World Wide Flood Of Noah

[Franktalk]

I believe that some men were inspired by God to write messages for us. I believe that the Holy Ghost helped those men so that what they wrote is a message from God. It may be that the writing may have the character of the man yet the content will be the content of God. This is the way I read all scripture. I assume that God is correct and man is in error in all cases where man disagrees with scripture. I believe John when he wrote:

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

If we trust God to watch over us can He also watch over His Word?

I do not pick and choose verses, to me they are all Holy. To me they must all fit into the message from God.

Edit to add: Can we trust God to deliver a message to us? Even after 2000 years?

Edited August 20, 2011 by Franktalk

[Franktalk]

I have been looking around to find a presentation that closely matches what I have presented so far. I have found one youtube video that is pretty close. I will post it here for those interested. There is a lot of bad information on both sides of this discussion. And of course I will state again that what I present is my opinion and is not witnessed by the Holy Ghost. But I do ask that everyone keep an open mind and allow for the free flow of ideas. I believe that the Bible speaks the truth. But I do not know if I have read it the way God intended. I think I have after much study but the flesh is weak so I am not sure.

If you do watch this pay attention to the section on planation on surfaces.

[Franktalk]

For all those who look at scripture in an allegorical way I wish to warn you that in scripture there may some things that God says that He literally means what He says. So we should all pray about what we think of scripture. It is between us and God. We should leave other men and their ideas out of it. Let me give some examples.

Moses had said to Israel that they could grow and reap for six years, but every seventh year they should let the land alone. This is a pattern of the Sabbath and a Law of Moses from God. Now I am sure that some took the scripture quite allegorical and decided that it really meant to honor the Sabbath day. I am sure that they did not willfully disobey but that may be part of it as well. Now after 490 years they owed God 70 years. So through a prophet Israel was told that they would go into servitude for 70 years which they owed God. So the King of Bablylon surrounded the city Jerusalem and the city accepted the King's terms. Now if the Jews had remained in servitude they would have paid their seventy years and it would have been done. But instead they broke their agreement with the King of Bablylon. The Prophet warned them not to rebel but to accept their punishment. But their pride and disbelief got in the way. So eventually the King of Bablylon decided to slap down these people. Remember that this pagan King was being used as God's tool. So the King destroyed the city and killed the people, many he took as slaves and sent them all over the place. In one small group was Daniel who was taken to Bablylon. The city was dismantled and the Temple taken apart stone by stone. So they did 70 years in servitude. But because of their pride and ignoring scripture many were killed and all were made slaves. So in this case a literal reading of the scriptures would have saved many from death and slavery. After seventy years the King of Persia let them return.

While Daniel was spending his time in Bablylon he received the 70 week prophecy. The first 69 weeks deals with the first arrival of the Messiah. It states that from the decree to rebuild the city and the walls to the Messiah is 69 weeks. This is 69 weeks of prophetic years. 69 x 7 x 360 = 173880 days Of course many did not believe scripture. To many what it said was not what they wanted to hear. And many had disbelief but were otherwise faithful. There were four decrees but one allowed the walls to be rebuilt. So from that day until 173880 days the Jews should be standing at the gates of the city waiting for their Messiah. Sadly they missed their day. Because they missed their day the city was dismantled by the Romans and the Temple taken apart. It remains apart to this day. The Romans killed most people in the city and the rest were made slaves. The point is when God tells us something we are to listen. We don't wave our arms and say it does not matter or say it does not mean what it says. Peter warned us in 2 Peter 3 about doing the things the scoffers were doing. I take the Word of God seriously and pay attention to warnings. I would hope that we all would do this. But I know man is weak and he will seek his own understanding and pride will blind many so they see not.

If you do think the Bible is fuzzy and error prone then study the above areas and see just how accurate scripture was. Don't just compare scripture with the world but compare it against itself. Test it to see how literal each subject unfolds. I have spent many days doing this very thing. That is why I treat scripture as literal as possible. But each of us is different in how we read scripture. But please don't comtemplate scripture with a third party it can only cloud the process.

[altersteve]

I believe that some men were inspired by God to write messages for us. I believe that the Holy Ghost helped those men so that what they wrote is a message from God. It may be that the writing may have the character of the man yet the content will be the content of God. This is the way I read all scripture. I assume that God is correct and man is in error in all cases where man disagrees with scripture. I believe John when he wrote:

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

If we trust God to watch over us can He also watch over His Word?

I do not pick and choose verses, to me they are all Holy. To me they must all fit into the message from God.

Edit to add: Can we trust God to deliver a message to us? Even after 2000 years?

Just so you know, "the Word" that John wrote about is not the scriptures, it is Jesus Christ.

Also, the Church and its leaders have long rejected the idea of scriptural infallibility. Nothing written by man, whether it was inspired by God or not, is perfect, infallible, or complete by any means.

Edited August 20, 2011 by altersteve

[mfbukowski]

For all those who look at scripture in an allegorical way I wish to warn you that in scripture there may some things that God says that He literally means what He says.

The problem of course, is that scriptures were written by men as INSPIRED by God, not by God himself.

And we know that prophets occasionally make mistakes.

Edited August 20, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Franktalk]

Each of us has eyes and ears and we share common mechanisms that bring into our brain what is around us. Those signals are all the same yet we all see the world differently. We lay on top of what we see a template of what we expect. But we are not born this way. We are born curious and we marvel at the wonders we see before us. Everything is new and we try to make sense of our world by placing things in some kind of organization. As we grow we learn to trust some people and not trust others. Each layer adds to the ones we already had until one day we become the thing we made. We become that organized world in which everything is pigeon holed and the virtual puzzle we have made becomes a barrier to further understanding. Oh to be that child again.

Mat 18:3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

[mfbukowski]

Each of us has eyes and ears and we share common mechanisms that bring into our brain what is around us. Those signals are all the same yet we all see the world differently. We lay on top of what we see a template of what we expect. But we are not born this way. We are born curious and we marvel at the wonders we see before us. Everything is new and we try to make sense of our world by placing things in some kind of organization. As we grow we learn to trust some people and not trust others. Each layer adds to the ones we already had until one day we become the thing we made. We become that organized world in which everything is pigeon holed and the virtual puzzle we have made becomes a barrier to further understanding. Oh to be that child again.

Mat 18:3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Exactly. So why are you arguing so militantly for a view you only partially believe? If we organize our own worlds, and they differ, why are you pushing so hard for a literal interpretation of the flood?

Sure it MIGHT be right. Or it might have happened another way. What's important is that God saves us from the floods of trials

Didn't we already have this conversation?

[Franktalk]

Exactly. So why are you arguing so militantly for a view you only partially believe? If we organize our own worlds, and they differ, why are you pushing so hard for a literal interpretation of the flood?

Sure it MIGHT be right. Or it might have happened another way. What's important is that God saves us from the floods of trials

Didn't we already have this conversation?

I make this case because I wish to talk about the reasons we choose one view over another. If those reasons are of the world then we should reconsider our methods. The flood just happens to be a vehicle to use to get to the decision making process. It is also a subject that is widely covered in scripture so the amount of scriptural data is large. Like when I talked about the sea floors rising and continents sinking. Then to end the flood the mountains would rise and the sea floors would sink.

Psalm 104:6-9

6Thou coveredst it with the deep as with a garment: the waters stood above the mountains.

7At thy rebuke they fled; at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away.

8They go up by the mountains; they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them.

9Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over; that they turn not again to cover the earth.

The mechanics of the flood are in scripture. The Lord commanded the mountains and valleys to shift and then set bounds. These bounds are today viewed as normal earth processes so we err when looking back in time. But of course if we only look back using uniformitarianism principles we will not get the right picture. I argue that what it states in scripture is true and can be trusted over man's knowledge of the world. Science has made many claims over the years that have turned out to be wrong. Why trust something that has been shown to be a moving target.

I have attempted to discredit some assumptions in science because I think those assumptions are wrong. Not because I use the Bible as my source but because I seek an accurate picture of reality. In my research I have proved beyond doubt that geologic times are in error because of erosion anomalies. But I do this (toss the idea) because I don't have a tight hold to anything in science. My world is not based on a scientific world view. If someone has a tight hold on the assumptions of science I can not get them to even examine other data like erosion, they place their hand up and say that if it were true then science would fix it. Yet another false assumption. The scientific community is funded by people who trust science to provide answers. If one of the foundations of science were to be exposed as an error then the trust in science would diminish. Take global warming, trust in science is already starting to slide and funding may be pulled soon. But we don't have billions of dollars being spent of flood research. There is no fight over the money. To me when someone ignores erosion data it is similar to ignoring scripture in the sense that both are a closed mind set. Jesus said if you don't believe what I say at least believe what I do. I am not telling people to believe me but to do their own checking. Have you personally checked out erosion as an independent check of geologic ages?

[thesometimesaint]

Franktalk:

Sure, science can be absolutely wrong. It often is. That is why any given theory is just the best explanation of a natural event we have so far. Scientists look for evidence that something has happened/is happening. God could at anytime come down at tell us exactly how he did it. I will accept that. I will just be very surprised if he doesn't say something very close to what scientists are telling us today.

The Scriptures were never and are not a text book om how God did it. When was the last time you saw an axehead float on water or a snake talk?

[Rivers]

While I have a difficult time believing in a global flood, the abandonment of a worldwide flood raises more questions.

Such as:

How the heck did the Old Testament patriarchs get from Missouri to the middle east?

[Loran Blood]

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

This has long been the standard, "soft" secular humanist fence sitting position that always places scientific methadology and perception above scripture and revelation and conflates established scientific fact with theory, hypothosis, and pure speculation. It embraces positivism and scientism at a distance, without getting too snuggly.

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.

I thought you were a social worker? In what field do you do scientific work?

[altersteve]

While I have a difficult time believing in a global flood, the abandonment of a worldwide flood raises more questions.

Such as:

How the heck did the Old Testament patriarchs get from Missouri to the middle east?

They walked. Since we don't know exactly how many generations there were between Adam and Noah (it is an ancient Jewish practice to sometimes skip generations in huge leaps while giving genealogies), and since we don't know exactly when Adam was live, nor do we know exactly where and when Noah lived, I see no problem with God leading many of Noah's ancestors from Missouri to Alaska, and then to Russia, then down to the Middle East. I also have reasons for accepting a possible limited flood view since "the world" in ancient times meant the area that they were aware of. If God flooded the entire area (which is very large anyway), then to them it was indeed "the world," all the mountain tops of "the world" were indeed covered, and "all flesh" was indeed destroyed.

Edited August 21, 2011 by altersteve

[thesometimesaint]

Loran Blood:

I'm now retired.

Sociology. My actual degree is in Social Work(When I went to school we have to have our major in either Psychology or Sociology), but have enough chemistry, and Biology to know how to read and understand the physcial sciences as well.

[Loran Blood]

Loran Blood:

I'm now retired.

Sociology. My actual degree is in Social Work(When I went to school we have to have our major in either Psychology or Sociology), but have enough chemistry, and Biology to know how to read and understand the physcial sciences as well.

I can read and understand the physical sciences as well, but it would seem quite a stretch to characterize either clinical psychology or sociology as "science," per se (biological and experimental psychology would be exceptions), and certainly as one of the natural sciences, while social work is a profession within the public welfare sector, not a scientific discipline.

Just wanted to clarify, as you had never made that claim about yourself before.

[Calm]

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.

......

Jo:

I think Peter was an awesome, intelligent guy.......

Cinepro:

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

Franktalk:

Pretty much, yeah. ......

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

FWIW, not only would you likely had less formatting issues as well as having easier to read responses (shorter equaling easier other attributes being equivalent), but I could have given you 4 rep points for all the great responses you included in this one post instead of just the one I was able to.

My recommendation...even if you end up replying to multiple people at the same time, break up the responses individually if only to make the responses more digestible for us poor readers who have to take frequent breaks for whatever reasons and hate losing our places in epic long responses.

[thesometimesaint]

Loran Blood:

I found chemistry and biology easier than my social science classes. I just happened to fall in love with Psych/Soc, and made a career of them.

My challenge to anyone is to demenstrate to me the difference between the Bell Shaped Frequency Distribution Curve from the reaction of Iron filings when added to Sulpheric Acid, and the Bell Shaped Frequency Distribution Curve of IQ points in the general population of the US.

[Calm]

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.

And yet the idea of movement of people is exactly how the Jews interpreted it long before the idea of continental drift came on the scene.

As a starting place, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peleg

The meaning of the earth being divided is usually taken to refer to a patriarchal division of the world, or possibly just the eastern hemisphere, into allotted portions among the three sons of Noah for future occupation, as specifically described in the Book of Jubilees,Biblical Antiquities of Philo, Kitab al-Magall, Flavius Josephus^[1], and numerous other antiquarian and mediaeval sources, even as late as Archbishop Ussher, in his Annals of the World.^[2]. One account, the Conflict of Adam and Eve with Satan, states that "In the days of Phalek (Peleg), the earth was divided a second time among the three sons of Noah; Shem, Ham and Japheth" — it having been divided once previously among the three sons by Noah himself.^[3]

And since the entire chapter of Genesis 10 is devoted to tribal division of territory and Genesis 11 deals with linguistic division as well, it is logical that the reference to dividing the earth continues the rather common scriptural theme of social divisions rather than is a remark about a geological upheaval that has no additional mention or explanation anywhere else in the scriptures and can only be guessed at by using information not found within the scriptures themselves, information that actually contradicts the interpretation that land division could completely occur within the time period of one man's life.

Edited August 21, 2011 by calmoriah

[altersteve]

I can read and understand the physical sciences as well, but it would seem quite a stretch to characterize either clinical psychology or sociology as "science," per se (biological and experimental psychology would be exceptions), and certainly as one of the natural sciences, while social work is a profession within the public welfare sector, not a scientific discipline.

Not at all. They are social sciences, along with economics, human geography, political science, linguistics, history, and so on.

[Loran Blood]

Not at all. They are social sciences, along with economics, human geography, political science, linguistics, history, and so on.

How are sociology, clinical (ultimately, counseling psychology) psychology, political science, linguistics, and history (?) to be considered as "science" in the way biology, chemistry, physics, mathematics are? Do you know who originated the concept of "social science" and the discipline of "sociology?"

Note the first statement in my sig line.

Edited August 21, 2011 by Loran Blood

[altersteve]

How are sociology, clinical (ultimately, counseling psychology) psychology, political science, linguistics, and history (?) to be considered as "science" in the way biology, chemistry, physics, mathematics are? Do you know who originated the concept of "social science" and the discipline of "sociology?"

Note the first statement in my sig line.

There is more to science than just biology, chemistry, physics, and mathematics. Sociology (the study of society), psychology (the study of human behavior and mental processes), political science (the study of government), linguistics (the study of language), and history (the study of, well, history) all fall under the category of studying the world, and that's what science is: the methodical study of at least part of the universe. Society, human behavior, mental processes, government, language, and history are all part of the universe.

Edited August 21, 2011 by altersteve

[thesometimesaint]

Sociology

Sociology is the study of society.[1] It is a social science—a term with which it is sometimes synonymous—which uses various methods of empirical investigation[2] and critical analysis[3] to develop and refine a body of knowledge about human social activity. For many sociologists, the goal is to apply findings directly to the pursuit of social welfare, while others seek purely academic or intellectual knowledge. Subject matter ranges from the micro level of the individual agency and interaction to the macro level of systems and groups social structures.[4]

Sociology is both topically and methodologically a very broad discipline. Its traditional focuses have included social stratification, social class, social mobility, religion, secularisation, law, deviance. As all spheres of human activity are sculpted by social structure and individual agency, sociology has gradually expanded its focus to further subjects, such as health, medical, military and penal institutions, the Internet, and even the role of social activity in the development of scientific knowledge.

[Franktalk]

I would never call myself a scientist. I think the term means something about the level of education and methods you employ in your field of study. I am quite comfortable with reading a book on quantum mechanics and the equations I encounter are not foreign to me. But I would not be a good choice to teach a class in partial differential equations. Although with a little study I could do it. That does not allow me to hoist a title on myself. There are some things that others must do. It is like a peer review on a paper.

For the most part I ignore titles and just look at the content of what is being said. Content is king.

I think that many people blur the line between raw data and indirect data. In one sense it is like a population of people. If they hear a lie repeated over and over at some point they believe it. I think in some sciences we have a situation where some indirect data is considered raw data. Like if I picked up a rock and told you it was a rock then you could verify that by looking up the definition of a rock and seeing if the thing which I am holding matches the description. The definition of a rock is not very subjective and contains no assumptions. But if I were to tell you that the rock was 300 million years old the check becomes more complex. The dating methods come into play and assumptions are made in the dating process. So if you accept the dating assumptions then we could both agree on the age. But if we disagree on the assumptions we would not agree to the age. One of us may feel it is 300 million years old but projections back in time carry assumptions that not all people accept. I do not accept the assumptions because I feel there are to many anomalies and other methods provide different results. So one person could say a rock is 300 million years old and another could say the rock's age is unknown. Both positions are valid. But many feel that to be considered educated means that you must accept other peoples assumptions. This is from man and not science. The great advancements in science came from those who did not accept what others had said.

[Alan]

I work as a scientist, although my area of practice is ecology. However, I am a creationist rather than an evolutionist and this is mind blowing to my colleagues. They argue with me about the age of this and the fossil evidence of that etc, but they are only repeating the claims of others and have no way to independently verify the "facts" upon which they base their their arguments. In the end it becomes obvious they are simply placing their faith in others. These others are men just like them.

I feel much safer placing my faith in God and his prophets.

[Franktalk]

As for Peleg and the divided land. I looked up Genesis 10 in the Septuagint to see if there was any more clarification.

10:5 From these were the islands of the Gentiles divided in their land, each according to his tongue, in their tribes and in their nations.

Here we clearly see the people dividing in their land.

10:25 And to Heber were born two sons, the name of the one, Phaleg, because in his days the earth was divided, and the name of his brother Jektan.

Here we see the earth dividing.

Also Job lived around this time. A check of the weather and other things dealing with the sea is an interesting study in Job.

[Franktalk]

I did some research into erosion and wrote this short paper. Some of you may find it interesting. To start with we need to know how much sediment flows out our rivers. The biggest being the Mississippi.

http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA460627

‘The Lower Mississippi River, extending from Cairo, Illinois to the Gulf of Mexico, annually transports approximately 170 million tonnes of sediment. Historically, the quantity and calibre of sediment derived from catchment erosion have been affected by changes in land-use and management. For example, soil erosion increased during the 19th and early 20th centuries due to settlement by Europeans and this may have elevated catchment sediment supply to the Mississippi River, while more recently the supply of sediment from tributaries is known to have decreased markedly as a result of river engineering and management. Specifically, the construction of large dams as part of the Mississippi River and Tributaries (MR&T) Project has trapped sediment that would otherwise have been supplied to the Mississippi, particularly by the Missouri River.”

So we have a number for today but we know it has been greatly affected by man. So some more searching.

http://www.cep.unep.org/publications-and-resources/databases/document-database/other/suspended-sediment-mississippi-river.pdf (bad link, old I guess)

Period of record kg km−1 yr−1 Source

<1850 ? –

1879 to 1880 107 297 Fisk (1952); estimate 1

1879 to 1880 102 691 Fisk (1952); estimate 2

1851 to 1930s 117 933 postulated in Curtis et al. (1973)

circa 1890s 94 220 Dole & Stabler (1909)

1949–1961 85 463 Judson & Ritter (1964)

1956–1967 90 600 Curtis et al. (1973)

1963–1979 64 201 Milliman & Meade (1983)

1970 to 1988 65 380 Keown et al. (1986)

1980 to 1988 33 975 Smith et al. (1996)

1974 to 1993 52 347 This study

Now at this point we have to pick a number that represents the transport less human intervention. Current levels times three may be reasonable.

So back to:

http://www.kgs.ku.edu/Hydro/Ponds/smithEA_2005_hi.pdf

“Our estimate for

sediment discharge from the MS Basin (161 x 10^6 t/

yr) is within 4% of the estimate of 167 x 10^6 t/yr by

Turner and Rabalais (2004).”

Now from one source we have 170 x 10^6 tonne, another one of 161 x 10^6 tonne, and a third of 167 x 10^6 tonne. So let us use 170 x 10^6 t/yr (its all science so I can pick the big number) and I am pretty sure it is metric ton 2200 lbs. Now I used 100 lbs per cubic foot because I actually weighed a cubic foot of dirt.

So

170 x 10^6 tons/yr x 2200 lbs /ton = 3.74 x 10^11 lbs/yr

3.74 x 10^11 lbs x 3 (before soil conservation measures by man) = 11.22 x 10^11 lbs /yr

North America elevation elevation. We will use 2500 ft.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001792.html

North America size 9.4 x 10^6 sq miles

9.4 x 10^6 sq miles x (5280 x 5280) sq ft /mile = 2.62 x 10^14 sq ft

2.62 x 10^14 sq ft x 2500 ft (elevation) = 6.55 x 10^17 cubic ft

Now to convert soil lbs to cubic feet. I will use my number 100 lbs / cu ft.

11.22 x 10^11 lbs /yr / 100 lbs /cu ft = 11.22 x 10^9 cu ft / yr

So if North America is eroded by the Mississippi how long does it take.

6.55 x 10^17 cu ft / 11.22 x 10^9 cu ft /yr = 58 x 10^6 yrs

But now I will be a turkey and say that all of the other rivers in North America all add up to twice the sediment transport number of the Mississippi. So

6.55 x 10^17 cu ft / (3) x 11.22 x 10^9 cu ft / yr = 19.45 x 10^6 yrs to erode the continent.

But I hear that as the land gets smaller the erosion speeds up. I did not look into why. Many people say it will take 10 million years.

Just filling in some holes I had in the thread.

Edited August 22, 2011 by Franktalk