Sunday School And A Worldwide Flood (Pt.3)

[strappinglad]

According to Native Americans , the figure on the moon is a rabbit . I can see it ,ears and all. Perhaps it is that ' pre-Cambrian rabbit ' that Darwinists say must be found for evolution to be rejected .

[Gray]

Thats as bad as saying Christ isn't real

 

Paul was a mortal man with opinions and limited access to good information. Why do you think that's controversial?

[Gray]

It's also the opinion/belief/message of every biblical writer and prophet. 

 

Well, it's hard to say who took the story literally or not, but we shouldn't be surprised that ancient peoples had misconceptions about the world.

[danielwoods]

Well, it's hard to say who took the story literally or not, but we shouldn't be surprised that ancient peoples had misconceptions about the world.

 

Not very hard actually. They all took it literally, because that's how it was intended to be taken. Of course we aren't talking about other misconceptions they might have had. 

 

God states very clearly that he created one man and one woman in the beginning. Did God lie? He also states clearly that he did it in six days and rested on the seventh. Why say that if he didn't mean it? Further, if he didn't create over six days, why not say that instead? What would be the purpose of lying? If God is capable of creating anyway he wished, why would he choose to take billions of years, and then tell all his people he did it in six days? What's the purpose in doing that? 

[Gray]

Has anyone posted this yet?

 

http://www.benbernards.com/old-testament-6-noah/

 

Great background on the flood from a scholarly and LDS perspective

[Gray]

Not very hard actually. They all took it literally, because that's how it was intended to be taken. Of course we aren't talking about other misconceptions they might have had. 

 

 

 

Unless you're a mind reader, there is no way to know for sure which Biblical writers took the story literally and which did not. I doubt very much that it was originally intended to be a literal history of events, especially since the concept of historicity did not exist among the Hebrews of that time.

 

 

 

 

 

God states very clearly that he created one man and one woman in the beginning. Did God lie? He also states clearly that he did it in six days and rested on the seventh. Why say that if he didn't mean it? Further, if he didn't create over six days, why not say that instead? What would be the purpose of lying? If God is capable of creating anyway he wished, why would he choose to take billions of years, and then tell all his people he did it in six days? What's the purpose in doing that? 

 

This is the problem with the literalist viewpoint - you end up focusing all your energy on the surface level of the story, and completely miss the moral teaching behind it. 

 

Edited February 21, 2014 by Gray

[thesometimesaint]

So you haven't heard of it, and have no real response? 

 

You are going to have to be more specific. When " "But a team working in Canada found an exhilarating bonus on a hadrosaur fossil fragment—it had actual skin still attached." is Googled all I get is Creationists links.

[thesometimesaint]

It's also the opinion/belief/message of every biblical writer and prophet. 

 

You do know what prooftexting is?

[thesometimesaint]

Not very hard actually. They all took it literally, because that's how it was intended to be taken. Of course we aren't talking about other misconceptions they might have had. 

 

God states very clearly that he created one man and one woman in the beginning. Did God lie? He also states clearly that he did it in six days and rested on the seventh. Why say that if he didn't mean it? Further, if he didn't create over six days, why not say that instead? What would be the purpose of lying? If God is capable of creating anyway he wished, why would he choose to take billions of years, and then tell all his people he did it in six days? What's the purpose in doing that? 

 

"If God is capable of creating anyway he wished, why would he choose to take billions of years, and then tell all his people he did it in six days?".

 

You've just confirmed what I've been saying God is omnipotent and outside the rules of science.

 

Surely, God could have caused birds to fly with their bones made of solid gold, with their veins full of quicksilver, with their flesh heavier than lead, and with their wings exceedingly small. He did not, and that ought to show something. It is only in order to shield your ignorance that you put the Lord at every turn to the refuge of a miracle.

Galileo

[Flyonthewall]

I am surprised this thread is still going on.

The way I see it, there is no scientific evidence of any of God's miraculous doings, so I don't need scientific evidence to believe in them.

I realize there are those that do require evidence, and that is okay too.

To me, it is not as important to believe in an actual global flood as it is to come away with the lesson that God wants you to learn from it.

Of course that runs the risk of viewing scriptures as simple fables rather than holy writ.

Perhaps some day the book of Aesop will be added to the Bible...?

[thesometimesaint]

We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly.

[danielwoods]

Unless you're a mind reader, there is no way to know for sure which Biblical writers took the story literally and which did not. I doubt very much that it was originally intended to be a literal history of events, especially since the concept of historicity did not exist among the Hebrews of that time.

 

 

 

 

This is the problem with the literalist viewpoint - you end up focusing all your energy on the surface level of the story, and completely miss the moral teaching behind it. 

 

 

Curious. Please explain how understanding the text as history diminishes it's value for teaching life's truths? 

Edited February 21, 2014 by danielwoods

[danielwoods]

You are going to have to be more specific. When " "But a team working in Canada found an exhilarating bonus on a hadrosaur fossil fragment—it had actual skin still attached." is Googled all I get is Creationists links.

 

Source at the bottom of the page I linked to... not creationist as far as I can tell. 

 

http://www.lightsource.ca/news/media_release_20130426.php

 

 

 

You do know what prooftexting is?

 

I'm open, tell me what text tells you differently? Where does one biblical writer say it wasn't six days of creation? Or it wasn't a real Adam and Eve who were created? 

 

 

"If God is capable of creating anyway he wished, why would he choose to take billions of years, and then tell all his people he did it in six days?".

 

You've just confirmed what I've been saying God is omnipotent and outside the rules of science.

 

Surely, God could have caused birds to fly with their bones made of solid gold, with their veins full of quicksilver, with their flesh heavier than lead, and with their wings exceedingly small. He did not, and that ought to show something. It is only in order to shield your ignorance that you put the Lord at every turn to the refuge of a miracle.

Galileo

 

So you can't answer the question? 

 

The question wasn't a scientific one. 

[thesometimesaint]

Because making it literal history makes hash of science. Making it a morality play forces people to give a deeper spiritual meaning to the story. E; Just as the Temple pageant is more than just a few actors playing their parts.

[danielwoods]

Because making it literal history makes hash of science. Making it a morality play forces people to give a deeper spiritual meaning to the story. E; Just as the Temple pageant is more than just a few actors playing their parts.

 

A) A person's historical account is just that. Disagree with it all you want, but science can't falsify it or confirm it's accuracy. Science can only analyze the data it has on hand. Extrapolation is not science. 

 

B) "Deeper" meaning has nothing to do with history or not. If anything deeper meaning is always strengthened by truth. Deeper meaning or not has more to do with a personal connection to God or not. 

[thesometimesaint]

Source at the bottom of the page I linked to... not creationist as far as I can tell. 

 

http://www.lightsource.ca/news/media_release_20130426.php

 

I'm open, tell me what text tells you differently? Where does one biblical writer say it wasn't six days of creation? Or it wasn't a real Adam and Eve who were created? 

 

So you can't answer the question? 

 

The question wasn't a scientific one. 

 

Thank you. I do appreciate the link.

 

It is a form of circular argument. The Bible is the word of God. Therefore what is said in the Bible is true. Repeat, Repeat, Repeat.

 

The basic question you are posing is which is correct, the Bible, or science? My answer is always the same. I let God tell me why he did it, and let science tell me how he did it.

 

Then I have no idea as to what you mean by "If God is capable of creating anyway he wished, why would he choose to take billions of years, and then tell all his people he did it in six days?".

[thesometimesaint]

A) A person's historical account is just that. Disagree with it all you want, but science can't falsify it or confirm it's accuracy. Science can only analyze the data it has on hand. Extrapolation is not science. 

 

B) "Deeper" meaning has nothing to do with history or not. If anything deeper meaning is always strengthened by truth. Deeper meaning or not has more to do with a personal connection to God or not. 

 

A) Sure we can confirm historical accounts by using science. We do it all the time. IE; I've been to Gettysburg; Pennsylvania. I can ask the question, did a US Civil War battle take place here(Form a hypothesis) I can read the first hand accounts of that battle(Review the literature). Test my hypothesis(Look for evidence). I can see the battlements(show my evidence). Make the claim that such a battle occurred(Make a theory that explains the evidence).

 

Extrapolation is part and parcel of science. It is known as make a hypothesis. We then look for evidence for that hypothesis.

 

B) George Washington existed. That is a simple statement from history. The circumstances of his life, and what he did IS the deeper meaning. God exists. That is a simple statement of belief. What he does for me and to me IS the deeper meaning.

[Rob Osborn]

Has anyone posted this yet?

 

http://www.benbernards.com/old-testament-6-noah/

 

Great background on the flood from a scholarly and LDS perspective

A lot of conjecture and selected quotes to favor a mini localized flood. Thats not what the scriptures state nor what the church teaches. One of the issues not acknowledged or realized by LDS is that the world that then was, was destroyed. Mountains like Mt. Ararat came about as a result of the flood. The great geologic changes due to the city of Enoch leaving earth, a great global flood caused all kinds of geologic catastrophe including rapid deposits and rapid uplifts of mountains, volcanoes, earthquakes, etc that formed a new earth. As the mountains rose up from the flood waters Noahs boat then came to rest somehwere around Mt. Ararat. which was newly formed. The newly formed  mountains and valleys then formed a barrier so that the flood waters, now trapped on the earth, could no longer cover the entire earth. This is spoken of in Psalms-

6 You covered it with the deep as with a garment ; The waters were standing above the mountains.

7 At Your rebuke they fled, At the sound of Your thunder they hurried away.

8 The mountains rose ; the valleys sank down To the place which You established for them.

9 You set a boundary that they may not pass over, So that they will not return to cover the earth. (NAS bible)

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/07/28/psalm104-flood-or-creation

[Rob Osborn]

A) Sure we can confirm historical accounts by using science. We do it all the time. IE; I've been to Gettysburg; Pennsylvania. I can ask the question, did a US Civil War battle take place here(Form a hypothesis) I can read the first hand accounts of that battle(Review the literature). Test my hypothesis(Look for evidence). I can see the battlements(show my evidence). Make the claim that such a battle occurred(Make a theory that explains the evidence).

 

Extrapolation is part and parcel of science. It is known as make a hypothesis. We then look for evidence for that hypothesis.

 

B) George Washington existed. That is a simple statement from history. The circumstances of his life, and what he did IS the deeper meaning. God exists. That is a simple statement of belief. What he does for me and to me IS the deeper meaning.

So then, I believe I am with you on this-

 

If the word of God said there was a global flood as written in historical contexts and then I go out into the world and find on every continent layer upon layer of sea laid strata and billions of dead things that were quickly deposited in that strata then I can conclude there was indeed a global flood.

 

Thanks for that. You confirm the point well.

[thesometimesaint]

So then, I believe I am with you on this-

 

If the word of God said there was a global flood as written in historical contexts and then I go out into the world and find on every continent layer upon layer of sea laid strata and billions of dead things that were quickly deposited in that strata then I can conclude there was indeed a global flood.

 

Thanks for that. You confirm the point well.

 

NOT ONE WORD of the Bible was written by God. EVERY WORD was written, and rewritten, and rewritten by man. So are you now elevating fallible man to a perfect God? Even the ancient Greeks knew about dinosaurs, though they did not call them that. Moreover we don't believe in those same Gods. 

 

Do you really want to be lumped in with these people?

 

Except that is the direct opposite of what the evidence shows.

SEE https://www.google.com/search?q=rock+layers+youngest+to+oldest&client=firefox-a&hs=4ux&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=sb&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=LbAHU4m6KpDooAT5kIKwBg&ved=0CCkQsAQ&biw=1366&bih=568

[cinepro]

Has anyone posted this yet?

 

http://www.benbernards.com/old-testament-6-noah/

 

Great background on the flood from a scholarly and LDS perspective

 

That is a good scholarly and LDS perspective.  Although from the footnotes, it appears to be 9/10 "scholarly" and only 1/10 "LDS".

 

It's especially odd that an overview of "scholarly" and "LDS" resources would omit what is perhaps the most scholarly article on the subject ever published by the Church.  It was written by a bona fide "scholar" who is one of the Church's (and world's?) foremost experts on the Hebrew Bible, and directly addresses the story of Noah (and the Tower of Babel).  Such an article, written by such a scholar and published in the official Church magazine should be greatly important in any discussion of the "scholarly LDS perspective", but it didn't even get a mention.

 

The Flood and the Tower of Babel

Go figure.

[thesometimesaint]

cinepro:

 

Hugh Nibley was a faithful LDS and a recognized scholar. He was fluent in Classical Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Egyptian, Coptic, Arabic, German, French, English, Italian, and Spanish. He was also published in official church magazines.

 

He thought it was a massive albeit regional flood.

[Gray]

Curious. Please explain how understanding the text as history diminishes it's value for teaching life's truths? 

 

It only diminishes so far as it distracts from the message. There is no intrinsic value in the idea that Adam was the first man, even if it were literally true. It's a data point. The underlying meaning is never about facts.

[Gray]

 

That is a good scholarly and LDS perspective.  Although from the footnotes, it appears to be 9/10 "scholarly" and only 1/10 "LDS".

 

It's especially odd that an overview of "scholarly" and "LDS" resources would omit what is perhaps the most scholarly article on the subject ever published by the Church.  It was written by a bona fide "scholar" who is one of the Church's (and world's?) foremost experts on the Hebrew Bible, and directly addresses the story of Noah (and the Tower of Babel).  Such an article, written by such a scholar and published in the official Church magazine should be greatly important in any discussion of the "scholarly LDS perspective", but it didn't even get a mention.

 

The Flood and the Tower of Babel

Go figure.

 

Not everything written by a scholar is scholarly, but I dig the humor. 

[Gray]

A lot of conjecture and selected quotes to favor a mini localized flood. Thats not what the scriptures state nor what the church teaches. One of the issues not acknowledged or realized by LDS is that the world that then was, was destroyed. Mountains like Mt. Ararat came about as a result of the flood. The great geologic changes due to the city of Enoch leaving earth, a great global flood caused all kinds of geologic catastrophe including rapid deposits and rapid uplifts of mountains, volcanoes, earthquakes, etc that formed a new earth. As the mountains rose up from the flood waters Noahs boat then came to rest somehwere around Mt. Ararat. which was newly formed. The newly formed  mountains and valleys then formed a barrier so that the flood waters, now trapped on the earth, could no longer cover the entire earth. This is spoken of in Psalms-

6 You covered it with the deep as with a garment ; The waters were standing above the mountains.

7 At Your rebuke they fled, At the sound of Your thunder they hurried away.

8 The mountains rose ; the valleys sank down To the place which You established for them.

9 You set a boundary that they may not pass over, So that they will not return to cover the earth. (NAS bible)

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/07/28/psalm104-flood-or-creation

 

If you want to understand what the scriptures mean, a historical critical background is an excellent tool. A literal reading of the English translation of an often-edited Hebrew text is a good way to misunderstand the meaning of the text.