Sunday School And A Worldwide Flood (Pt.3)

[thesometimesaint]

Yeah especially if you don't deal with the arguments made.

Nothing in history can be falsified, it's not observed or repeatable as a experiment is. We are talking about when something is written with the intention of being taken literally.

.

C-14 has error rates. These are well known and accounted for. Anomalous readings are just that. Virtually every one has been accounted for either by contamination, intrusion, human error, or human malfeasance.

 

You can't be serious here. Both my parents are now dead. I guarantee you they both lived. No one alive today experienced the US Civil War. Are you now claiming it never happened? Who in this country really wants to repeat that dreadful time?

 

Ancient sacred history makes no such distinctions. To the ancient Greeks their Gods were just as real and did real things as our Mormon Gods. Do the stories of Homer loose their value as stories of the human condition just because we don't believe in the Greek Gods? Does the story of the Good Samaritan loose its value as the way we should treat our fellow man if the story is apocryphal?

[danielwoods]

Some of it does indeed have some basis in historical fact (not the Pentateuch,) but even the when we're dealing with real history it is significantly "amplified"

History is always "amplified" in the sense that it's from one person's perspective. The winner of the war has a different account of how it went than the loser would. The fact that their was a war, and other events aren't amplified though.

Since the topic of this thread is the flood. The writers wrote from their perspective, and described what they saw. Now, it may or may not have been exactly correct down to every detail. The fact that they experienced a flood that killed everyone they knew, and that they were saved in a massive barge is not amplified.

[thesometimesaint]

History is always "amplified" in the sense that it's from one person's perspective. The winner of the war has a different account of how it went than the loser would. The fact that their was a war, and other events aren't amplified though.

Since the topic of this thread is the flood. The writers wrote from their perspective, and described what they saw. Now, it may or may not have been exactly correct down to every detail. The fact that they experienced a flood that killed everyone they knew, and that they were saved in a massive barge is not amplified.

 

On this we can agree. It is always those little niggling details like how that boat was made, and how big it had to be to do what is claimed that make for interesting discussions.

[danielwoods]

.

C-14 has error rates. These are well known and accounted for. Anomalous readings are just that. Virtually every one has been accounted for either by contamination, intrusion, human error, or human malfeasance.

 

You can't be serious here. Both my parents are now dead. I guarantee you they both lived. No one alive today experienced the US Civil War. Are you now claiming it never happened? Who in this country really wants to repeat that dreadful time?

 

Ancient sacred history makes no such distinctions. To the ancient Greeks their Gods were just as real and did real things as our Mormon Gods. Do the stories of Homer loose their value as stories of the human condition just because we don't believe in the Greek Gods? Does the story of the Good Samaritan loose its value as the way we should treat our fellow man if the story is apocryphal?

The error rates of C-14 doesn't explain why wood is found in 45 million year old rock.

Just because history can't be falsified, doesn't mean it didn't happen. It simply means it can't be proven in the sense that a science experiment is repeated.

If a story is claimed to be history, or literal history, and intended to be taken that way. Then it's value as a "story" is diminished. Take the Adam and Eve story for example. Once we claim that they are just a mythical figures and it's a nice allegory, then what happens to the realities of sin, and salvation?? Are those just allegory as well? We end up with nothing real. "Nice allegorical salvation you got there...."

[David T]

If a story is claimed to be history, or literal history, and intended to be taken that way. Then it's value as a "story" is diminished. Take the Adam and Eve story for example. Once we claim that they are just a mythical figures and it's a nice allegory, then what happens to the realities of sin, and salvation?? Are those just allegory as well? We end up with nothing real. "Nice allegorical salvation you got there...."

 

Wait, is it really your position that a reality of one's personal estrangement from God, and the reality and power of a re-unifying atonement centered around the ministry of Jesus of Nazareth is linked to the existence of supposed ancestors from millennia ago?

 

If your position is really If The Adam and Eve Story is a Myth, Than Nothing That Follows In Regards To Religion Is Real, then are you saying your Faith and Hope is centered and founded and anchored in the historicity of the story of Adam and Eve?

Edited February 12, 2014 by David T

[Rob Osborn]

 

You do know that the areas below could have been under water without a global flood, right?

 

Not sure what you are saying.

[Rob Osborn]

There is no evidence in the sedimentary layers of a massive, global flood. If you do find a tyrannosaur in the same layer as a mongoose, let me know. 

There is mountains of evidence for a global flood. Perhaps so much that people are in that boat of "can't see the forest because of all the trees".

[thesometimesaint]

The error rates of C-14 doesn't explain why wood is found in 45 million year old rock.

Just because history can't be falsified, doesn't mean it didn't happen. It simply means it can't be proven in the sense that a science experiment is repeated.

If a story is claimed to be history, or literal history, and intended to be taken that way. Then it's value as a "story" is diminished. Take the Adam and Eve story for example. Once we claim that they are just a mythical figures and it's a nice allegory, then what happens to the realities of sin, and salvation?? Are those just allegory as well? We end up with nothing real. "Nice allegorical salvation you got there...."

 

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

 

History is falsified all the time. If I claim we never went to the moon. Someone, maybe even you, will produce the evidence that we did. I can either be convinced or remain unconvinced, but that has no bearing on the evidence or the simple fact that we did go to the moon. I don't have to rely on religion IE; May 14, 1961 - Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith announces to stake conference in Honolulu: "We will never get a man into space. This earth is man's sphere and it was never intended that he should get away from it. The moon is a superior planet to the earth and it was never intended that man should go there. You can write it down in your books that this will never happen." Any time we really want to back to the moon we know how to do it, and can do it again, and again, and again.

 

To the ancient Greeks their God's and Gods actions were intended to be taken literally. Why don't we take them as literal? The Catholics claim their history is literal. Why don't we? Because all such discussion are of a religious nature, and can not be taken as literal.

 

I have no problem with believing in sin and salvation. But such is a religious conviction and there is little to no evidence beyond my religion for them. As I tell my atheistic friends. If it is just this life, and then the abyss. Then none of us will know any difference any way.

[thesometimesaint]

There is mountains of evidence for a global flood. Perhaps so much that people are in that boat of "can't see the forest because of all the trees".

 

There is not mountains of evidence for a global flood.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

[Rob Osborn]

There is not mountains of evidence for a global flood.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

There really is but I doubt you could see it even when I do point it out to you. People really do see only that which they are willing to see or want to see. You don't want to see evidence so therefor you will never see it.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

How about wood in 45 million year old rock?

http://www.examiner.com/article/discordant-radiometric-dates-present-recurring-problem

Looking at the primary source for this material I don't see the conflict (found here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v20/n1/dating). A tree was found encased in basalt. The basalt was dated to roughly 45 million years ago. The tree itself was sent to two labs. One lab reported nondetect, the other lab reported about 45,000 years of age. Per wikipedia (best I can do since I don't have the actual lab results) this is the limit of carbon dating methods. In other words, once you get to 45,000 years BP its too old to date. The article mentioned two other wood samples that were run, but these wood samples were not obtained in the drill core and were not obtained in a manner that could preclude contamination.

 

My question for you Daniel, is why did God mess with the laws of Nature so that amount of carbon 14 currently in the atmosphere is so much higher than it was in the past? Or why did God change C14's rate of decay? Is it a test for us?

[Rivers]

Joseph Smith was demonstrably known to be willing to couch his modern inspired writing in a pseudepigraphal framework. IE, his United Firm revelations were first published completely re-worked as Revelations to Enoch and his United Order, with names, places, and events all substantially revised to make it take place in the the time of Enoch. Far more than the simple "code names" most seem to have thought was going on. Please see this fantastic and important paper: The Inspired Fictionalization of the 1835 United Firm Revelations.

Does this possibly have something to do with Joseph placing the Garden of Eden in Missouri?

[Gray]

It has major implications on the accuracy of the dating methods used on rocks. I am sorry I don't know where he published his findings.

 

It's important because there are a lot of hoaxers and crackpots out there. I'd like to know if this is legitimate or not. 

[thesometimesaint]

There really is but I doubt you could see it even when I do point it out to you. People really do see only that which they are willing to see or want to see. You don't want to see evidence so therefor you will never see it.

 

We've been looking for the evidence for more years than I'm old. There is no evidence for it and miles deep evidence against it.

[Gray]

History is always "amplified" in the sense that it's from one person's perspective. The winner of the war has a different account of how it went than the loser would. The fact that their was a war, and other events aren't amplified though.

Since the topic of this thread is the flood. The writers wrote from their perspective, and described what they saw. Now, it may or may not have been exactly correct down to every detail. The fact that they experienced a flood that killed everyone they knew, and that they were saved in a massive barge is not amplified.

 

Genesis was written far too late to be an eye witness account of the flood. It's just passing on ancient stories. 

[David T]

Does this possibly have something to do with Joseph placing the Garden of Eden in Missouri?

 

I actually think the concept does - the principle of seeing oneself in the sacred story. The Temple to be built in Missouri/Zion was never built, but the next one was in Nauvoo, suggesting what the Missouri Temple would have been like. Within is a re-enactment of the Garden Story, with initiates taking the role of Adam and Eve in a virtual Eden. Now, everywhere in the world there is a Temple, the Garden of Eden is to be found. My position is that the envisioning of Eden in Missouri was progression towards the fulfilled vision of the Temple, and the opportunity for all Church members to step into and participate in Eden.

[Gray]

There is mountains of evidence for a global flood. Perhaps so much that people are in that boat of "can't see the forest because of all the trees".

 

 

To say you're misreading the evidence would be an understatement

[Anteojito]

         Another problem with a global flood is the logistics of whole things. There are an estimated 7.7 million species of animals on earth. Let's say that for the sake of argument that all fish were able to take care of themselves and take into consideration that some species would have taken a free ride on other animals (fleas, tics, tapeworms, etc) and knock that estimate down to 4 million, then times that by two for male and female you have roughly 8 million animals that need to be gathered and cared for. If you allow that God put all animals in some sort of sleep so that they did not need to eat or defecate you could do away with the problem of feeding them and cleaning out all of the feces. You would think that if God did put the all to sleep, there would be some sort of mention of it, but lets just assume that it did happen. The ark was about 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 30 feet tall with three decks, hardly big enough to store all of those animals even if you don't have to account for the food they would have needed if God did not have them into some sort of slumber. Even if you assume that all of the animals were juveniles and not a their full grown size.

 

      Assuming that Noah was able to get them all packed into the ark and safely landed on Mount Ararat, he would then have the challenge of getting them redistributed to their current locations. How did the ostriches, kangaroos, koalas, etc get to Australia? How did the llamas, tapirs, jaguars, etc get to South America? How did the polar bear and penguin get to their poles? And by the way what did they all eat on their trips back home?

[thesometimesaint]

         Another problem with a global flood is the logistics of whole things. There are an estimated 7.7 million species of animals on earth. Let's say that for the sake of argument that all fish were able to take care of themselves and take into consideration that some species would have taken a free ride on other animals (fleas, tics, tapeworms, etc) and knock that estimate down to 4 million, then times that by two for male and female you have roughly 8 million animals that need to be gathered and cared for. If you allow that God put all animals in some sort of sleep so that they did not need to eat or defecate you could do away with the problem of feeding them and cleaning out all of the feces. You would think that if God did put the all to sleep, there would be some sort of mention of it, but lets just assume that it did happen. The ark was about 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 30 feet tall with three decks, hardly big enough to store all of those animals even if you don't have to account for the food they would have needed if God did not have them into some sort of slumber. Even if you assume that all of the animals were juveniles and not a their full grown size.

 

      Assuming that Noah was able to get them all packed into the ark and safely landed on Mount Ararat, he would then have the challenge of getting them redistributed to their current locations. How did the ostriches, kangaroos, koalas, etc get to Australia? How did the llamas, tapirs, jaguars, etc get to South America? How did the polar bear and penguin get to their poles? And by the way what did they all eat on their trips back home?

 

Fresh water fish don't do all that well in salt water, and visa versa.

[Anteojito]

Fresh water fish don't do all that well in salt water, and visa versa.

I know. I was assuming away a lot of problems, like what all of the flood water is doing to the salinity of ocean. If Moses had to take into account all of the freshwater fish that adds a whole another set of logistical challenges.

[Buckeye]

I know. I was assuming away a lot of problems, like what all of the flood water is doing to the salinity of ocean. If Moses had to take into account all of the freshwater fish that adds a whole another set of logistical challenges.

 

Also, any "clean" animals would need to be gathered in groups of 7.  And the animals would need to have their unique diets accounted for - e.g., eucalyptus for koalas.  FWIW, those who really hold to a literal interpretation seem to get around this by believing that relatively few species were on the ark and those species evolved at a super high rate in the years after the waters receeded.  It's not much different from believing that the continents all split apart during the 40 (or 150) days when the waters covered the earth. 

[Anteojito]

Also, any "clean" animals would need to be gathered in groups of 7.  And the animals would need to have their unique diets accounted for - e.g., eucalyptus for koalas.  FWIW, those who really hold to a literal interpretation seem to get around this by believing that relatively few species were on the ark and those species evolved at a super high rate in the years after the waters receeded.  It's not much different from believing that the continents all split apart during the 40 (or 150) days when the waters covered the earth. 

So in order to believe in a literal interpretation have to also believe in evolution? 

[danielwoods]

Wait, is it really your position that a reality of one's personal estrangement from God, and the reality and power of a re-unifying atonement centered around the ministry of Jesus of Nazareth is linked to the existence of supposed ancestors from millennia ago?

 

If your position is really If The Adam and Eve Story is a Myth, Than Nothing That Follows In Regards To Religion Is Real, then are you saying your Faith and Hope is centered and founded and anchored in the historicity of the story of Adam and Eve?

Judeo-Christianity is rooted in the history of actual events and people. Why do two of the gospels accounts connect the linage of Jesus to Adam in both cases, if Adam wasn't a real person?

 

When Jesus is asked about marriage in Heaven, why did he reference Adam and Eve, if they weren't real people? 

 

In essence, the answer to your question is yes. Once the foundation is gone (historicity of the Adam and Eve, Noah and the Flood), then what follows is the gospels. 

 

Does this mean that a person can't be saved if they don't believe that Adam and Eve were real? No. I wouldn't put a limit on people or God like that. With God all things are possible. I think what it does do though, is begins to erode or limit what God can and will do in our lives. As I said, if all *that* is allegorical, then we end up with an allegorical salvation. 

Edited February 12, 2014 by danielwoods

[Gray]

Judeo-Christianity is rooted in the history of actual events and people. Why do two of the gospels accounts connect the linage of Jesus to Adam in both cases, if Adam wasn't a real person?

 

When Jesus is asked about marriage in Heaven, why did he reference Adam and Eve, if they weren't real people? 

 

In essence, the answer to your question is yes. Once the foundation is gone (historicity of the Adam and Eve, Noah and the Flood), then what follows is the gospels. 

 

Does this mean that a person can't be saved if they don't believe that Adam and Eve were real? No. I wouldn't put a limit on people or God like that. With God all things are possible. I think what it does do though, is begins to erode or limit what God can and will do in our lives. As I said, if all *that* is allegorical, then we end up with an allegorical salvation. 

 

Why does Jesus reference the prodigal son, if he's not a real person?

[danielwoods]

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

 

History is falsified all the time. If I claim we never went to the moon. Someone, maybe even you, will produce the evidence that we did. I can either be convinced or remain unconvinced, but that has no bearing on the evidence or the simple fact that we did go to the moon. I don't have to rely on religion IE; May 14, 1961 - Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith announces to stake conference in Honolulu: "We will never get a man into space. This earth is man's sphere and it was never intended that he should get away from it. The moon is a superior planet to the earth and it was never intended that man should go there. You can write it down in your books that this will never happen." Any time we really want to back to the moon we know how to do it, and can do it again, and again, and again.

 

To the ancient Greeks their God's and Gods actions were intended to be taken literally. Why don't we take them as literal? The Catholics claim their history is literal. Why don't we? Because all such discussion are of a religious nature, and can not be taken as literal.

 

I have no problem with believing in sin and salvation. But such is a religious conviction and there is little to no evidence beyond my religion for them. As I tell my atheistic friends. If it is just this life, and then the abyss. Then none of us will know any difference any way.

 

History isn't falsified. Let's take your claim we visited the moon. If we'd like to test the claim that we visited the moon in the past, we'd look for evidence right? But, that's not a test of the past, it's a gathering of evidence, which would be best explained by the claim we visited the moon. Let's say you produced video and audio of our visit to the moon. Does this evidence prove or falsify the claim that we didn't go? No. 

It is simply data. Evidence that has to be explained or analyzed or interpreted and then extrapolated into a model to create the best explanation that fits the data we have. It isn't a test of the past. And I haven't met anyone who believes this, but have heard that some actually do doubt we went to the moon, claiming that it was a hoax. Filmed in a studio or something.  The point is that we can't test the past. We build models that best explains the data we collect.