Rob Osborn Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 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. It was not a regional flood. Let me ask- how does the ark come to rest in the mountains of Ararat if it was some local flood?
Rob Osborn Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 No. You can lead a horse to water but you cant make him drink...
The Nehor Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 It was not a regional flood. Let me ask- how does the ark come to rest in the mountains of Ararat if it was some local flood?If the flood was in Turkey and the ark came to rest near or between the Ararat mountains, possibly at the foot of the mountains.That is, assuming it is the mountains we call Ararat today which I am not entirely convinced of.
The Nehor Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 You can lead a horse to water but you cant make him drink...Sure you can; you just put enough pressure on the neck and force the head down.
Rob Osborn Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 If the flood was in Turkey and the ark came to rest near or between the Ararat mountains, possibly at the foot of the mountains. That is, assuming it is the mountains we call Ararat today which I am not entirely convinced of. So, according to this hypothetical of yours, the scriptures say the waters went above the mountains which would have made your local flood there in Turkey covering the land to a tune of 17,000 feet deep. How do you explain this?
The Nehor Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 So, according to this hypothetical of yours, the scriptures say the waters went above the mountains which would have made your local flood there in Turkey covering the land to a tune of 17,000 feet deep. How do you explain this?It covered the mountains Noah could see when it started and then he landed near the Ararat mountains which he could see.
Rob Osborn Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 It covered the mountains Noah could see when it started and then he landed near the Ararat mountains which he could see. Oh, I see. Was Noah near sighted then and also without any knowledge of any lands further away than what he could see from his viewpoint?
Rob Osborn Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 Sounds to me like you are making this stuff up and its really the story that isnt church doctrine.
The Nehor Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 Oh, I see. Was Noah near sighted then and also without any knowledge of any lands further away than what he could see from his viewpoint?He was on the ocean for about half a year with no landmarks and you are questioning whether he might have been lost?
Rob Osborn Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 He was on the ocean for about half a year with no landmarks and you are questioning whether he might have been lost? He was shut up in the ark while the flood waters covered the entire earth.
mnn727 Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 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.There's your problem, they are not "Gods Scriptures' they are mans scriptures; written by men, copied by men, interpreted by men many times.They are not divine, God doesn't protect them or make them say exactly what he wants - that's not an LDS belief 1
The Nehor Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 Sounds to me like you are making this stuff up and its really the story that isnt church doctrine.I am making it up. You are asking me for details we have no facts for and throwing out hypotheticals for me to answer. Were you expecting me to relay the exact stuff that happened back then by asking the angel in my living room? I can't. He is watching Dr. who and he hates it when I interrupt. 2
Rob Osborn Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 I am making it up. You are asking me for details we have no facts for and throwing out hypotheticals for me to answer. Were you expecting me to relay the exact stuff that happened back then by asking the angel in my living room? I can't. He is watching Dr. who and he hates it when I interrupt. But yet you accuse me of not relaying what actually is church doctrine. I have stated over and over again the fact that the church doctrine on the matter is that the flood waters covered the entire earth. You said it wasnt true so I am left with nothing other than to assume you think your own ideas must be church doctrine. I dont care that you share your ideas about the flood and relay to me and others that it is your opinion and not the churches official position. But when you insist over and over that the official church doctrine is something different than what it actually is then there is either ignorance involved or there is some serious lying involved.
Rob Osborn Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 There's your problem, they are not "Gods Scriptures' they are mans scriptures; written by men, copied by men, interpreted by men many times. They are not divine, God doesn't protect them or make them say exactly what he wants - that's not an LDS belief The scriptures contain Gods dealings with men. The church basing its beliefs on divine revelation, holds certain evidences within the scriptures to be the truth. Take it for what it really is, its not my interpretation versus you guys, its the churches official position versus what your opinions are.
The Nehor Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 But yet you accuse me of not relaying what actually is church doctrine. I have stated over and over again the fact that the church doctrine on the matter is that the flood waters covered the entire earth. You said it wasnt true so I am left with nothing other than to assume you think your own ideas must be church doctrine.I dont care that you share your ideas about the flood and relay to me and others that it is your opinion and not the churches official position. But when you insist over and over that the official church doctrine is something different than what it actually is then there is either ignorance involved or there is some serious lying involved.I do not accuse you of not relaying church doctrine. The church has not to my knowledge taken a stance on the issue. I am not claiming to speak for the church. I have no problem with people believing in a global flood. I do think it is dangerous for them to insist they are right and everyone else is wrong.Most of the time when I bug you about this topic it is because you use pseudoscience to back it. I consider that to be spiritually toxic.
Rob Osborn Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 I do not accuse you of not relaying church doctrine. The church has not to my knowledge taken a stance on the issue. I am not claiming to speak for the church. I have no problem with people believing in a global flood. I do think it is dangerous for them to insist they are right and everyone else is wrong. Most of the time when I bug you about this topic it is because you use pseudoscience to back it. I consider that to be spiritually toxic. What part of this official doctrine do you not get- " During Noah’s time the earth was completely covered with water. This was the baptism of the earth and symbolized a cleansing"
The Nehor Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 What part of this official doctrine do you not get-" During Noah’s time the earth was completely covered with water. This was the baptism of the earth and symbolized a cleansing"The first part.
Rob Osborn Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 The first part. Is it that you aknowledge that this is official church doctrine but that you do not accept it as church doctrine? Or is it that you do not understand how words like "earth" are used here? Or is it something else?
The Nehor Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 Is it that you aknowledge that this is official church doctrine but that you do not accept it as church doctrine? Or is it that you do not understand how words like "earth" are used here? Or is it something else?It is more that I do not take that statement as official church doctrine."The first part" bit was in no way facetious.
Calm Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 Sure you can; you just put enough pressure on the neck and force the head down.And wait long enough...
Rob Osborn Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 It is more that I do not take that statement as official church doctrine. "The first part" bit was in no way facetious. So, if the statement just said the latter part would you then believe it to be church doctrine? Sounds to me like its something you dont believe in and thus because you dont personally believe it you then just say it cant be official church doctrine.
The Nehor Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 So, if the statement just said the latter part would you then believe it to be church doctrine?I take it we are unfamiliar with sarcasm?Sounds to me like its something you dont believe in and thus because you dont personally believe it you then just say it cant be official church doctrine.No, I just do not believe it is "official church doctrine", a nebulous concept I really don't believe exists in any case. 1
Rob Osborn Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 I take it we are unfamiliar with sarcasm? No, I just do not believe it is "official church doctrine", a nebulous concept I really don't believe exists in any case. You think it was a mistake that it was worded in that manner? How come it hasnt received a correction then? What do you think about a person who asks what the official church doctrine is on the matter and so they choose to open the official "Guide to the Scriptures" and read that in answer? At what point does something meet your requirements for it to be "official doctrine"?
Rob Osborn Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 I find it of interest that here we have a classic case of cherry picking according to ones own opinion. Church doctrine concerning the flood has never changed. Opinions about how the flood occurred have always risen, even by apostles of God, but the doctrine of it covering the entire earth has never changed regardless of how it happened.
The Nehor Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 At what point does something meet your requirements for it to be "official doctrine"?Never.Now there are some teaching I would say one must accept to be a member in good standing. A good guide would be what the brethren are talking about. Do you hear a lot of them focused on a global flood? Neither do I.Others come int the recommend questions and other things of that nature.
Recommended Posts