Noah'S Flood

[J Green]

by Barber and Barber.

I think I may have consumed this Barber work in its operatic form several times.

Will I see you at the conference this year?

[cinepro]

What is really intriguing to me is Dr. Parry's discussion about the tower, and I haven't seen that come up here yet. He explores the textual issues behind why he has a non-literal interpretation of it's purpose, arguing that it is a temple text and not a story about a sky scraper. But he then he doesn't interact with the change of language issue in the same way by looking at it in light of its own textual issues. With the flood and the literal overnight change in language, he reads them literally without engaging metaphor or textual issues very much. However, on the purpose of the tower he does engage these aspects of the pericope. Why the change? To me that is more interesting than the thirtieth thread about the flood to hit the discussion board, because I like to see how others deal with texts in the light of revelation versus assumptions we make about our interpretation of revelation.

I think you may be overstating Dr. Parry's latitude on the Tower of Babel story. As the footnote to his article shows, the idea that the "tower" of Babel was actually a counterfeit temple (with fake ordinances) was already taught in the February 1994 Ensign. It isn't that the "Temple" version is more correct in a "textual" or "metaphorical" sense. It's that the "Temple" version is more Mormon, similar to how Noah's flood becomes the Earth's baptism. It's adding Mormon elements to the story.

[J Green]

I think you may be overstating Dr. Parry's latitude on the Tower of Babel story. As the footnote to his article shows, the idea that the "tower" of Babel was actually a counterfeit temple (with fake ordinances) was already taught in the February 1994 Ensign. It isn't that the "Temple" version is more correct in a "textual" or "metaphorical" sense. It's that the "Temple" version is more Mormon, similar to how Noah's flood becomes the Earth's baptism. It's adding Mormon elements to the story.

I think the point you're trying to make here may have more to do with motives behind a methodology rather than with the methodology itself. And it was the latter that I was exploring, not the former. When it comes to the tower as temple theme, regardless of whether or not it has been explored by other LDS in correlated material, Dr. Parry actually engages here in a good discussion of textual issues and metaphor. But he doesn't do it for the other issues. I'm intrigued by that. Why the difference? Perhaps he feels more comfortable doing so because, as you point out, the theme has been explored before in correlated material. I don't know and would hesitate to speculate because I don't know Dr. Parry at all. But I do think his approach to the text changes at that part. I haven't really quantified that change or made any inferences from it beyond simply pointing it out, so your use of "overstating" seems a little premature, don't you think?

Regards

Edited July 27, 2012 by J Green

[Ron Beron]

I think I may have consumed this Barber work in its operatic form several times.

Will I see you at the conference this year?

It's a bit of a difficult read, but it makes all the parts fit together. Another series of books that tangentially touch on mythological depictions of nature are Adrienne Mayor's The First Fossil Hunters:Paleontology in Greek and Roman Times and her later book, Fossil Legends of the First Americans.

Sorry, Joey. Unfortunately, I will be unable to attend this year because of other obligations, but I was looking forward to talking with you. Better luck next year.

Edited July 27, 2012 by Ron Beron

[J Green]

It's a bit of a difficult read, but it makes all the parts fit together. Another series of books that tangentially touch on mythological depictions of nature are Adrienne Mayor's The First Fossil Hunters:Paleontology in Greek and Roman Times and her later book, Fossil Legends of the First Americans.

Sorry, Joey. Unfortunately, I will be unable to attend this year because of other obligations, but I was looking forward to talking with you. Better luck next year.

Sorry to hear that, Ron. In any case, thanks for the catalog of things to put on my reading list. That always makes me happy.

Cheers

Edited July 27, 2012 by J Green

[bcuzbcuz]

Another series of books that tangentially touch on mythological depictions of nature are Adrienne Mayor's The First Fossil Hunters:Paleontology in Greek and Roman Times and her later book, Fossil Legends of the First Americans.

Sound like interesting reads. Anything from them that jumps out and grabs your attention?

[cinepro]

When it comes to the tower as temple theme, regardless of whether or not it has been explored by other LDS in correlated material, Dr. Parry actually engages here in a good discussion of textual issues and metaphor.

Regards

Parry isn't talking about "textual issues" or "metaphor." He is saying that the Tower of Babel was literally a Temple, and that peoples' languages were literally confounded.

[J Green]

Parry isn't talking about "textual issues" or "metaphor." He is saying that the Tower of Babel was literally a Temple, and that peoples' languages were literally confounded.

It appears we have different understandings of terms like "textual issues" and "metaphor." Either that or we're reading different articles.

Whence the quibble?

Edited July 27, 2012 by J Green

[Cobalt-70]

I think that the inclination of Mormons, historically, on insisting that the stories of the Flood and the Tower are historical has done us a great dis-service. The only reason these stories have any meaning to us today is because of their mythological nature. They are myths that teach us lessons about the universe within a Judeochristian and Mormon context, much as the Pandora or Oedipus myths taught important lessons to the Greeks. The Flood and Tower myths are very important to Mormonism, perhaps more so than they are to other faiths, and if we read them as actual history, we have missed the point. They are better than history. We cannot fully understand these myths unless we first understand that they are myths.

[J Green]

I think that the inclination of Mormons, historically, on insisting that the stories of the Flood and the Tower are historical has done us a great dis-service. The only reason these stories have any meaning to us today is because of their mythological nature. They are myths that teach us lessons about the universe within a Judeochristian and Mormon context, much as the Pandora or Oedipus myths taught important lessons to the Greeks. The Flood and Tower myths are very important to Mormonism, perhaps more so than they are to other faiths, and if we read them as actual history, we have missed the point. They are better than history. We cannot fully understand these myths unless we first understand that they are myths.

I think because our culture is different than those who wrote the texts anciently, and because we believe in revelation through prophets we generally are more inclined to take scripture literally. Many will know intellectually that there is metaphor at work here, but how do they decide what is myth and what isn't? Because they lack context or a process to understand, it's more comfortable to stick with the surface meaning and avoid the discussion.

For example, in his vision, Nephi is given a meaning to the symbol of the tree of life. Is this the same tree as the Tree of Life in the Genesis garden story? If not, why not? If the Tree of Life in the garden story has a metaphorical meaning, does the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil also have a metaphorical meaning? I.e., could Nephi have had a vision explaining this tree in the same metaphorical way? In Nephi's vision, the water means something, the rod means something, the field means something. Do we approach the garden story in the same way? Why or why not?

I'm always interested in how others deal with this sort of thing.

[Ron Beron]

Sound like interesting reads. Anything from them that jumps out and grabs your attention?

One thing in particular is Mayor's assertion that elephant fossils, especially the skulls, led to later interpretation of the cyclops. I wrote a little about it here...

http://archaiologia.wordpress.com/?s=cyclops

Edited July 28, 2012 by Ron Beron

[danielwoods]

I think that the inclination of Mormons, historically, on insisting that the stories of the Flood and the Tower are historical has done us a great dis-service. The only reason these stories have any meaning to us today is because of their mythological nature. They are myths that teach us lessons about the universe within a Judeochristian and Mormon context, much as the Pandora or Oedipus myths taught important lessons to the Greeks. The Flood and Tower myths are very important to Mormonism, perhaps more so than they are to other faiths, and if we read them as actual history, we have missed the point. They are better than history. We cannot fully understand these myths unless we first understand that they are myths.

I think one's view of the Old Testament has ramifications that effect how one then interprets the New Testament. For example:

Luke 17:26-29

21st Century King James Version (KJ21)

²⁶ And as it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of Man:

²⁷ They ate, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all.

If as some are saying here, that it's all just a myth, it didn't actually happen, then by extension, what about the teaching of Jesus? Is his prediction just a myth as well? IF what Jesus believed was true was actually just a myth, and not true historically (as he taught it), then how can we trust anything that Jesus taught? Another example:

Matthew 19:4

21st Century King James Version (KJ21)

⁴ And He answered and said unto them, “Have ye not read, that He that made them at the beginning made them male and female,

⁵ and said, ‘For this cause shall a man leave father and mother and shall cleave to his wife, and the two shall be one flesh’?

⁶ Therefore they are no more two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”

Clearly Jesus is referencing the "beginning" as found in Genesis, yet if that's just a myth, then the foundation of marriage which God is said to have set up in the beginning, is now seen as based on not true historical events, but made up mythical teachings. The power of both examples, is that they have as their foundation actual historical events. Undercut their historical connection to reality, and the meaning and relevance of the teaching is also undercut.

Edited July 28, 2012 by danielwoods

[CASteinman]

I don't really know what to make of the Flood. I accept it. I also consider it to be impossible. It does not mess with my testimony of things but it is something that I have put on a shelf. I imagine that if I study and pray long and hard on the matter, I might get a revelation to help me -- but it really is not that important to me.

[Cobalt-70]

If as some are saying here, that it's all just a myth, it didn't actually happen, then by extension, what about the teaching of Jesus? Is his prediction just a myth as well? IF what Jesus believed was true was actually just a myth, and not true historically (as he taught it), then how can we trust anything that Jesus taught? Another example:

Half of what Jesus taught was myth. We call it parable. In any event, Jesus was no archaeologist or historian. Indeed, history really did not exist at that time within Jewish society. History had not been invented yet, except among the Greeks and Romans. Undoubtedly, Jesus took the Jewish myths of his culture at face value, without further thought. That he did not approach history from a modern perspective doesn't mean that we can't trust him. His reference to Noah was for a teaching purpose. The historicity of the Noah myth, from a modern perspective, is totally irrelevant to the point Jesus was trying to make.

[Storm Rider]

Half of what Jesus taught was myth. We call it parable. In any event, Jesus was no archaeologist or historian. Indeed, history really did not exist at that time within Jewish society. History had not been invented yet, except among the Greeks and Romans. Undoubtedly, Jesus took the Jewish myths of his culture at face value, without further thought. That he did not approach history from a modern perspective doesn't mean that we can't trust him. His reference to Noah was for a teaching purpose. The historicity of the Noah myth, from a modern perspective, is totally irrelevant to the point Jesus was trying to make.

The God of the universe was susceptible to the cultural norms of the day? Hmm, seems like a reasonable response by God to the weaknesses of man. I mean, since we who are so educated cannot possibly be wrong, it must be that Jesus was just...less than all-knowing. Yup, sounds like an enlightened position for believing int he arm of flesh.

[danielwoods]

Half of what Jesus taught was myth. We call it parable. In any event, Jesus was no archaeologist or historian. Indeed, history really did not exist at that time within Jewish society. History had not been invented yet, except among the Greeks and Romans. Undoubtedly, Jesus took the Jewish myths of his culture at face value, without further thought. That he did not approach history from a modern perspective doesn't mean that we can't trust him. His reference to Noah was for a teaching purpose. The historicity of the Noah myth, from a modern perspective, is totally irrelevant to the point Jesus was trying to make.

I'm really quite surprised by this line of argumentation. History had not been invented yet? All of their lives were based in history. The question of who you are, back then, entailed a long retelling of history and how you are connected to it. Consider when Stephen was defending himself before the Sanhedrin, he started with Abraham and worked all the way through their history, yes it was their actual history, which they were connected to, not a mythological history, not one that is made up to tell a story, but history that had correspondence to reality, that gave justification for Stephens actions. Just as we use history today.

Edited July 28, 2012 by danielwoods

[thesometimesaint]

danielwoods:

I agree overall. However history as we use it today is different. History tends to favor the winners.

[Storm Rider]

danielwoods:

I agree overall. However history as we use it today is different. History tends to favor the winners.

Exactly when was this not the case. You posit there was a time when it was different; when?

[thesometimesaint]

It has always favored the winners. But history also can tell us something about the losers.

[bcuzbcuz]

One thing in particular is Mayor's assertion that elephant fossils, especially the skulls, led to later interpretation of the cyclops. I wrote a little about it here...

http://archaiologia.....com/?s=cyclops

Now I'm even more inclined to read these books. Very interesting indeed.

[mfbukowski]

.... but history that had correspondence to reality,....

I think you will have a hard time explaining how that is possible. How could you possibly know that the verbalized history "corresponds" to anything? Do you have a time machine that you can hover over past events and perhaps film them and then analyze the film, compare it to the historical accounts and then say "yep it corresponds all right!"?

We will never even know what fully happened in that theater in Colorado- and that happened last week. And you think we can know what happened hundreds of years ago?

That is the central problem with any correspondence theory of truth. You can never look at "truth" and say "Yep- that corresponds all right"!

All we have are stories and what we regard as "evidence" all of which must be interpreted.

[danielwoods]

danielwoods:

I agree overall. However history as we use it today is different. History tends to favor the winners.

I would agree that we use more accurate methods for recording history today, however, it's interesting that much of the ancient Jewish history wasn't a story of their triumph, but their own failure and captivity. The unique thing of course is that we have that history to analyze, because you are correct, that more often than not history is recorded by the winners.

[danielwoods]

I think you will have a hard time explaining how that is possible. How could you possibly know that the verbalized history "corresponds" to anything? Do you have a time machine that you can hover over past events and perhaps film them and then analyze the film, compare it to the historical accounts and then say "yep it corresponds all right!"?

We will never even know what fully happened in that theater in Colorado- and that happened last week. And you think we can know what happened hundreds of years ago?

That is the central problem with any correspondence theory of truth. You can never look at "truth" and say "Yep- that corresponds all right"!

All we have are stories and what we regard as "evidence" all of which must be interpreted.

My point was, "it was their actual history, which they were connected to, not a mythological history, not one that is made up to tell a story, but history that had correspondence to reality, that gave justification for Stephens actions. Just as we use history today."

Your point is whether I can know if this history is *actually* factual correct in every way or is it just a made up thing that looks similar but doesn't correspond exactly to history.

Let's take the flood for example. Based on the events of the flood Jesus made the statement that "And as it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of Man: ²⁷ They ate, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all."

First, the details of the events and the person surrounding the events don't need to be exact to be true. In other words, much of your objection to my reference to the correspondence to the reality of history seems to be with whether or not everything is exactly correct or not. No, not everything is detailed out like that. What is important, are the main key facts.

Was there a real Noah, and a world wide flood, that he and his family survived?

Now, if the term "days of Noah" isn't based on a real Noah, and/or a real flood, then his point also wouldn't correspond to reality, and the coming event would also be mythical and not a real threat to people.

[Hamilton Porter]

This article helped me conclude that the concept of a Universal Flood was a bunch of baloney...

https://dialoguejour...e_V40N03_95.pdf

It also helped me come to the conclusion that LDS leaders could not be relied on for teaching truth...they had for decades taught complete flasehoods as truth. It exposed the church as a very man-made organization...who's leaders could not be relied on as a source for truth than any other average person on earth. All one really had to do was be willing to ask difficult question and then not be afraid of the answers to those questions...and never to begin a quest for truth with the answer before the question has even been asked.

You are a laugh riot. Lesson learned: Never treat the prophets as geology teachers, or you will be leaving the Church and crying like a toddler soon enough.

[mfbukowski]

You are a laugh riot. Lesson learned: Never treat the prophets as geology teachers, or you will be leaving the Church and crying like a toddler soon enough.

That captures the true "depth" of the argument.

In other words, not too deep