Sunday School And A Worldwide Flood (Pt.3)

[danielwoods]

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

 

It's interesting you use this as an example. It demonstrates that we can determine what is allegorical and what is not, by the context of the passage. 

[David T]

 

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?

 

Only one of the two different genealogies references Adam (the one in Luke), following the traditional Genesis geneology from Judah back. It's generally suggested Luke Jesus to the eponymous ancestor of humanity to express the concept of Jesus' universal role for all mankind. 

 

 

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

 

Because the Hebrew Scriptures were authoritative texts. He was being challenged by professed scripture/legal experts. He used their texts to teach. Remember that even Paul used the text of a Psalm to Zeus to teach true principles to the Athenans. 

 

 

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.

 

I firmly disagree, mainly because I do not believe in the historicity of the Garden Story, or Noah and the Flood. And yet I still am devoted to Christ and affirm him to be the Savior, I still strive to manifest Faith in God, I affirm the divine hand in the prophetic ministry of Joseph Smith, the inspired nature of the scriptures he produced, the power found in the Temple experience, and sustain his successors as divinely guided in the Presidency.

 

In fact, I find my faith stronger and more real in my life with this understanding than I did before. Removing a historical Garden Story didn't decrease my religious foundation, it enhanced it.

 

 

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.

 

I understand that's how it works for you at present. I, who see God using the the inspired writers, compilers, and editors of Genesis to speak through and transform the symbols and stories of their culture to 'translate' their cultural understanding of their identity and relationship with Him into something more personal,  see the love of God and the salvation that comes from Christ as a very real thing. 

Edited February 12, 2014 by David T

[Rob Osborn]

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.

Like I said, if one doesnt wantto find it they never will see it. People are generally predisposed to believe obly that which they want to believe even when it stares them in the face.

For instance- anyone can see the sedimentary layers exposed in the rocks all over the world. Anyone who knows anything knows these sedimentary layers pretty much only lay down under water. But rather than view the rocks in a flood paradigm they instead chalk it up as anything but that. They even will readily admit it must have been laid while inundated with water but in the same breath deny it was from a catastrophic flood. Why? Because their thinking is predisposed to something else.

[Rob Osborn]

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

Are we to deny modern revelation given to Joseph Smith showing that Moses indeed saw all things from the beginning in vision?

[danielwoods]

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?

 

I don't think that the laws of nature have changed or the rate of C14 decay rate. As for the amount of C14 in the atmosphere, I don't know if there was more in the past or not. It is an interesting question. 

 

The question to me is, why is there wood in a 45 million year old rock? Shouldn't it have petrified already? 

 

Of course I don't think it's actually 45 million year old rock, so it fits my creation model just fine. 

[Rob Osborn]

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

I believe I am rather just confirming the evidence that the flood really happened.

[Gray]

It's interesting you use this as an example. It demonstrates that we can determine what is allegorical and what is not, by the context of the passage. 

 

What context confirms that Jesus had in mind literal people when he referenced the characters of Adam and Eve?

 

Or even if Jesus mistakenly thought that Adam and Eve were real people, when they weren't, why would that be a problem? 

[Gray]

I believe I am rather just confirming the evidence that the flood really happened.

 

A grilled cheese sandwich is not evidence for bigfoot 

[Gray]

Are we to deny modern revelation given to Joseph Smith showing that Moses indeed saw all things from the beginning in vision?

 

Joseph was producing a document very similar to what the authors of Genesis produced - a pseudepigraphical text that, while not literal history, is authentic scripture. 

 

If you think the most important idea behind Genesis is the reality of Moses as historical figure, I think you've rather missed the point. 

Edited February 12, 2014 by Gray

[David T]

Are we to deny modern revelation given to Joseph Smith showing that Moses indeed saw all things from the beginning in vision?

 

Perhaps consider than many very familiar with the history and text see Joseph presenting a midrashic/targumic doctrinal expansion, and placing his modern inspired doctrinal insights in the context of the familiar biblical narrative - updating, and translating the text the same way the story presents Enoch and his people as being translated.

 

The JST does not present a more ancient ur-text. It is understood as a modern doctrinal inspired revision. As I presented before, it can be very clearly shown that Joseph has  re-written modern revelations about modern people and made them about Enoch and his people. His contemporaries knew Joseph did this, and viewed both forms of the texts as inspired. 

[danielwoods]

 

 

 

Only one of the two different genealogies references Adam (the one in Luke), following the traditional Genesis geneology from Judah back. It's generally suggested Luke Jesus to the eponymous ancestor of humanity to express the concept of Jesus' universal role for all mankind. 

 

 

 

Because the Hebrew Scriptures were authoritative texts. He was being challenged by professed scripture/legal experts. He used their texts to teach. Remember that even Paul used the text of a Psalm to Zeus to teach true principles to the Athenans. 

 

 

 

I firmly disagree, mainly because I do not believe in the historicity of the Garden Story, or Noah and the Flood. And yet I still am devoted to Christ and affirm him to be the Savior, I still strive to manifest Faith in God, I affirm the divine hand in the prophetic ministry of Joseph Smith, the inspired nature of the scriptures he produced, the power found in the Temple experience, and sustain his successors as divinely guided in the Presidency.

 

In fact, I find my faith stronger and more real in my life with this understanding than I did before. Removing a historical Garden Story didn't decrease my religious foundation, it enhanced it.

 

 

 

I understand that's how it works for you at present. I, who see God using the the inspired writers, compilers, and editors of Genesis to speak through and transform the symbols and stories of their culture to 'translate' their cultural understanding of their identity and relationship with Him into something more personal,  see the love of God and the salvation that comes from Christ as a very real thing. 

 

 

 

I stand corrected, you are correct Matt. doesn't include Adam, however he goes back to Abraham, which connects to the genealogies found in Genesis, that starts with Adam. 

 

Jesus referenced creation and Adam and Eve as real people, not just because his listeners believed it, but because he did as well. 

 

Just because something is historically true doesn't mean it's less personal in the present. If anything I'd argue that it's more personal, than less. 

[Gray]

Perhaps consider than many very familiar with the history and text see Joseph presenting a midrashic/targumic doctrinal expansion, and placing his modern inspired doctrinal insights in the context of the familiar biblical narrative - updating, and translating the text the same way the story presents Enoch and his people as being translated.

 

The JST does not present a more ancient ur-text. It is understood as a modern doctrinal inspired revision. As I presented before, it can be very clearly shown that Joseph has  re-written modern revelations about modern people and made them about Enoch and his people. His contemporaries knew Joseph did this, and viewed both forms of the texts as inspired. 

 

Perfect!

[JLHPROF]

What context confirms that Jesus had in mind literal people when he referenced the characters of Adam and Eve?

 

Or even if Jesus mistakenly thought that Adam and Eve were real people, when they weren't, why would that be a problem? 

 

My goodness, you do sound like an atheist denying the existence of God.  You are using all the same arguements.

Science, History, Folk Myth, all the buttons atheists like to use to deny that a God can exist you (and others here) are using to show that a flood, an exodus, Adam & Eve etc can't  exist.

 

And for the same reasons I think atheists are completely wrong, I think those who deny the literal existence of scriptural events are wrong.  This is applying atheistic principles to the study of scripture and expecting true results.

[MiserereNobis]

Like I said, if one doesnt wantto find it they never will see it. People are generally predisposed to believe obly that which they want to believe even when it stares them in the face.

 

 

The irony here is rather thick.

 

For instance- anyone can see the sedimentary layers exposed in the rocks all over the world. Anyone who knows anything knows these sedimentary layers pretty much only lay down under water. But rather than view the rocks in a flood paradigm they instead chalk it up as anything but that. They even will readily admit it must have been laid while inundated with water but in the same breath deny it was from a catastrophic flood. Why? Because their thinking is predisposed to something else.

 

The presence of sedimentary layers all over the world is easily explained by current geology.  Uplift of seabeds is not some great mystery...

[danielwoods]

What context confirms that Jesus had in mind literal people when he referenced the characters of Adam and Eve?

 

Or even if Jesus mistakenly thought that Adam and Eve were real people, when they weren't, why would that be a problem? 

 

Jesus referenced a time (the beginning) and a real person (God) and a real action (created them), hence the conclusion is that produced real people (male and female). If God did it a different way, why not say that instead? 

 

If Jesus was mistaken? Hmm... that get's back to, if Jesus was mistaken about that... then what else is he mistaken about? 

Edited February 12, 2014 by danielwoods

[David T]

My goodness, you do sound like an atheist denying the existence of God.  You are using all the same arguements.

Science, History, Folk Myth, all the buttons atheists like to use to deny that a God can exist you (and others here) are using to show that a flood, an exodus, Adam & Eve etc can't  exist.

 

And for the same reasons I think atheists are completely wrong, I think those who deny the literal existence of scriptural events are wrong.  This is applying atheistic principles to the study of scripture and expecting true results.

 

If God is real, and is a real person, and interacts with us, I can have personal experiences that confirm that. I believe I have had such experiences. I have had no experiences to confirm the necessity of the historicity of the Mesopotamian Garden and Flood stories. Their inclusion in the scriptural text has led to prayerful and studious questions, which I believe have led to further inspiration and insight.

 

However, there certainly are some Atheists that WANT you to make the connection of "If X Story isn't true, all religion is false!" - it is also an absolutely false dichotomy.

[Gray]

My goodness, you do sound like an atheist denying the existence of God.  You are using all the same arguements.

Science, History, Folk Myth, all the buttons atheists like to use to deny that a God can exist you (and others here) are using to show that a flood, an exodus, Adam & Eve etc can't  exist.

 

And for the same reasons I think atheists are completely wrong, I think those who deny the literal existence of scriptural events are wrong.  This is applying atheistic principles to the study of scripture and expecting true results.

 

I think you'll find there are many progressive theists who take a very similar approach to me. The literalness of scripture has less than nothing to do with the existence of God. If you hang all your hopes on the literalness of Adam and Eve, you'll find yourself stuck between two positions - blind faith and atheism. These dichotomies are of course false. One does not have to reject evidence in order to retain faith. The only reason to reject evidence is if you wish to retain orthodoxy (regardless of sect), which is quite a different matter than retaining faith.

[Rob Osborn]

The irony here is rather thick.

 

 

The presence of sedimentary layers all over the world is easily explained by current geology.  Uplift of seabeds is not some great mystery...

Yeah but they are dead wrong with theirexplanation of how and when those layers formed and then were upthrust.

[Gray]

Jesus referenced a time (the beginning) and a real person (God) and a real action (created them), hence the conclusion is that produced real people (male and female). If God did it a different way, why not say that instead? 

 

If Jesus was mistaken? Hmm... that get's back to, if Jesus was mistaken about that... then what else is he mistaken about? 

 

Yes, Jesus referenced that story. What makes you think he thought of it as a real history rather than a deeper teaching about the human condition?

 

To steal a line from a progressive rabbi, if a revelation leads to kindness, it's true. If it leads to the opposite, it's false. What does it matter whether the delivery mechanism (the story) is based on actual events?

 

I've been mistaken before, but you'd have to be awfully uncharitable to think that this somehow puts everything I've ever said into question. 

[JLHPROF]

I think you'll find there are many progressive theists who take a very similar approach to me. The literalness of scripture has less than nothing to do with the existence of God. If you hang all your hopes on the literalness of Adam and Eve, you'll find yourself stuck between two positions - blind faith and atheism. These dichotomies are of course false. One does not have to reject evidence in order to retain faith. The only reason to reject evidence is if you wish to retain orthodoxy (regardless of sect), which is quite a different matter than retaining faith.

 

I guess I'm just an old fashioned orthodox Mormon.

 

But when it comes to, let's say Adam, it is not the creation story alone that makes me believe he exists.  It is the prophecy of Daniel of his return, it is the vision of Joseph F. Smith where he saw Father Adam, it is Christ referencing him as a person.  And our only reason to doubt is a lack of mortal evidence.  Just as an atheist's only reason to doubt God is a lack of evidence.

 

When it comes to the flood and Noah or the exodus and Moses I believe because Joseph Smith met these people, because Christ and the Apostles referred to them as people.  Because the revelations and prophecies refer to them as real living people.  And the only reason to doubt is a lack of mortal evidence.  Just like an atheist and God.

 

I prefer my evidence of the faith kind - the evidence of things NOT seen.

[Gray]

I guess I'm just an old fashioned orthodox Mormon.

 

But when it comes to, let's say Adam, it is not the creation story alone that makes me believe he exists.  It is the prophecy of Daniel of his return, it is the vision of Joseph F. Smith where he saw Father Adam, it is Christ referencing him as a person.  And our only reason to doubt is a lack of mortal evidence.  Just as an atheist's only reason to doubt God is a lack of evidence.

 

When it comes to the flood and Noah or the exodus and Moses I believe because Joseph Smith met these people, because Christ and the Apostles referred to them as people.  Because the revelations and prophecies refer to them as real living people.  And the only reason to doubt is a lack of mortal evidence.  Just like an atheist and God.

 

I prefer my evidence of the faith kind - the evidence of things NOT seen.

 

There is nothing wrong with being an orthodox Mormon. If that path works for you I wish you well with it. 

 

I have to go with the evidence - nothing else is convincing to me. I don't think the purpose of spiritual experiences is to tell us facts about the world (in isolation revelations don't have a very good track record on that front) so much as to deepen our connection with the divine and with each other (and maybe teach us that there isn't any real difference between the two - in other words, to teach us that we're all one). That's been my experience with revelation. Actually I prefer the term inspiration to revelation. 

 

It's subjective but it's all I have.

Edited February 12, 2014 by Gray

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I don't think that the laws of nature have changed or the rate of C14 decay rate. As for the amount of C14 in the atmosphere, I don't know if there was more in the past or not. It is an interesting question. 

 

The question to me is, why is there wood in a 45 million year old rock? Shouldn't it have petrified already? 

 

Of course I don't think it's actually 45 million year old rock, so it fits my creation model just fine. 

The wood was encased in Basalt from a lava flow. For petrification to occur you need wood encased in sediment. Mineral laden water then seeps in and replaces the organic material.

Edited February 12, 2014 by SeekingUnderstanding

[JulieM]

Yeah but they are dead wrong with theirexplanation of how and when those layers formed and then were upthrust.

How do you know that? Other than scripture or your religious beliefs, have you any evidence? (I ask this because my views on this subject are changing). Thanks for any response.

[JulieM]

I have a question about the dinosaurs. Do those of you who believe in a global flood, believe that 2 of each kind of dinosaur was on the ark?

[JLHPROF]

I have a question about the dinosaurs. Do those of you who believe in a global flood, believe that 2 of each kind of dinosaur was on the ark?

That's funny.  Of course not.

 

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_science/Dinosaurs

Edited February 13, 2014 by JLHPROF