunately, the Lord simply hasn't revealed an exact timeline yet, so we're left with the chronologies that others have developed. The best thing for us to do right now, in my opinion, is to simply admit, "We don't know yet."

Good news altersteve! The flood is #4:

Mystery solved.

Edited August 17, 2011 by cinepro

[thesometimesaint]

mfbukowski:

I have no problem with the Supernatural. I do have a problem with imposing the Supernatural on the Natural.

[thesometimesaint]

cinepro:

links removed

Edited August 17, 2011 by Minos

[cinepro]

cinepro:

removed

Uhhh...you might want to check out that first link in a little more depth before posting it on an LDS-themed message board

[thesometimesaint]

cinepro:

I'm as LDS as they come. I find nothing wrong in my first link.

[Bill Hamblin]

I've spent a lot of time on internet message boards, and this could be the first time I've ever seen someone post something in a thread they weren't interested in. I feel like I've just witnessed internet history.

Actually, if you had paid attention, you might have noticed that I was actually teasing you, not commenting on the flood. Alas, no history is being made here.

And now back to our regularly scheduled silence.

[cinepro]

cinepro:

I'm as LDS as they come. I find nothing wrong in my first link.

The timeline is great, but do you see any pictures on the screen behind the timeline?

[David T]

cinepro:

I'm as LDS as they come. I find nothing wrong in my first link.

... actually, Cinepro is right. Behind the chart was a site with some, umm, very blatant sexualized nudity advertisements.

[Franktalk]

A couple of points before moving along. I did write that I thought the time frame for the flood was 3554 BC. The internet is filled with all kinds of time lines so I will post where I get that number. The arguments presented made sense to me. So if I do use dates these will be the dates and the link will supply the reasoning why:

http://www.setterfield.org/000docs/scriptchron.htm

One of the big stumbling blocks between science and the Bible are the completely different kinds of time lines that are found in geology and those found in the Bible. They both can't be right in absolute terms. Since so many people feel the dating methods used in science are the correct ones then those people will look at the Bible and say that the dates are not what they say they are and there must be gaps or other ways to view scripture so the conflict with science goes away. How a believing Christian reconciles this conflict does not matter to me as long as they still focus on the message from God about salvation.

It did not sit well with me that there was this big difference in time frames. So I looked for gaps in scripture but found none. Then I studied the methods used to determine old age in science. They seemed reasonable and the assumptions made seemed reasonable as well. So I was left with two vastly different scales of time. So instead of using the currently accepted dating methods in science I did a study of processes that don't use radiation decay of any kind. Something I could wholly trust with as little assumptions as possible. For me this was erosion. Assuming that dirt is still dirt going back in time and rain is still rain and gravity pretty much stayed the same then erosion could provide a rough verification of large scale dates independent of radiation decay. I am not going to go into all of the fine detail that I used but the basic conclusion was that radiation decay dates are way off. They must be. The difference between erosion dating and radiation dating is the biggest anomaly (ignored) in science. Like the big elephant in the corner that everyone ignores. I used the well documented drainage system of the Mississippi for my study. I will provide the starting point for any one interested in following what I did.

http://www.epa.gov/owow_keep/msbasin/pdf/symposia1106/21_ssmith.pdf

The key figure here is the river efflux from the basin. This is 161 x 10^6 tons/year (bulk sediment)

Then I weighed a cubic foot of soil. It was approx 100 lbs.

So 161 x 10^6 tons x 2000 = lbs = 3.22 x 10^11 lbs

3.22 x 10^11 / 100 lbs/cubic foot = 3.22 x 10^9 cubic feet per year.

That is a good start for anyone wishing to do an independent study. I did find out that man has placed all kinds of control basins all along the drainage rivers. These are currently reducing the sediment rates being discharged into the Gulf. Probably by a factor of three. So armed with these numbers I calculated the volume of the current river delta and the volume of the United States. For the river delta I calculated that the sediments would take around 3000 years to make the current delta. I then added some more sediments in for the remaining rivers around the United States and determined that the United States would erode flat in around 20 million years. These are interesting numbers. They obviously don't match the kinds of numbers we see in geology. I then did a study of the geologic column for a few States. It seems that in many areas sediments are gathering and they date back hundreds of millions of years. So something is amiss. I will not fight this war. I did this work for myself and I am now convinced that I can safely throw out radiation decay dating. It does not matter to me why it doesn't work, it just doesn't. And don't post any experts who know all about the decay process unless they are over 10,000 years old and are a witness to constant rates.

The dating really does not matter except when we try and date features that may or may not be related to the flood. For me I look around and just imagine large water events and see if anything matches up.

[keith_brian]

A couple of points before moving along. I did write that I thought the time frame for the flood was 3554 BC. The internet is filled with all kinds of time lines so I will post where I get that number. The arguments presented made sense to me. So if I do use dates these will be the dates and the link will supply the reasoning why:

http://www.setterfie...scriptchron.htm

One of the big stumbling blocks between science and the Bible are the completely different kinds of time lines that are found in geology and those found in the Bible. They both can't be right in absolute terms. Since so many people feel the dating methods used in science are the correct ones then those people will look at the Bible and say that the dates are not what they say they are and there must be gaps or other ways to view scripture so the conflict with science goes away. How a believing Christian reconciles this conflict does not matter to me as long as they still focus on the message from God about salvation.

It did not sit well with me that there was this big difference in time frames. So I looked for gaps in scripture but found none. Then I studied the methods used to determine old age in science. They seemed reasonable and the assumptions made seemed reasonable as well. So I was left with two vastly different scales of time. So instead of using the currently accepted dating methods in science I did a study of processes that don't use radiation decay of any kind. Something I could wholly trust with as little assumptions as possible. For me this was erosion. Assuming that dirt is still dirt going back in time and rain is still rain and gravity pretty much stayed the same then erosion could provide a rough verification of large scale dates independent of radiation decay. I am not going to go into all of the fine detail that I used but the basic conclusion was that radiation decay dates are way off. They must be. The difference between erosion dating and radiation dating is the biggest anomaly (ignored) in science. Like the big elephant in the corner that everyone ignores. I used the well documented drainage system of the Mississippi for my study. I will provide the starting point for any one interested in following what I did.

http://www.epa.gov/o...6/21_ssmith.pdf

The key figure here is the river efflux from the basin. This is 161 x 10^6 tons/year (bulk sediment)

Then I weighed a cubic foot of soil. It was approx 100 lbs.

So 161 x 10^6 tons x 2000 = lbs = 3.22 x 10^11 lbs

3.22 x 10^11 / 100 lbs/cubic foot = 3.22 x 10^9 cubic feet per year.

That is a good start for anyone wishing to do an independent study. I did find out that man has placed all kinds of control basins all along the drainage rivers. These are currently reducing the sediment rates being discharged into the Gulf. Probably by a factor of three. So armed with these numbers I calculated the volume of the current river delta and the volume of the United States. For the river delta I calculated that the sediments would take around 3000 years to make the current delta. I then added some more sediments in for the remaining rivers around the United States and determined that the United States would erode flat in around 20 million years. These are interesting numbers. They obviously don't match the kinds of numbers we see in geology. I then did a study of the geologic column for a few States. It seems that in many areas sediments are gathering and they date back hundreds of millions of years. So something is amiss. I will not fight this war. I did this work for myself and I am now convinced that I can safely throw out radiation decay dating. It does not matter to me why it doesn't work, it just doesn't. And don't post any experts who know all about the decay process unless they are over 10,000 years old and are a witness to constant rates.

The dating really does not matter except when we try and date features that may or may not be related to the flood. For me I look around and just imagine large water events and see if anything matches up.

I don't think independent investigations on topics like this are usually a good idea. The scientific literature on the recent history of the earth is pretty vast, and I don't recall any of it mentioning a global flood that killed all but 8 people sometime within the last 5000 years. I think that people can pretty much stick with the published scientific literature on the topic instead of going out and weight blocks of soil on their own.

On another topic, I am not sure why we are back on this whole kick again. Cinepro, in his previous posts, has pretty convincingly shown what the LDS position on the flood of Noah is. I have yet to see any refutation of this position citing authoritative sources from the church. Also, the scientific position on Noah's flood is also pretty obvious, so I am not sure what there is to discuss.

[Franktalk]

I don't think independent investigations on topics like this are usually a good idea. The scientific literature on the recent history of the earth is pretty vast, and I don't recall any of it mentioning a global flood that killed all but 8 people sometime within the last 5000 years. I think that people can pretty much stick with the published scientific literature on the topic instead of going out and weight blocks of soil on their own.

On another topic, I am not sure why we are back on this whole kick again. Cinepro, in his previous posts, has pretty convincingly shown what the LDS position on the flood of Noah is. I have yet to see any refutation of this position citing authoritative sources from the church. Also, the scientific position on Noah's flood is also pretty obvious, so I am not sure what there is to discuss.

I am so glad that JS did not follow your advice. He did an independent study and went to the source of all knowledge for answers. Also I read in scripture that many will go towards the wrong gate. Is it possible that the many you refer to are the same people?

Is it our purpose in life to seek other men's opinions? I will seek my own path and hopefully the Spirit will guide me along the way. How many times must I say that a show of hands means nothing to me. The only show of hands that I wish to see is where Jesus shows the wounds in His hands on His return.

[mfbukowski]

... actually, Cinepro is right. Behind the chart was a site with some, umm, very blatant sexualized nudity advertisements.

Yeah, sure.

If you were as perfect as me, you wouldn't have noticed!

[volgadon]

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.

Personally, I'd rather not despise anything that God has given me. That includes physical eyes, a mind, the capacity for logic and reasoning, and a knowledge of geography and topography, and geology; history, present affairs, and a prognosis of the near future; domestic affairs, international affairs; international politics and military affairs; and a knowledge also of countries and of the few remaining kingdoms.

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.

This psalm is of the genre known as an individual's lament. To be brief, the psalmist recites his woes caused by his enemies, appeals to God for helpand protection, expressing finally his steadfast trust in God as his protector and benefactor. I don't really see what it has to do with your false dichotomy between using our God-given brains and following promptings of the Spirit.

[Franktalk]

Personally, I'd rather not despise anything that God has given me.........

I was given the ability to sin, I will gladly cast it aside. Those things which lead us down the wrong path should be cast aside. I find it hard to understand your position. In fact Jesus does not agree with your position either:

Mat 5:29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into h***.

[jo1952]

Personally, I'd rather not despise anything that God has given me. That includes physical eyes, a mind, the capacity for logic and reasoning, and a knowledge of geography and topography, and geology; history, present affairs, and a prognosis of the near future; domestic affairs, international affairs; international politics and military affairs; and a knowledge also of countries and of the few remaining kingdoms.

Hmmm, I just read the sentences you were responding to. Here they are for your review:

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.

It appears your eyes have fooled you, as I do NOT see anywhere in those words where Franktalk said that he despised anything that God gave him.

This psalm is of the genre known as an individual's lament. To be brief, the psalmist recites his woes caused by his enemies, appeals to God for helpand protection, expressing finally his steadfast trust in God as his protector and benefactor. I don't really see what it has to do with your false dichotomy between using our God-given brains and following promptings of the Spirit.

I would have to agree with you. You don't see what Psalm 141:8 has to do with using our God-given brains and following promptings of the spirit.

Regards,

jo

[mfbukowski]

I was given the ability to sin, I will gladly cast it aside. Those things which lead us down the wrong path should be cast aside. I find it hard to understand your position. In fact Jesus does not agree with your position either:

Mat 5:29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into h***.

Oh come on dude!

I mean I like you but what is this "holier than thou" stuff? It just comes off as pure pride and hypocrisy! I am not saying you ARE that way- but it sure sounds like it. Who are you to judge anybody?

[mfbukowski]

Personally, I'd rather not despise anything that God has given me. That includes physical eyes, a mind, the capacity for logic and reasoning, and a knowledge of geography and topography, and geology; history, present affairs, and a prognosis of the near future; domestic affairs, international affairs; international politics and military affairs; and a knowledge also of countries and of the few remaining kingdoms.

[Nenahnezad]

Noah's flood was local. LOL!I suppose the burning will be local, as well? (D&C 64:23; 31:4)

The earth was born of water Gen 1:2, yet baptized of water by local sprinkling? and will be baptized locally by a campfire, as well?

There was a reason for Noah's flood, and it wasn't to amuse scientists. Job 38:18

But apparently, it makes you to appear to be sophisticated to believe otherwise. LOL!

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Sorry for the response lag everybody, been kinda busy (though of course I obsessively check the boards far too often ... *grin*)

Before I respond to all the posts that have accumulated, I'm going to suggest a methodology that might help this conversation be more fruitful (or at least keep me sane, anyway). Namely, I find it excruciatingly irritating when I am told to accept a factual assertion about ambiguous evidence based solely on the claimant's appeal to the Holy Spirit.

Let me be clear: this is not to say that I don't believe in the promptings of the Holy Spirit. I would not have joined the Church if that was so.

What I don't believe in is using those promptings as an authoritarian method of stifling honest inquiry. To the contrary, we are meant to convince others only through persuasion, as we are counseled in the D&C.

If the viewpoint being expressed is truly from the Holy Spirit -

(the dove who, as Joseph Smith said, is "an emblem or token of truth", who is "a witness bearer" who "brings things past to our remembrance" and "has no other effect than pure intelligence," who we believe in "rationally, consistently, and scripturally, and not according to the wild vagaries, foolish notions, and traditions of men" because "the human family are very apt to run to extremes, especially in religious matters, and hence people in general either want some miraculous display or they will not believe in the gift of the Holy Ghost at all,")

- then it should be possible to express it and communicate in plain language, because "any man that has the Holy Ghost can speak of the things of God in his own tongue", all the while knowing that "the gifts of God are all useful in their place, but when they are applied to that which God does not intend, they prove an injury, snare and a curse instead of a blessing."

I believe I've received spiritual promptings on intellectual questions myself. But it's utterly useless to try to convince others of the truth of my position based solely on an appeal to the Holy Ghost. This is not a Testimony Meeting, or a missionary asking an investigator to pray to have a personal communication revealing the truth of the Book of Mormon.

If it was a true prompting, then "ye shall know them by their fruits" - ie, the strength of the argument. Joseph Smith said that "the greatest, the best, and the most useful gifts would be known nothing about by an observer. ... The manifestations of the gift of the Holy Ghost ... were very seldom manifested publicly." Indeed, "if any person have a vision ... it must be for his own benefit and instruction."

So let me emphasize: it is pointless to try to persuade someone based on mere assertion. If the only argument to be had is "the Holy Ghost told me it was true", then I'm afraid I'm uncharitable enough that I'm simply not going to believe you, and will ignore all of the passive-aggressive admonitions for me to be as righteous as you.

The D&C explicitly states that we are to "study and learn, and become acquainted with all good books, and with languages, tongues, and people," to "obtain a knowledge of history, and of countries, and of kingdoms, of laws of God and man, and all this for the salvation of Zion." Brother Joseph also said that "we should gather all the good and true principles in the world and treasure them up, or we shall not come out true 'Mormons.'"

"[Others] have creeds which a man must believe or be asked out of their church. I want the liberty of thinking and believing as I please. It feels so good not to be trammelled. It does not prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine."

Brigham Young taught that "Our religion will not clash with nor contradict the facts of science in any particular," and "every accomplishment, every refined talent, every useful attainment in mathematics, music, and in all sciences, and art belong to the Saints." "A good man, is a good man, whether in this church, or out of it."

This is why I'm completely, utterly, befuddled at the thought that studying other Flood accounts is somehow detrimental to faith, or that secular learning is somehow less valid than personal insights gained through the Spirit. It is settled doctrine that there have been many "plain and precious truths" lost from the Bible, and there have been truths that were never in it in the first place. It is a fallible record. Yet all things have a spiritual component to them; all spirit is refined matter, all learning should be part of a unified whole, to build up Zion. We have no conflict with materialism, with physicality, with science of any kind. This seems basic, at least in my opinion.

So when we come across one of the many, many errors in the Bible, is that a reason to give it up as uninspired? Not at all! It just means we're dealing with humans.

Jo:

I think Peter was an awesome, intelligent guy. But his symbolic use of a common scriptural story he was familiar with is simply not enough to convince me. I think it's cool to metaphorically connect it with baptism, but a line or two of text is simply not enough to throw out all the learning that has accumulated over the past 2000 years. The temporal world is, of course, definitionally temporary. But there's nothing temporary about physicality - all spirit is eternal matter, etc., which behaves according to law.

The thing is, it's not fair of you to say that people who look for physical evidence of the Flood are "inevitably closing their minds to the evidence which may already exist right in front of them" without actually providing any of that evidence. It's again mere assertion. When this is about something vital to our salvation, such as the Resurrection, the entire point of the Gospels is to testify that this seemingly impossible thing really was witnessed by sober record-keepers who knew it would not be explicable to the current science of the day. The Flood is a very different story - it appears, to me at least, to be a mere redaction of an earlier account of a historical event which was reinterpreted in many different ways by many different people. Why are we assuming the redactors paraphrased God's words accurately?

I have not used science to disprove God, so your objection on that front is unfounded. But you seem to be positing an unnecessary dichotomy between God's work and the "natural" world. How can there exist anything which is not "natural"? Everything is a part of nature, even God. We are all bound up in it. It is a Neoplatonic idea, not part of the Restoration, that God works in a separate, supernatural arena. If He understands how to fiddle with reality better than we can, that is still natural.

And if He is a part of nature, there seems little reason that He would deliberately hide evidence of a literally world-wide flood, which is basically what your claims amount to. The scriptures say that the lands were divided at the time of Peleg, true - where is there evidence that this was referring to, of all things, continental movements, as you seem to be implying? It seems clear to me that it is referring to colonization movements. They're dividing up areas of land amongst themselves, not having continents formed for them.

I wholeheartedly recommend altersteve's perspective, which bears repeating:

"It is truly a wonderful thing to learn about this world. I think the following quotes make it very clear that we Latter-day Saints should be strong advocates of science, and should be excited about scientific discoveries. God absolutely wants us to learn about His creation - the things that He created for us. In fact, I'd say it is a commandment. For this reason I believe those who say things like, "I believe such-and-such no matter what science tells me," do not quite understand the doctrine of eternal progression. This is our home, after all. There's no reason not to learn everything we can about it."

Cinepro:

You might notice that the beautiful quote above is from a good Latter-Day Saint in 2011, not 130 years ago.

Also, I think Rivers put it quite well, and was nice enough to preempt your usual link:

"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 [a] 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."

This does not take any unusual degree of "creativity". And it certainly does nothing to demonstrate the ever-specious assertion that there is a divide between "internet" Mormons and "chapel" Mormons.

Franktalk:

"What I am saying may seem like total nonsense to you."

Pretty much, yeah.

"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."

Okeedoke.

"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."

This is actually very alarming to me. Faith should not be based on willful ignorance. We have been counseled to prove all things and reason together, because it is a misunderstanding to suppose that God will give light to us when we take no thought save to ask Him. The Lord quite explicitly stated that we must study things out in our minds, and that a stupor of thought is the sign of the unintelligibility of the traditions of our fathers which have resulted in a mass of confusion. If humans have Godlike potential, why would we want to "block out" our own brains? Your method seems far more likely to lead us astray. God is a Man who uses logic. We should, too.

"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."

See my comments above - by upholding the D&C, we have actually committed ourselves to studying religions, languages, and history. The Holy Ghost certainly will not run from you for pursuing a wide-ranging education.

I agree that neocatastrophism is coming back, and momentous upheavals are valid in many instances such as the Missoula flood (I live in Oregon and used to live in Washington, brother! *grin*) All that is fine. I'm a history major and am familiar with the background of your rather hyperbolic account. But if you take the Biblical Flood literally, in which it covers the entire planet and kills every living thing ... it is an utterly different scale.

"I will reject all references to works of geology unless data is supplied. The opinions of geologist mean nothing to me and a show of hands in a room filled with group think is worthless."

thesometimesaint provided a perfectly data-filled link in the very first response to your opening post. It's a decent read, yo. Here it is again: http://www.talkorigi...-noahs-ark.html

If God is such a trickster that He would literally kill every living thing on the earth and then deliberately cover up the evidence using supernatural powers, I'd just as soon not believe in Him, frankly.

If there's one thing that the Joseph Smith story should tell us, it's that there is a vast difference between listening to God, and listening to what other people say God says; this is the principle of personal revelation that is vital to the Restoration. If Samuel the Lamanite had listened to either Nephite or Lamanite society, would he have been as great a prophet as he was? As Priesthood members, we have to keep in mind at all times that, as Matthew 24:24 says, it's possible for Satan to deceive even the very elect - I'm not safe just because I hold the Priesthood and hope to receive guidance from time to time from the Holy Ghost. None of us are.

The Articles of Faith say, "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly." Joseph Smith is also quoted as saying, "I believe the Bible as it read when it came from the pen of the original writers. Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors." I think the literal nature of a worldwide Flood is - when taken in the context of the secular data which we have covenanted to study and use to build up Zion because all truth belongs to Mormonism - clearly one of those errors, one of the false traditions of our fathers.

Frankly, I cry when reading the book of Numbers and Deuteronomy, and am very, very skeptical about many of the things that the Deuteronomist scribe claims are the Word of God as spoken to Moses. Too often authority is used to justify abuses. Does this mean I throw out the Bible because it's a product of its time? Heck no! As Smith said, "I thank God that I have got this old book; but I thank him more for the gift of the Holy Ghost. I have got the oldest book in the world; but I have got the oldest book in my heart, even the gift of the Holy Ghost. I have all the four Testaments."

Indeed, God says in the very first section of the D&C that "the fulness of my gospel might be proclaimed by the weak and the simple unto the ends of the world, and before kings and rulers. Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding. And inasmuch as they erred it might be made known; and inasmuch as they sought wisdom they might be instructed; and inasmuch as they sinned they might be chastened, that they might repent; and inasmuch as they were humble they might be made strong, and blessed from on high, and receive knowledge from time to time."

This is why Cinepro's continual attempts are kinda silly. The Church is always going to be wrong about this, that, and the other thing, and specialists within will probably know it. But if we're faithful to each other, the Church will always still be true, since it's not about providing a perfect scientific picture of the world, but rather focused on binding the Saints into living communities which can provide the safe havens for families to be exalted together.

An event that includes supernatural forces may not leave expected trace evidence. Now in the flood we read about water covering the land and then receding. This could easily be accomplished by sinking the continents and causing the sea floors to rise.

Easily? Hurm.

My intent is to open peoples minds to the possibility that a world wide flood did occur. I will not prove it. So if you are ready with all of your geology links they will not apply to the arguments I make. But I do ask that those who believe in God also believe in the powers of God.

Look, this is getting silly. Here, let me show you what this would look like coming from me: "My intent is to open minds to the possibility that a worldwide Flood did not occur. I will not prove it. So if you are ready with all of your anti-geology links, they will not apply to the arguments I make. But I do ask that those who believe in God also believe in the powers of God to make sense."

Obviously you're not convinced, right? So why should you expect that kind of argument to convince others?

Your fundamental assumptions about the reliability of the generations recorded in Genesis are flawed. Hugh Nibley, to take one example, pointed this out long ago - if you really take the scriptures "literally", then please factor this in:

"The first chapter of our Ether text gives us warning not to be dogmatic about chronology. In the genealogical list of thirty names running back to "the great tower" the word "descendant" occurs, once where several generations may be spanned (Ether 1:23; 10:9), and twice interchangeably with the word "son" (Ether 1:6, 16; cf. 2; 3). As you know, in Hebrew and other languages "son" and "descendant" are both rendered by one very common word. One and the same word describes a modern Jew and Father Isaac as "sons" of Abraham - the word is understood differently in each case, but is not written differently.

A person confined to a written text would have no means of knowing when ben should be taken to mean "son" in a literal sense and when it means merely "descendant." The ancient Hebrews knew perfectly well when to make the distinction: like the Arabs and Maoris they kept their records in their heads, and in mentioning a particular patriarch, it was assumed that the hearer was familiar with his line down to his next important descendant, the written lists being a mere outline to establish connections between particular lines - the name of a patriarch was enough to indicate his line, which did not have to be written out in full.

Sir Leonard Woolley has some interesting things to say on this subject in his book Abraham. Now Ether proves, at least to Latter-day Saints, that "son" and "descendant" were both used in the ancient genealogies, which thus do not present an unbroken father-to-son relationship. We are told that the genealogy in Ether belongs to the second part of a record and that "the first part of this record ... is had among the Jews" (Ether 1:3). So we may regard the Old Testament genealogies as the earlier part of this same list and are thus faced with the possibility, long suspected by many, that in Biblical genealogies ben must sometimes be read "son" and sometimes "descendant," though men have long since lost the knowledge that enabled the ancient ruler to make the necessary distinction. The result is, of course, that our Biblical genealogies as we read them today may be much too short."

The scriptures are accurate so far as they go, but they do not trump empirical investigation. This is not a failing in scripture, nor a weakness in science. To twist radiation decay dates to conform to a fallible scrap of paper is simply wrongheaded. Your math is irrelevant due to a flawed interpretation of the text.

Edit: Holy formatting issues, Batman! Sorry 'bout that.

Edited August 18, 2011 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[jo1952]

jo1952:

I was an Agnostic before becoming a member of the Church. So I do know somewhat of the problems as well as benefits from such a belief.

I don't view science as handicapped by its refusal to put God into the Test Tube. In fact I see it as a great plus. God has the nasty habit of messing up the results. Anytime we claim that God did it. We short circuit the discovery process. That process is how we learn about our physical world/universe. IE; The fickering pictures on the television screen aren't the product of God putting them there. Anymore that everytime there is an electrical storm it is Zeus throwing lightening bolts at us.

I am a scientist, and a member of the Church. I thank God every day he allows me to learn more about how his creation works. I am truly amazed at its wonderful variety and complexity. But I don't put him into the how it works. 1+2=3 is true and verifable whether a Mormon or an Atheist says it.

Plate Tectonics was around a LONG time before Noah or Peleg. It is still going on today.

My veiw is that they were/are symbolic. But no less real in their consequences for us than literal events.

Hi Sometimesaint!

As a scientist, you DO get to see much more detail about how the Creation works!! I would guess that now that you are an active believer, that this gives you many more opportunities in your chosen profession not only for awe, but also for much more depth to the excitement you experience than when you were an agnostic.

I hope that you understand that I am not at all against science. Many who are not scientists, "see" the world of science differently than you do; so they are NOT aware of what is going in with peer reviews or greed, etc. From the inside, you are privy to things that others are not, unless the others do a lot of research on their own. I think that some too readily put their faith blindly in science where it is not warranted. I am wary of what can happen to a person who starts to make science his god. But this can happen to anybody in all walks of life. It is just that so many other professions do not have the same kind of impact on human life. I don't know if I'm doing a good job of what it is I am trying to say....I have concerns when theories have been taught for so long, that students of science now think that the theories are truth; yet they are really just still theories. Many young people are naive and idealistic (who wasn't like that in their youth?) and believe that peer reviews are not impacted by political agendas or driven by the fear of losing funding, etc.

I agree that plate techtonics were around before Noah or Peleg. God had His purposes for creating the earth in the manner He did; even the plate techtonics will fill the measure of their creation and will do their part throughout the physical life of the earth. I believe that all of the Creation is obedient to God - if He were to tell a mountain to move from one place to another, it would do so at His command. Some, if not all, of those commands, may have been "built-in". Thus, when the devastating earthquakes described in Revelation as part of the end times take place, they will occur at exactly the "time" they are supposed to.

Obviously, you and I differ in our take of the flood as to whether it was just a local flood or a worldwide flood. Now, I believe that there is symbolism all through the Bible. For instance, through the Law of Moses, as well as their experiences, the Jews have actually lived much of the Plan of Salvation in their physical lives. I believe all of the symbolism in the Bible will play out in both a physical way and a spiritual way. There are also parables in the Bible to teach us how to make the proper choices; they are easily identified as parables. Revelation is filled with symbolism which I think is used to help us understand what is going to actually take place. I think some of the symbolism which John used to describe what he saw was necessarily "symbolic" because he simply had no language familiar to him which he could have used. For instance, if he saw modern missiles being used in the future, how could he have described them AS a "missile" since that word is not one that he knew? Also, symbolism would have made it easier to record beasts with many heads, rather than to take up pages and pages of writing about various men who were leaders of various nations, etc. I also believe some symbolism is used instead of more easily understood messages because God did not want us to understand some things too readily, or too soon; that much still needs to be accepted by faith. Anyway, I believe that everything that is described in Revelation will actually occur, even though I don't know what that is going to look like; and they will happen both physically and spiritually.

When I see the narrative of the flood, I see words being used which WERE familiar to the authors; thus, I just don't think they were written to be symbolic of anything. I believe they were used to describe something that had really already happened; that they are literal in their meaning. Inasmuch as our baptism by water is by full emersion, I see no reason to think that the earth's baptism would only have been partial. Since baptism is a required ordinance, I can see no purpose for God to make such an important process merely a partial event for the earth to go through. Salvation and ordinances are too important to be portrayed in such a way as they could be easily misinterpreted. Other matters concerning the Kingdom of God, OTOH, can only be fully understood when they are learned line upon line, and precept upon precept. At least this is where I am in my journey of understanding.

Best regards,

jo