A Better Worldwide Flood Theory (New Theory)

[MormonFreeThinker]

I still think the Local Flood theory is better, but even if the Flood was the baptism of the Earth, it didn't have to create an ocean to cover it. 

 

Five points 

 

#1 Elder John A. Widtsoe said, "The fact remains that the exact nature of the flood is not known. We set up assumptions, based upon our best knowledge, but can go no further." [Widtsoe, p. 127].

 

#2 "Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered."

Fifteen cubits is not enough to cover the mountains. If the waters were "fifteen cubits" above the mountains (the KJV doesn't say that) then what about other mountains in other parts of the world that are taller? Fifteen cubits above mt. Everest? 

 

#3 The word immerse means - "to put (something) in a liquid so that all parts are completely covered"

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/immerse

Who grabbed the Earth and put it in a giant baptismal font? or a giant river or lake? or a giant ocean of another planet?

 

#4 In my opinion, the Flood was big in the world of Noah, but not in all parts of the planet (assuming a worldwide flood). There is no need for an ocean to cover a mountain, look at the video, that mountain is completely covered by water. 

 

#5 "In the New Testament, Paul speaks of the children of Israel being baptized by Moses “in the cloud and in the sea” (1 Cor. 10:1–4)." 

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/baptism

 

Elder Charles W. Penrose said. "They were baptized the same as we have been" Journal of Discourses - Volumes 24-26 - Page 90

Elder Harold B. Lee said in General Conference said, "He was speaking of the ordinance of baptism in Moses' day when he wrote these words to the Corinthians:. . . how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;And were all baptized unto Moses... (1 Cor. 10:1-2)" 

 

If 1 Cor. 10:1–2 was a symbol of baptism or an analogy, the Noah gospel topics article says that the Flood was a symbol of baptism. If the Flood was not a symbol, but a real baptism, there was no need for an ocean to cover the planet. 

 

Mountain completely covered by water

 

There are still some problems with the theory, but not that many. 

Edited May 10, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[mfbukowski]

Nah, God just decided sprinkling was more practical in this case and gave a special dispensation.

 

I mean after all how is the earth supposed to receive its endowment?

[thesometimesaint]

I still think the Local Flood theory is better, but even if the Flood was the baptism of the Earth, it didn't have to create an ocean to cover it. 

 

Five points 

 

#1 Elder John A. Widtsoe said, "The fact remains that the exact nature of the flood is not known. We set up assumptions, based upon our best knowledge, but can go no further." [Widtsoe, p. 127].

 

#2 "Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered."

Fifteen cubits is not enough to cover the mountains. If the waters were "fifteen cubits" above the mountains (the KJV doesn't say that) then what about other mountains in other parts of the world that are taller? Fifteen cubits above mt. Everest? 

 

#3 The word immerse means - "to put (something) in a liquid so that all parts are completely covered"

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/immerse

Who grabbed the Earth and put it in a giant baptismal font? or a giant river or lake? or a giant ocean of another planet?

 

#4 In my opinion, the Flood was big in the world of Noah, but not in all parts of the planet (assuming a worldwide flood). There is no need for an ocean to cover a mountain, look at the video, that mountain is completely covered by water. 

 

#5 "In the New Testament, Paul speaks of the children of Israel being baptized by Moses “in the cloud and in the sea” (1 Cor. 10:1–4)." 

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/baptism

 

Elder Charles W. Penrose said. "They were baptized the same as we have been" Journal of Discourses - Volumes 24-26 - Page 90

Elder Harold B. Lee said in General Conference said, "He was speaking of the ordinance of baptism in Moses' day when he wrote these words to the Corinthians:. . . how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;And were all baptized unto Moses... (1 Cor. 10:1-2)" 

 

If 1 Cor. 10:1–2 was a symbol of baptism or an analogy, the Noah gospel topics article says that the Flood was a symbol of baptism. If the Flood was not a symbol, but a real baptism, there was no need for an ocean to cover the planet. 

 

Mountain completely covered by water

 

There are still some problems with the theory, but not that many. 

 

I'm fine with a massive but regional flood.

[jwhitlock]

I have no idea whether the flood was regional or global - nor does it really ultimately matter, since it's not important to our salvation. We'll find out what happened at some point after this life.

 

Neither possibility can be ruled out at this point. Those who say that a global flood is not possible assume that the geography of the earth was similar at the time of the flood to what we see today. That may or may not be the case; the vague reference in Genesis 10 about the earth being divided may indicate some significant geographic upheaval after the flood. However, it could be possible that it's talking about something else. The description in the Book of Mormon about the geographic changes when Christ was crucified give us some indication that things as we see them today may not have always been that way.

 

Most of what I see posited on the subject is pretty speculative, and that's how it should be taken.

[Rob Osborn]

Let me give you all a hint- the flood was global but it did not need to rise to a height above Mt. Everest because it didnt exist until after the flood. Read in Psalms 104 where it spwcifically states that after the flood the mountains rose and the valleys sank to create a barrier so that the waters could no more cover the entire earth. Here is the New Standard English edition-

6 Thou coveredst it with the deep as with a vesture; The waters stood above the mountains.

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

8 (The mountains rose, the valleys sank down) Unto the place which thou hadst founded for them.

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

[MormonFreeThinker]

Let me give you all a hint-,

 

Your interpretation contradicts everything that is known in modern science. Geology, Paleontology, History, archaeology, anthropology, climatology, meteorology, physics, chemistry, biology, and even mathematics. 

Edited May 10, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[Rob Osborn]

Your interpretation contradicts everything that is known in modern science. Geology, Paleontology, History, archaeology, anthropology, climatology, meteorology, physics, chemistry, biology, and even mathematics.

Its not my interpretation, its the word of God. Did you read the verses in Psalms I quoted?

[thesometimesaint]

Your interpretation contradicts everything that is known in modern science. Geology, Paleontology, History, archaeology, anthropology, climatology, meteorology, physics, chemistry, biology, and even mathematics. 

 

But but not only did God make the natural laws he follows, he violates those laws when you tick him off.

[thesometimesaint]

Its not my interpretation, its the word of God. Did you read the verses in Psalms I quoted?

 

We believed the Scriptures to be the word of God as far as they are translated correctly.

[MormonFreeThinker]

Its not my interpretation, its the word of God. Did you read the verses in Psalms I quoted?

 

 "These lived and died, age after age, while the earth was yet unfit for human habitation." - Elder James E. Talmage

 

Old Testament Student Manual Genesis-2 Samuel, (1980), 26–3

"Very few people, either members of the Church or members of other religions, hold to this theory, since the evidence for longer processes involved in the Creation is substantial."

"If this last meaning was the sense in which Moses used the word day, then the apparent conflict between the scriptures and much of the evidence seen by science as supporting a very old age for the earth is easily resolved. Each era or day of creation could have lasted for millions or even hundreds of millions of our years, and uniformitarianism could be accepted without any problem. (For an excellent discussion of this approach see Henry Eyring, “The Gospel and the Age of the Earth,” [improvement Era, July 1965, pp. 608–9, 626, 628]." 

 

"the orderly structure of these horizontally lying layers, with their fossils, argues strongly against the notion that the earth has been assembled, relatively recently, from the wreckage of earlier worlds."

From Henry Eyring, Reflections of a Scientist, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1983), 53-62

 

"The concern of most LDS scientists is as to what extent President Smith's interpretations must replace those of Brother Talmage and of Brother Widtsoe where they fail to agree with President Smith." 

Sincerely Yours, Henry Eyring

Edited May 10, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[mnn727]

Sometimes I think we do Spiritual and mental gymnastics trying to correlate O.T. events, what some well meaning leader may have once said, and our current understanding of the sciences.

 

The Bible was never meant to be a scientific reference manual or even a physical science history manual.

Edited May 10, 2014 by mnn727

[ERayR]

I still think the Local Flood theory is better, but even if the Flood was the baptism of the Earth, it didn't have to create an ocean to cover it. 

 

Five points 

 

#1 Elder John A. Widtsoe said, "The fact remains that the exact nature of the flood is not known. We set up assumptions, based upon our best knowledge, but can go no further." [Widtsoe, p. 127].

 

#2 "Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered."

Fifteen cubits is not enough to cover the mountains. If the waters were "fifteen cubits" above the mountains (the KJV doesn't say that) then what about other mountains in other parts of the world that are taller? Fifteen cubits above mt. Everest? 

 

#3 The word immerse means - "to put (something) in a liquid so that all parts are completely covered"

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/immerse

Who grabbed the Earth and put it in a giant baptismal font? or a giant river or lake? or a giant ocean of another planet?

 

#4 In my opinion, the Flood was big in the world of Noah, but not in all parts of the planet (assuming a worldwide flood). There is no need for an ocean to cover a mountain, look at the video, that mountain is completely covered by water. 

 

#5 "In the New Testament, Paul speaks of the children of Israel being baptized by Moses “in the cloud and in the sea” (1 Cor. 10:1–4)." 

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/baptism

 

Elder Charles W. Penrose said. "They were baptized the same as we have been" Journal of Discourses - Volumes 24-26 - Page 90

Elder Harold B. Lee said in General Conference said, "He was speaking of the ordinance of baptism in Moses' day when he wrote these words to the Corinthians:. . . how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;And were all baptized unto Moses... (1 Cor. 10:1-2)" 

 

If 1 Cor. 10:1–2 was a symbol of baptism or an analogy, the Noah gospel topics article says that the Flood was a symbol of baptism. If the Flood was not a symbol, but a real baptism, there was no need for an ocean to cover the planet. 

 

Mountain completely covered by water

 

There are still some problems with the theory, but not that many. 

 

I think your imagination is somewhat limited.  But then if I were God zI would have _____________

[ERayR]

Its not my interpretation, its the word of God. Did you read the verses in Psalms I quoted?

 

Rob everyone interprets what they read.  It all depends on whose interpretation you want to accept. 

[Rob Osborn]

Sometimes I think we do Spiritual and mental gymnastics trying to correlate O.T. events, what some well meaning leader may have once said, and our current understanding of the sciences.

 

The Bible was never meant to be a scientific reference manual or even a physical science history manual.

No, but it does contain truths about the past- events that shaped the earth and humanity. The creation, flood and division of the earth by water was three of those historical events.

[Rob Osborn]

"These lived and died, age after age, while the earth was yet unfit for human habitation." - Elder James E. Talmage

 

Old Testament Student Manual Genesis-2 Samuel, (1980), 26–3

"Very few people, either members of the Church or members of other religions, hold to this theory, since the evidence for longer processes involved in the Creation is substantial."

"If this last meaning was the sense in which Moses used the word day, then the apparent conflict between the scriptures and much of the evidence seen by science as supporting a very old age for the earth is easily resolved. Each era or day of creation could have lasted for millions or even hundreds of millions of our years, and uniformitarianism could be accepted without any problem. (For an excellent discussion of this approach see Henry Eyring, “The Gospel and the Age of the Earth,” [improvement Era, July 1965, pp. 608–9, 626, 628]." 

 

"the orderly structure of these horizontally lying layers, with their fossils, argues strongly against the notion that the earth has been assembled, relatively recently, from the wreckage of earlier worlds."

From Henry Eyring, Reflections of a Scientist, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1983), 53-62

 

"The concern of most LDS scientists is as to what extent President Smith's interpretations must replace those of Brother Talmage and of Brother Widtsoe where they fail to agree with President Smith." 

Sincerely Yours, Henry Eyring

So what do you make of those scriptures in Psalms I quoted?

[Anijen]

So what do you make of those scriptures in Psalms I quoted?

They were  what David believed at the time. I think if David (or whoever may have added upon them) lived today and had a better grasp of science he would write something different.

 

This in no way takes away all the good things or sacred things and spiritual uplifting things from Psalms.

[katherine the great]

Nah, God just decided sprinkling was more practical in this case and gave a special dispensation.

 

I mean after all how is the earth supposed to receive its endowment?

Or get married?

[mfbukowski]

Or get married?

Exactly!!

[mfbukowski]

So, you always have the ability to ditch any and all references to a global flood and anything else you choose not to accept? Pretty much like saying pi$$ on the prophets they were idiots and knew nothing about the earth and its geologic and physical events. All this in complete disregards for their ability to walk and talk directly with God himself. Gotcha.

Rob, you're a real sweetheart, but I just have one word for what you need to understand.

 

Symbols.

 

Jesus really is not a road, nor is he a real gate.  He is not water.  He is not a sentence to be true or false.  He is not the actual sun.  The sun really is a burning ball of gasses, not the Savior.  We do not worship the sun.

 

The bread is not really his body, the water is not really blood.   Symbols, Rob, symbols.

[Anijen]

Or get married?

Hmm, who (what planets) would make a good eternal companion?

 

Mars? Perhaps too war like, too manly.

Venus? Nah, too feminine.

[The Nehor]

Its not my interpretation, its the word of God. Did you read the verses in Psalms I quoted?

 

When we start using our hymnbook to establish doctrine I will let the Psalms do likewise.

[Duncan]

I forget which of the Great Lakes but if you drained it, the water would cover all of North America in 2 feet of water, that just one lake

[The Nehor]

I forget which of the Great Lakes but if you drained it, the water would cover all of North America in 2 feet of water, that just one lake

 

That is assuming we built a giant retaining wall around North America to keep it from sloshing out.

[Rob Osborn]

They were  what David believed at the time. I think if David (or whoever may have added upon them) lived today and had a better grasp of science he would write something different.

 

This in no way takes away all the good things or sacred things and spiritual uplifting things from Psalms.

So David was an idiot?

[Rob Osborn]

Rob, you're a real sweetheart, but I just have one word for what you need to understand.

 

Symbols.

 

Jesus really is not a road, nor is he a real gate.  He is not water.  He is not a sentence to be true or false.  He is not the actual sun.  The sun really is a burning ball of gasses, not the Savior.  We do not worship the sun.

 

The bread is not really his body, the water is not really blood.   Symbols, Rob, symbols.

So what part of the flood is a symbol?