The Nehor Posted May 11, 2014 Posted May 11, 2014 I understand that. It is the imagery I no longer find appealing.What could be more spiritual then violence, death, and dismemberment?
mfbukowski Posted May 11, 2014 Posted May 11, 2014 (edited) The most important thing to remember is that the flood was an actual global event.I disagree. That is of no importance. The important thing is the difference it makes in our lives. Maybe it happened maybe it didn't. All I know is that my life is better for having learned its lessons and so is yours. An event that old would otherwise be irrelevant to me- it is not present to my life any more than how long the creation took, or the years in which dinosaurs roamed the earth. I don't care. The important point is that God gave us this amazing world in which we can live and work toward becoming like him. My testimony does not rest on some silly science professor or arguing what science should or should not do. I know nothing of my own except what others have told me about science. But God himself speaks to my heart and I know it is Him. It has nothing to do with what is taught or not taught in universities. Your gospel can, in principle, with perfect sceince, be disproven, mine cannot. Yours rests on "the philosophies of men", in principle, mine does not. Suppose all your favored scientists won the day. Suppose everyone looked at the question again and said- OOPS - it turns our that those stupid creationists were right! Suppose 20 years later a scientific flaw is found in the new creationist theory? The gospel is gone. The gospel does not rest on science. Those who think it is, do not understand how vulnerable that position is. Science and religion have nothing to do with each other, and the sooner the world realizes that the more we Theists can live in peace without arguing this silliness every 5 minutes. Edited May 11, 2014 by mfbukowski 1
mfbukowski Posted May 11, 2014 Posted May 11, 2014 One of the problems as I see it is that many assume the mountains were the same or similar height as they are now.I don't feel that is a safe assumption.The earth was flat in those days, like a dish, and God decided to wash dishes. 2
mfbukowski Posted May 11, 2014 Posted May 11, 2014 Will this fire cover Mt Everest though?For all we know the "fire" will be in the hearts of men. That will be sufficient to kill everyone. With enough fire in the hearts of men, we could kill each other with butter knives
thesometimesaint Posted May 11, 2014 Posted May 11, 2014 What could be more spiritual then violence, death, and dismemberment? Well I'll just say from personal experience "spiritual" isn't a word I'd use.
thesometimesaint Posted May 11, 2014 Posted May 11, 2014 For all we know the "fire" will be in the hearts of men. That will be sufficient to kill everyone. With enough fire in the hearts of men, we could kill each other with butter knivesWhy a spoon cousin? Because it's dull you twit a spoon will hurt more.
pogi Posted May 11, 2014 Posted May 11, 2014 (edited) If we are going to understand the flood literally, do we also have to take the dimensions of the ark literally as well? Do we have to understand that noah had two of every kind of creature and insect on a ship of that size with enough food to subsit for 150 days? There are over one and a half million species of animals with around 10,000 new species discovered each year (according to factmonster.com). Not counting insects. Just imagine the poop problem. The geological dilemmas aside, there are other obvious problems with this story. Edited May 11, 2014 by pogi
canard78 Posted May 11, 2014 Posted May 11, 2014 Your interpretation contradicts everything that is known in modern science. Geology, Paleontology, History, archaeology, anthropology, climatology, meteorology, physics, chemistry, biology, and even mathematics. Can I remind you you're speaking to Rob Osborn. (By the way, is it your objective to have a thread on this topic starting every 3 days or every 2 days? I can't keep track).
mnn727 Posted May 11, 2014 Posted May 11, 2014 (edited) I would bet the majority of LDS believe in the literalness of the creation, flood and division of the land as told and taught in our scriptures and church.and I would bet that anyone who actually thinks about it, does not. Edited May 11, 2014 by mnn727
Rob Osborn Posted May 11, 2014 Posted May 11, 2014 I disagree. That is of no importance. The important thing is the difference it makes in our lives. Maybe it happened maybe it didn't. All I know is that my life is better for having learned its lessons and so is yours. An event that old would otherwise be irrelevant to me- it is not present to my life any more than how long the creation took, or the years in which dinosaurs roamed the earth. I don't care. The important point is that God gave us this amazing world in which we can live and work toward becoming like him. My testimony does not rest on some silly science professor or arguing what science should or should not do. I know nothing of my own except what others have told me about science. But God himself speaks to my heart and I know it is Him. It has nothing to do with what is taught or not taught in universities. Your gospel can, in principle, with perfect sceince, be disproven, mine cannot. Yours rests on "the philosophies of men", in principle, mine does not. Suppose all your favored scientists won the day. Suppose everyone looked at the question again and said- OOPS - it turns our that those stupid creationists were right! Suppose 20 years later a scientific flaw is found in the new creationist theory? The gospel is gone. The gospel does not rest on science. Those who think it is, do not understand how vulnerable that position is. Science and religion have nothing to do with each other, and the sooner the world realizes that the more we Theists can live in peace without arguing this silliness every 5 minutes. Certain historical events are best understood in their proper light and truth. The flood in Noahs day is only properly understood when it is viewed as a global catastrophe. These ridiculous claims to it being only localized takes away from the story, makes men out to be idiots, makes a mockery of Gods word and causes the faith of man to diminish. Besides all that it makes God a liar and man interpreting the world in a way far removed from God. Basically, it turns Gods scriptures into a fairytale. 1
Rob Osborn Posted May 11, 2014 Posted May 11, 2014 If we are going to understand the flood literally, do we also have to take the dimensions of the ark literally as well? Do we have to understand that noah had two of every kind of creature and insect on a ship of that size with enough food to subsit for 150 days? There are over one and a half million species of animals with around 10,000 new species discovered each year (according to factmonster.com). Not counting insects. Just imagine the poop problem. The geological dilemmas aside, there are other obvious problems with this story. Over 90 % of species are water dwelling and wouldn't have needed to be rescued on the ark. Scientists have studied it out and figured that only 2-35 thousand animals needed to be on the ark. The size of the ship presents quite the problem but not for a global flood theory but for those local flood theorists. If it was a localized flood, why such a large ship? If it was a localized flood why the 120 years to prepare for it? If it was a localized flood why take birds who are capable of flight and long distance travel? There are thus obvious problems with a localized flood story.
mfbukowski Posted May 11, 2014 Posted May 11, 2014 Certain historical events are best understood in their proper light and truth. The flood in Noahs day is only properly understood when it is viewed as a global catastrophe. These ridiculous claims to it being only localized takes away from the story, makes men out to be idiots, makes a mockery of Gods word and causes the faith of man to diminish. Besides all that it makes God a liar and man interpreting the world in a way far removed from God. Basically, it turns Gods scriptures into a fairytale.Your testimony need not be so fragile. Your world is a much scarier place than mine. My faith cannot be destroyed or even endangered by the vagaries of what scientists or historians may decide is true or not. I truly wish I could show you how simple it could be to have unqualified certainty on these matters and the peace it brings.
Rob Osborn Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 Your testimony need not be so fragile. Your world is a much scarier place than mine. My faith cannot be destroyed or even endangered by the vagaries of what scientists or historians may decide is true or not. I truly wish I could show you how simple it could be to have unqualified certainty on these matters and the peace it brings. Not sure what you are driving at but I have already received my confirmation that the flood was global and that knowledge has brought me peace.
The Nehor Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 Over 90 % of species are water dwelling and wouldn't have needed to be rescued on the ark. Scientists have studied it out and figured that only 2-35 thousand animals needed to be on the ark. The size of the ship presents quite the problem but not for a global flood theory but for those local flood theorists. If it was a localized flood, why such a large ship? If it was a localized flood why the 120 years to prepare for it? If it was a localized flood why take birds who are capable of flight and long distance travel? There are thus obvious problems with a localized flood story.So you are arguing that 8 people on a ship that size taking care of 35,000 animals presents less of a problem then the boat possibly having some extra room?Noah did not know how widespread the flood was. He brought breeding stock onto the ark to rebuild his flocks. He sent birds out because he did not know if there was land out there. If he did know how pervasive the flood was why send out birds at all? If Noah did not know how would we know?
Rob Osborn Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 So you are arguing that 8 people on a ship that size taking care of 35,000 animals presents less of a problem then the boat possibly having some extra room? Noah did not know how widespread the flood was. He brought breeding stock onto the ark to rebuild his flocks. He sent birds out because he did not know if there was land out there. If he did know how pervasive the flood was why send out birds at all? If Noah did not know how would we know? Noah did know how widespread the flood was- he went around for 120 years preaching to the world to repent or perish in the floods. You keep assuming he didn't know when in fact the text says otherwise.
halconero Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 “You believe Adam was made of the dust of this earth. This I do not believe, though it is supposed that it is so written in the Bible; but it is not, to my understanding. . . . I do not believe that portion of the Bible as the Christian world do. I never did, and I never want to. What is the reason I do not? Because I have come to understanding, and banished from my mind all the baby stories my mother taught me when I was a child.” - Brigham YoungJust because someone doesn't interpret the Bible the way you do, Rob doesn't many they think the prophets are idiots.
The Nehor Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 Noah did know how widespread the flood was- he went around for 120 years preaching to the world to repent or perish in the floods. You keep assuming he didn't know when in fact the text says otherwise.How far did he travel? Did he testify the whole world or just the locals? Hmmmm, scripture does not say.
Rob Osborn Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 “You believe Adam was made of the dust of this earth. This I do not believe, though it is supposed that it is so written in the Bible; but it is not, to my understanding. . . . I do not believe that portion of the Bible as the Christian world do. I never did, and I never want to. What is the reason I do not? Because I have come to understanding, and banished from my mind all the baby stories my mother taught me when I was a child.” - Brigham Young Just because someone doesn't interpret the Bible the way you do, Rob doesn't many they think the prophets are idiots. Its not my interpretation, its official church doctrine.
The Nehor Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 Its not my interpretation, its official church doctrine.Not really.
Rob Osborn Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 How far did he travel? Did he testify the whole world or just the locals? Hmmmm, scripture does not say. It doesnt say he didnt travel all over the earth it just says he went and taught the children of men on the earth. Its not important in the text to say how far Noah traveled to preach to the people but only that he went and preached to them.
The Nehor Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 It doesnt say he didnt travel all over the earth it just says he went and taught the children of men on the earth. Its not important in the text to say how far Noah traveled to preach to the people but only that he went and preached to them.I agree unless you are saying that this warning is proof the flood was global. If it was global and Noah knew it and warned everyone all over the world you would have a case. If he just warned the people in the area to repent or drown he would still be right to do so if the flood was regional.
Rob Osborn Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 No. Yes Here- https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/flood-at-noahs-time?lang=eng
The Nehor Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 Yes Here- https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/flood-at-noahs-time?lang=engNo.
Recommended Posts