World Wide Flood Of Noah

[jo1952]

Hi Jo:

This is fine as a generalized admonition, but when we're talking specifics, unless actual evidence is provided that someone's preconceptions are blinding them, then this is again mere assertion, not an argument.

I don't think it has purposely been made a stumbling block. The Joseph Smith Translation seems concerned with tying the story back to Enoch, reiterating the promise that when the Children of Men keep all the commandments and embrace truth, then the people of Earth will be united with those of the Heavens. I don't think it's an argument for the literal historicity of the worldwide Flood; it's emphasizing covenants made with God.

These are all completely unscriptural interpretations which are directly contradicted by geological timescales.

Hi Jeremy,

First of all, thank you for not making your post 2300 pages long....

I always do really enjoy hearing another's perspectives on why they believe and interpret scripture the way that they do. So, even though I disagree with yours, and you disagree with mine, I would like to say that I have appreciated our discussion.

Best regards,

jo

PS - I almost forgot. Whichever poster provided the link which also commented on Peleg where some GA's had taken the account in the Bible to be a literal movement of land.....I was not actually aware that this was a position of any Church leaders. So, it turns out to be just another in-common interpretation which I picked up from my personal study of scripture. It had never even entered my mind that the interpretation might be made that this was talking only about the movement of the people from one location to another.

Edited August 18, 2011 by jo1952

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Agnostics and atheists are correct to point to the Flood and ask for evidence for it. If it is interpreted literally, it is a completely different magnitude than the Book of Mormon tribal claims, or the Resurrection. The thing is, the issue has been blown utterly out of proportion - if the Flood did not occur exactly as written, or even at all, it has absolutely no effect on our salvation. The few sentences which speak of it at all are completely extraneous to the message of the Bible, except insofar as they help to understand the worldview recorded in the ancient sources of our texts. This is why I'm deeply perplexed at the insistence on clinging to it as if it were a central tenet of our faith. It's completely peripheral.

Edit: sorry, didn't see that last post in time. I've appreciated the discussion too, even though it's completely frustrating. *grin*

Edited August 18, 2011 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[mfbukowski]

Any response to my enormous post last page?

I think every post you make is just plain great, but let the old man give you a tip.

Around here, "enormous posts" typically do not get read completely, and for that reason rarely get comments.

They have to be short, pithy, and to the point. I know it's a shame, because some thoughts just plain require fairly long explanations.

But you are a better writer than me, methinks so your experience may vary. But that has been my experience, for what its worth

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Hah, it's absolutely been my experience, too. But man, I'm tryin' to change the culture such that it becomes socially awkward to admit to skipping long posts. *grin*

Someday, some glorious day, it will be a mark of pride to say that yes, I read every word you wrote, and have considered them the way I would like my words to be considered.

Edited August 18, 2011 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[mfbukowski]

Thanks for your kind words, all- it's been a tough week!

Church service is not always easy when thorny problems are involved, and sometimes my grumpiness carries over. My advice to everyone is just keep the commandments for Pete's sake and your lives will be simpler and better in every possible way!

Edited August 18, 2011 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Hah, it's absolutely been my experience, too. But man, I'm tryin' to change the culture such that it becomes socially awkward to admit to skipping long posts. *grin*

Someday, some glorious day, it will be a mark of pride to say that yes, I read every word you wrote, and have considered them the way I would like my words to be considered.

Yes, and then they will add- "BUT EVERY WORD WAS WRONG!!"

[jo1952]

Agnostics and atheists are correct to point to the Flood and ask for evidence for it. If it is interpreted literally, it is a completely different magnitude than the Book of Mormon tribal claims, or the Resurrection. The thing is, the issue has been blown utterly out of proportion - if the Flood did not occur exactly as written, or even at all, it has absolutely no effect on our salvation. The few sentences which speak of it at all are completely extraneous to the message of the Bible, except insofar as they help to understand the worldview recorded in the ancient sources of our texts. This is why I'm deeply perplexed at the insistence on clinging to it as if it were a central tenet of our faith. It's completely peripheral.

I don't believe it is a central tenet of our faith either. However, I do feel it helps each of us come to terms with issues we may be dealing with in other areas of our faith and our relationship with God. For those who take it literally, then that position is most likely what will help them in their journey. Likewise, for those who do not take it literally, then that position is most likely what will help them in their journey as well. OTOH, for the person who has not yet accepted God's existence, or who does not yet believe in Christ, this is just one more thing for them to point to in support of their non-belief. Going through these exercises of what we DO believe and seeing what our beliefs look like not only to ourselves, but also to others, gives us experience. We can also build upon our own personal familiarity with scripture itself, giving ourselves more opportunities to grow in understanding. Also, if we are open to it, these discussions may give us cause to ponder whether or not we may want to change our approach or ideas about certain scriptures as a result of something that gets discussed on these forums. That is a natural process of learning. It should also help us to deal with the questions raised by non-believers because we have already experienced discussing it with fellow brothers and sisters in the Gospel.

I believe that within the admonition of "every member a Missionary", the flood becomes problematic when a member of the Church is confronted with this by someone who does not already believe. Where members within the Church can handle disagreements and other possibilities for explanations of what appears in the Bible, it is still providing necessary experience. We do not have this same luxory when talking with people who are not only agnostic or atheists, but even those who are anti-LDS and who have come to the bizarre conclusion that 100% of the members of the Church should be in complete agreement over 100% of scripture. Therefore, I think the experiences we build upon on these forums should help us be prepared for those times we are called upon to examine these very issues with non members.

Regards,

jo

[jo1952]

Hah, it's absolutely been my experience, too. But man, I'm tryin' to change the culture such that it becomes socially awkward to admit to skipping long posts. *grin*

Someday, some glorious day, it will be a mark of pride to say that yes, I read every word you wrote, and have considered them the way I would like my words to be considered.

(psst.....he's at work right now) Hey....how come the rest of us aren't working in the middle of the day????

jo

PS - Don't let this go to your head now....but I did read every word that you wrote in that 4000 page comment.....!* Alas, I too, have been known to write as much, if not more, in a single post. My personal apologies to those readers, as well as a warning. I am likely to do so again.

PSPS: * "BUT EVERY WORD WAS WRONG!!"

Edited August 18, 2011 by jo1952

[jo1952]

gotta leave for awhile....another big monsoon storm with thunder and lots o lightning....may be eating cold cereal for dinner......

jo

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Haha, it's summer break for me. I'm working on a research paper, and the board keeps me from going insane. Or at least drives me insane in a slightly different way, which is apparently refreshing enough to keep me going.

Thanks for reading. It would've been shorter if I'd had time to reply the other day instead of lumping all the responses into one enormous pile.

Edit: Lies! Every word you people wrote was wrong, wrong, wroooong!

Edited August 18, 2011 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[Alan]

I'm joining this discussion late and I confess to not having read every single post - there are a lot of them.

It is my view that the flood did occur and that it was worldwide. It was not a local flood as God set a rainbow as a token of the covenant he made with Noah and his posterity that he would never do it again. There have been many local floods since that time. God is not a liar.

There is ample evidence of a global flood but it all depends on how that evidence is interpreted. Where some see evidence of gradual deposition of sediments over millions of years, others see evidence of catastrophic deposition in a matter of weeks or months.

I have learned over the years that scripture trumps so-called science every time.

[Alan]

Oops, clicked twice by mistake!

Edited August 18, 2011 by Alan

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

God is not a liar, but the people who compiled His words from ancient sources were not God. Therefore there are many errors in the text, since it was made in their weakness, after the manner of their language.

This really is a decent link: http://www.talkorigi...-noahs-ark.html

Edit: Also, here's a fun story on the topic: http://www.hatrack.com/osc/stories/atlantis.shtml (Some anachronisms with the names - the author says he got Gilgamesh and Utnapishtim mixed up. But it's still a great read!)

Edited August 18, 2011 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[cinepro]

I'm embarrassed to admit that when President Benson told us to flood the earth with the Book of Mormon, I thought he meant that people all over the planet were supposed to get copies.

From reading this thread, I now see that he was referring to the people in a small region of the middle east and the copies I gave out on my mission probably weren't a part of what he was talking about.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Dude, c'mon. Even if Benson believed the Flood story was complete fiction, it'd still be perfectly acceptable to use as a metaphor. We are not, after all, literally liquifying the text of the Book of Mormon and carrying it in buckets to dump in investigators' homes.

... I mean, that'd be awesome, if it were possible. I'm just tryin' to keep it real, yo.

[ldsfaqs]

I believe that the issue of a Global or a Local flood is simply and "open" question.

Official Doctrine is that it was Global, that it covered the whole earth, a sort of baptism, however, even with those beliefs, it's still possible it was local, because it may have been the particular area in question that was sinning, not necessarily the whole earth.

However, the whole earth idea could still be possible and the "scientific record" simply doesn't indicate it fully.

For example we know the Flood was actually "temporary". Thus, the waters could have easily withdrew without leaving much of a trace of the fact that waters were there in the first place. The "old tree" idea can also be explained in three ways. First, the global flood could have in those particular areas been not that deep, or it was only temporary in that particular area (like a flash flood), or it just survived after being underwater for a bit, so at either point the tree itself survived. We know various plants can survive after being underwater. The second possibility is that the Flood didn't actually happen in the "scripture timeline", that it happened, as well as the Garden happened much earlier in history. One day in scripture could be 1,000's to God.

Really we don't know for sure either way. Best to simply say the doctrine, that we believe there was a global flood, and here are the possibility's, but these other possibilities also don't rule out a local flood, that the "global" idea could simply be similar to other ideas in scriptures in which something local is referred to in a "wider" manner, thus not meant to necessarily be taken literally.

Edited August 19, 2011 by ldsfaqs

[Jeff K.]

Dude, c'mon. Even if Benson believed the Flood story was complete fiction, it'd still be perfectly acceptable to use as a metaphor. We are not, after all, literally liquifying the text of the Book of Mormon and carrying it in buckets to dump in investigators' homes.

... I mean, that'd be awesome, if it were possible. I'm just tryin' to keep it real, yo.

Beats the potential spontaneous combustian in the last days.

[Franktalk]

God is not a liar, but the people who compiled His words from ancient sources were not God. Therefore there are many errors in the text, since it was made in their weakness, after the manner of their language.

I trust that the Holy Ghost has watched over scripture enough for us to get the core message with enough accuracy to be saved. I also have looked over a bunch of the OT markup by JS. I did not see a bunch of changes. So if the Prophet is OK with scripture then I am OK with scripture.

One day a Prophet of God told the people that the King would never see Babylon. Then later he told the people that the King would be killed in Babylon. People laughed at the Prophet. They must have thought he forgot his first prophecy because it made the second false. Some time later the King was captured by the army from Babylon. His eyes were put out and he was led to Babylon where he was killed.

We have to be careful not to make assumptions. Yes we can find small errors in scripture. But don't focus there. Instead focus on the bulk of scripture which is without error. Oh, I do read your post, every word. But I will rarely respond to every comment. Many times I have a plan in my head for a thread. As I move from one topic to the next I sometimes lose track of past questions. Feel free to bug me about some issue which you really need a response.

I am still working on a response to some of your questions. I too at one point was buried in science. I am trying to figure out what message I could have received that would have shaken me earlier. This may take some time. I may lean on the big Guy for some help.

[Franktalk]

I now want to talk about the flood in context of a warning that Peter gave to the future (that is us). He gave us a warning about how we view the world. If you take something from this thread please ponder this post.

2 Peter 3

1This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:

2That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:

Here Peter is talking to the faithful. He is saying that what he about to talk about is contained in scripture and was spoken of by the prophets. He is also saying that the following contains a message from the Savior as well. So this message is probably interwoven in scripture all over the place.

3Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

Now he is changing gears and is pointing to people in the last days, that would be us. He is describing people who scoff at the message from God and they walk in their own ideas or lust.

4And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

Here Peter is telling us what these scoffers are using as their reason to scoff at scripture. The scoffers are saying that all things continue without change all the way back to the beginning of the creation. So the scoffers look at the world around them and see the world one way and assume that that is the way the world works and behaves all the way back to the creation. In modern terms this is called uniformitarianism. It is an assumption in science that what we see today is the way things worked going back in time. This assumption leads to all kinds of theories and conclusions. All of which are wrong if uniformitarianism is wrong.

5For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

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

Here we see a description of the flood. First we see it was not a natural event. It was caused by the Word of God. Second we see the world being overflowed with water. I take this as a world wide event. But the most important thing is the earth that was perished. In other scripture we see that before the flood a mist from the ground watered the earth. It rained after the flood. There were no rainbows before the flood but there have been rainbows ever since. This was clearly a supernatural event with supernatural changes to the earth.

7But 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.

Now after the flood God again by the Word of God has placed a supernatural hold on the earth. Some kind of stasis so that the earth is kept in store. The earth is reserved unto fire for the day of judgment. So men in observing the earth do not realize that the earth is in stasis by God. Here God through Peter is telling the world that the thing we call uniformitarianism is directed by God. So the incorrectly interpreted processes we see around us are not what we would see before the flood. Apparently things were changing all the time. Things were not uniform. But man has taken the idea that the earth is stable and used it to project backwards in time and has laid out a story of the past that rest on a false assumption. We can use this same reasoning about projections and apply them to many of the sciences.

8But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

9The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

10But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

I might as well tell you what else I think this chapter is saying. Here is a reference to the Lord's second coming. But He introduces this with the one day as a thousand years. I think that as He was in the ground three days He will be gone from the earth for two thousand years and will be back in the third day (thousand years). From His death if we find 2000 prophetic years it lines up with 1994 (I think, if I remember right). So we are in the third day. The other thing we see here is the Lord after His day of judgment will no longer hold the earth in stasis but will cause dramatic changes.

11Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,

12Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?

13Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

14Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.

15And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

Knowing a day of judgment comes we should be careful.

16As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

17Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.

Here Peter is saying that with this prophecy comes responsibility. Seeing that you know these things in advance you should not be led away in error.

18But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.

What a wonderful chapter in the Bible. So much in so few words.

[Stargazer]

Frank:

I'm afraid this is unclear to me - not quite sure what you're trying to say.

Any response to my enormous post last page?

I used to craft enormous well-thought-out and, dare I say it, brilliant expositions whose subtlety and elegance made me catch my breath. I also used to get the same thing you've gotten from your enormous post has garnered: nada, zilch, and two or three-word dismissals. Problem is, too many folks's eyes glaze over about six lines into these enormous posts. And the ones who do read them all the way through frequently miss the point entirely. Unless your name is Dan Peterson. But I think his points get missed, too.

And no, I'm not bitter. Nor did I read your enormous post, I am ashamed to admit.

Please somebody kick me. I deserve it.

Bad day at the office is all I can say.

[Zakuska]

Dude, c'mon. Even if Benson believed the Flood story was complete fiction, it'd still be perfectly acceptable to use as a metaphor. We are not, after all, literally liquifying the text of the Book of Mormon and carrying it in buckets to dump in investigators' homes.

... I mean, that'd be awesome, if it were possible. I'm just tryin' to keep it real, yo.

We could always just plug them into the Matrix and pour it in.

[Franktalk]

I believe that second Peter chapter 3 is key for us in these times. I believe it is the scriptural bridge to science. That message is that one of the major assumptions of science is wrong. If we examine the two results of the flood as listed in scripture we can get a feel for the magnitude of the supernatural event. The first is that the earth did not experience rain before the flood. Yet there were still rivers and the seas. Adam could see stars and the planets were for signs so we know that man could see into the night sky. This means that the mist from the ground was not a blanket that one could not see through. We have fossil evidence that the earths temperatures were more uniform at one time. Did God tilt the axis of the earth to cause the vast changes in temperature which causes weather? It could be true. I don't know. We do have evidence that the axis of the earth changes and the shifting land and sea will effect the axis and rotation of the earth. We can assume that the effects might be greatly magnified when the hand of God is also considered. Can a shift in the earths axis cause an ice age? I think it can but I won't get into that subject.

The next change we are given is that we can see a rainbow now but before the flood we could not. We had a mist from the ground and we had the sun before the flood so all of the ingredients are there to see a rainbow before the flood. So what changed that would cause light to be able to wrap back and fan out into its colors. It is my belief that the very fabric of space was changed so light could travel at just the right speed. If indeed the fabric of space was changed this would explain the decay rates in atomic dating being way off. Since decay rates are tied to the fabric of space and the speed of light.

I do not think that these two changes were given to us at random. The first thing we are to see is that the past is not the same as today, this means a nonlinear past. Exactly what we don't know. But we do know that once we accept a nonlinear past we must throw out theories which rely on a linear past. This places science on its head. Projections back in time are worthless if uniformitarianism principles are wrong.

I am not asking that anyone abandon science. Science is only as good as good as its assumptions. What if the assumption of a linear past is in error. I do not believe in a linear past because I believe in supernatural events. Now I wrote a post dealing with erosion which showed that features on the earth don't match the atomic dating used by geology. The time scales for features on the earth are much shorter than geology would have us believe. But this disconnect between erosion and atomic dating is verification of a nonlinear past. I know this is hard to wrap your head around. I am asking that most projections back in time by science be thrown in the trash. But if hard evidence leads us here we should make that jump. The hard evidence is erosion and it fits well with what is described in 2 Peter.

[thesometimesaint]

The whole story can be dismissed as a series of supernatural miracles. There is no way to contradict such an argument. However, one must wonder about a God who reportedly does one thing and then arranges every bit of evidence to make it look like something else happened. It's entirely possible that a global flood occurred 4000 years ago or even last Thursday, and that God subsequently erased all the evidence, including our memories of it. But even if such stories are true, what's the point?

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Franktalk:

I trust that the Holy Ghost has watched over scripture enough for us to get the core message with enough accuracy to be saved. I also have looked over a bunch of the OT markup by JS. I did not see a bunch of changes. So if the Prophet is OK with scripture then I am OK with scripture.

If you are implying that I'm not okay with scripture, I have to tell you you're incorrect. We just disagree on the interpretation. You've also sidestepped my discussion in which I demonstrated that it is very unlikely that the scriptures have been "watched over" well enough to contain an accurate generational timeline. This is significant because you had previously stated you could find no gaps in it, and used that perspective to inform the foundation for your elaborate speculations on the supposed inaccuracy of carbon dating.

Here's the quote again:

"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."

It's that simple. It's just not a perfectly accurate record. We know this from many different sources; Y-chromosome ancestry alone disproves the traditional date for Adam and Eve. We lack DNA traces in fossils which take a hundred thousand years for them to decay, we have million-year-old crystals. Dendrochronology. Coral growth and continental drift, and ...

Joseph Smith said that "many important points, touching the salvation of man, had been taken from the Bible, or lost before it was compiled," because "ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors," and "many things in the Bible ... do not, as they now stand, accord with the revelation of the Holy Ghost to me."

With this explicit acknowledgement of the fallibility of the scriptures, with the complete irrelevance of the Flood in regards to our salvation, and with all the empirical data against it, there is simply no reason not to think it wasn't one of these errors of transmission. There was a big flood somewhere, it was interpreted a bunch of different ways in the middle east. 'Nuff said.

I also think it's a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the JST to think that if it's in there, it must be %100 historically valid. It's more of a doctrinal clarification - Smith's clearing up confusing passages to help the modern Saints interpret 'em, not vouching for the historical accuracy of every verse. Nackhadlow actually has some good stuff on this: http://visionsofthekingdom.com/?p=751

We have to be careful not to make assumptions. Yes we can find small errors in scripture. But don't focus there. Instead focus on the bulk of scripture which is without error.

This seems to go against our counsel to study everything out in our minds. I've yet to read a single book in the scriptures that I didn't find something questionable in.

Oh, I do read your post, every word. But I will rarely respond to every comment. Many times I have a plan in my head for a thread. As I move from one topic to the next I sometimes lose track of past questions. Feel free to bug me about some issue which you really need a response.

Heck, it'd be nice if you'd actually responded to anything substantial I wrote earlier. *laugh*

Peter begins his epistle to his flock by testifying that he's going to set aside his earthly tabernacle soon, and he wants to let them know that he really was a sober eye-witness to the Resurrection. He reminds them that they have the prophetic word, the scriptures which will outlast him, which they should use as a lamp in a dark place until a new day dawns in their hearts. He counsels against listening to false teachers coming among them.

Then he takes verses from scripture to emphasize his point: he talks about how God cast down angels and only spared eight people in the Flood, according to the scriptures. He's using these stories as an illustration.

The fact that he has read scriptures and is using them as a convenient illustration does not mean those scriptures are inerrant. His point remains the same even if it turns out that some of the examples he uses are not historically reliable. They are useful in that they give the point force; but they are not the point itself, which is that if we trust in God we can be rescued from temptation. He could have used a completely fictional parable and accomplished the same rhetorical purpose.

This is relevant because he's counseling the members of his little congregation not to give in to their various temptations that they're facing at the moment.

Next he reminds them that this is all part of a plan, and that scoffers who don't see Christ risen at that very moment will doubt the "promise of his presence". This is what they're questioning when they state that "all things" have remained the same since the beginning. They're denying that there was a promise, that the heavens were of old.

Peter continues reciting the then-current scriptural history, assuming everything about it is accurate.

He's a man living in the middle east 2000 years ago, I hereby forgive him for not understanding modern geology. But the Flood is not the important part. It is Christ's promise of the Resurrection that he is trying to emphasize, stating that Christ is operating on a completely different time scale than we are, so we should not expect to see him again soon. This is where we're supposed to liken the scriptures to ourselves.

It has nothing to do with an obscure hidden message in which Peter predicts modern geological controversies - that is taking the epistle out of its historical context to a rather extraordinary degree. He's addressing their contemporary concerns, not giving them a prophecy which wouldn't be useful to anyone for another 2000 years.

All worlds end. The heavens and the earth will pass away. Christ is promising that He'll help us move to the next one, so let's be worthy of it and keep the big picture in mind when dealing with the stresses of everyday life. Tells us to keep things in context.

This has nothing to do with geology, except in the vague sense that we're informed that stars tend to burn out and worlds eventually die. It's not the "key" to anything except Christ's promise. If Peter's understanding of the Flood which he used to illustrate his point is mistaken, it has absolutely no effect whatsoever on our salvation. The only way to think the letter is somehow preaching a vague sermon against uniformitarianism is to wrench it completely out of its historical context and ignore the surface meaning that it would have had to the people Peter was actually addressing.

It is scripturally unjustifiable to assume that there existed no rain or rainbows merely because it takes awhile for them to be written down. What possible purpose could God have in messing with "the very fabric of space"? Why can't He just point to a rainbow and say "Okay, remember my promise every time you see one of those things - they're kinda pretty, y'know?" What do we gain with these grand theories in which God is apparently an inscrutable trickster who enjoys providing scientists with completely misleading data just for kicks? Finding Himself in the midst of spirits and glory, God saw fit to institute laws whereby his children might advance like himself and have glory upon glory, and the glory of God is intelligence. I see little room in there for messing with our minds.

I agree that it's always good to reexamine our assumptions from time to time. Scientists are fallible human beings who can get arrogant and complacent. But it just seems so silly to me to come up with these vast speculative leaps that are based, essentially, on a misinterpretation of the text and the surrounding context it was created within.

It's not "hard to wrap [my] head around" what you're saying, since all you're doing, really, is pointing at empirical data and saying "Nuh-uh!" As thesometimesaint said, you can deny anything by invoking supernatural powers, but that doesn't bring us closer to understanding what is going on.

So I'm just gonna bow out of this discussion. If this post ain't enough, I really don't wanna spend more time on this. So thanks for the discussion, and I'll see ya.

(Edited to fix the stinkin' formatting issues and try to weed out some unnecessary snarkage.)

Edited August 19, 2011 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[Franktalk]

Jeremy,

You said:

“If you are implying that I'm not okay with scripture, I have to tell you you're incorrect. We just disagree on the interpretation.”

Yet you have also said:

“God is not a liar, but the people who compiled His words from ancient sources were not God. Therefore there are many errors in the text, since it was made in their weakness, after the manner of their language.”

And:

“These are all completely unscriptural interpretations which are directly contradicted by geological timescales.”

And:

“What I don't believe in is using those promptings (Holy Spirit) 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.”

And:

“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.”

And:

“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?”

And:

“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.”

I hope you can see my confusion. You seem to want it all. You want man’s secular knowledge to be true and solid enough to interpret scripture through it. And you want me to compromise my interpretation of scripture because you feel secular knowledge is not in error but scripture is. I feel just the opposite.

And in your last post you say:

"He's a man living in the middle east 2000 years ago, I hereby forgive him for not understanding modern geology. But the Flood is not the important part. It is Christ's promise of the Resurrection that he is trying to emphasize, stating that Christ is operating on a completely different time scale than we are, so we should not expect to see him again soon. This is where we're supposed to liken the scriptures to ourselves."

That is an odd statement. You forgive the Apostle Peter for his error in writing scripture. You forgive Peter for his lack of understanding of modern thought. Just what do you think of John's writings? Just what do you think of the prophecy of John?

Do you know what inspired writing is?