A Better Worldwide Flood Theory (New Theory)

[Tacenda]

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.

It doesn't make God a liar, it makes man a liar, that's been going on for eons. Man doesn't want the world to go to hell in a hand basket and will do anything possible to keep people from sin or the thought that there isn't a higher power, trouble is, people can know that without the faith promoting stories. In the long run, all they do is kill any faith they might have when they find truth. And the truth is they can get it themselves without man lying to them. It's through the spirit, education, visual, science, you name it. All my opinion of course. And I'll add that It's about time man get out of the way, they cause more trouble and more evil and harm in the name of God, and that's how they take the name of God in vain. Edited May 12, 2014 by Tacenda

[Tacenda]

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.

Rob, I believe you're right, it being church doctrine, we went over it in Primary class this year. I just think they don't want to contradict the bible, then you have possibly a bigger problem, on something so basic.

[Tacenda]

The scriptures are not clear, they do not tell us if the Flood was Global or Local.

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].

"there are many places where the scriptures are not too clear, and where different interpretations may be given to them; there are many doctrines, tenets as the Lord called them, that have not been officially defined and declared."J. Reuben Clark, “When Are the Writings or Sermons of Church Leaders Entitled to the Claim of Scripture,” address given to seminary and institute teachers at BYU, 7 July 1954, published in Church News (31 July 1954): 9–10

Official church declaration please, like I explained in the Mormon Doctrine topic.

Where is a prophet when you need one? And I'm dead serious, or contradicting my post about man getting in the way, but a prophet is not usually a mere man if he speaks with God and has that sure conduit. In this time of increased Athiesm will the one true church show the way, lead and not be the caboose? Or will the one true church, please stand up? Oh, right, then we wouldn't need faith. Edited May 12, 2014 by Tacenda

[Rob Osborn]

The scriptures are not clear, they do not tell us if the Flood was Global or Local. 

 

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].

 

"there are many places where the scriptures are not too clear, and where different interpretations may be given to them; there are many doctrines, tenets as the Lord called them, that have not been officially defined and declared."J. Reuben Clark, “When Are the Writings or Sermons of Church Leaders Entitled to the Claim of Scripture,” address given to seminary and institute teachers at BYU, 7 July 1954, published in Church News (31 July 1954): 9–10

 

Official church declaration please, like I explained in the Mormon Doctrine topic.

Read the bible, thats my official church declaration. It says the whole earth was covered in water. Various church manuals and the Guide to the Scriptures all testify that it was global.

[mnn727]

Does "the Church" teach a worldwide flood? Yes, it does.

However as I said way back on page one "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."

 

I doubt you'll find many current leaders talking about a global flood in G.C.

This Church would survive just fine without some of the unrealistic stories from the O.T. being taught as fact.

[thesometimesaint]

Read the bible, thats my official church declaration. It says the whole earth was covered in water. Various church manuals and the Guide to the Scriptures all testify that it was global.

 

You really don't want to go there do you?

[The Nehor]

Read the bible, thats my official church declaration. It says the whole earth was covered in water. Various church manuals and the Guide to the Scriptures all testify that it was global.

CFR that that passage was translated correctly.

[thesometimesaint]

CFR that that passage was translated correctly.

 

My thoughts exactly.

[Rob Osborn]

CFR that that passage was translated correctly.

So, if it isnt what you want it to be it must be translated incorrectly? So then you admit that the scriptures do not agree with your beliefs. Now we are cooking with peanut oil!

[Rob Osborn]

You really don't want to go there do you?

Read the scriptures would ya

[Tacenda]

So, if it isnt what you want it to be it must be translated incorrectly? So then you admit that the scriptures do not agree with your beliefs. Now we are cooking with peanut oil!

That's how it works in the church. 

[thesometimesaint]

Read the scriptures would ya

 

I read them every day.

 

Here is one you need to read and understand.

Articles of Faith #8  We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

[frank_jessop]

I don't easily accept theories that contradict everything known in science, there are a lot of evidences against a great global flood.

Not relevant.

The FACT is that Widtsoe taught a global flood. (Had you relied sought out his own words, rather than misapplication of his statements, you would have realized this.)

[rameumptom]

Read the Bible. It states that the earth is flat, with 4 corners. Heaven is above it and Sheol beneath.

 

Joseph Smith taught that Noah built his ark in what is now South Carolina.  Much of the "Flood" could have been Noah floating on the ocean currents for months, with localized flooding in two places.

 

The current flood story comes down to us, not directly from Moses, but other sources in King Solomon's day or later, who wrote down the oral versions they heard in their own times.  Later, the two or three Flood stories were combined/redacted, so we have 40 days/many months, animals coming 2 by 2 and also by sevens, Noah letting out both a raven and a dove.  Clearly these oral stories, which supported each writer's political beliefs (clean/unclean animals) in regards to the number of animals brought in and the birds released, demonstrate that other issues may have been misconstrued in developing the concept of an actual (versus symbolic) global flood).

 

Here's a theory: When Elder John Widtsoe says the earth was completely immersed, but the depth is immaterial, could that mean that there was a big rain passing over the earth that lasted a few days, and each rain drop touching the ground "immersed" it sufficiently to be considered baptized?  Some areas may have actually flooded, but most areas just received a good soaking.

 

Also, he was using the best science he had in his day.  With modern science, he may have given a different story. He may have been like President Eyring's father. Henry Eyring, the renowned scientist, believed in evolution, and would probably have questioned a global flood, given the scientific evidence.  He believed that God reveals things to mankind in two ways: through prophetic revelation and through science.  In a perfect world, the two will perfectly match, however he felt we should consider modern science in understanding the Biblical teachings of people that had no clue what science was.

 

IOW, we need to use caution in how we read things into such a text.  The Bible has some history and it has some events interpreted by ancient people into the stories we have today.

Edited May 12, 2014 by rameumptom

[Rob Osborn]

I read them every day.

 

Here is one you need to read and understand.

Articles of Faith #8  We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

So, do you think the inspired book of Moses is translated correctly? It speaks of the global deluge there. Just admit that the church doctrine believes the flood was global and lets move on. You can choose to disagree with church doctrine but at least admit it.

[thesometimesaint]

Not relevant.

The FACT is that Widtsoe taught a global flood. (Had you relied sought out his own words, rather than misapplication of his statements, you would have realized this.)

 

The FACT that Widtsoe did teach it, is not an argument for the claim of a Global Flood. We don't believe in the infallibility of any mortal man.

[The Nehor]

So, if it isnt what you want it to be it must be translated incorrectly? So then you admit that the scriptures do not agree with your beliefs. Now we are cooking with peanut oil!

That is quite a mind-reading radical interpretation of the text.

I think you are cooking with rancid ammonia.

[The Nehor]

So, do you think the inspired book of Moses is translated correctly? It speaks of the global deluge there. Just admit that the church doctrine believes the flood was global and lets move on. You can choose to disagree with church doctrine but at least admit it.

No. Wrong.

[mnn727]

I don't easily accept theories that contradict everything known in science, there are a lot of evidences against a great global flood. 

 

The nice thing is that there is no "Please check your brain at the door" sign on the chapel doors.

 

If someone says something that goes against all known scientific principles (like a global flood), I usually smile and make a mental note of who said it so I can stay out of deep theological discussions with that person in the future.

[Rob Osborn]

Read the Bible. It states that the earth is flat, with 4 corners. Heaven is above it and Sheol beneath.

 

Joseph Smith taught that Noah built his ark in what is now South Carolina.  Much of the "Flood" could have been Noah floating on the ocean currents for months, with localized flooding in two places.

 

The current flood story comes down to us, not directly from Moses, but other sources in King Solomon's day or later, who wrote down the oral versions they heard in their own times.  Later, the two or three Flood stories were combined/redacted, so we have 40 days/many months, animals coming 2 by 2 and also by sevens, Noah letting out both a raven and a dove.  Clearly these oral stories, which supported each writer's political beliefs (clean/unclean animals) in regards to the number of animals brought in and the birds released, demonstrate that other issues may have been misconstrued in developing the concept of an actual (versus symbolic) global flood).

 

Here's a theory: When Elder John Widtsoe says the earth was completely immersed, but the depth is immaterial, could that mean that there was a big rain passing over the earth that lasted a few days, and each rain drop touching the ground "immersed" it sufficiently to be considered baptized?  Some areas may have actually flooded, but most areas just received a good soaking.

 

Also, he was using the best science he had in his day.  With modern science, he may have given a different story. He may have been like President Eyring's father. Henry Eyring, the renowned scientist, believed in evolution, and would probably have questioned a global flood, given the scientific evidence.  He believed that God reveals things to mankind in two ways: through prophetic revelation and through science.  In a perfect world, the two will perfectly match, however he felt we should consider modern science in understanding the Biblical teachings of people that had no clue what science was.

 

IOW, we need to use caution in how we read things into such a text.  The Bible has some history and it has some events interpreted by ancient people into the stories we have today.

And then you have the inspired book of Moses written by revelation in latter day. Just so happens that the book of Moses adds further clarification to the global deluge. So now what?

[Rob Osborn]

No. Wrong.

Could I get a CFR?

[The Nehor]

And then you have the inspired book of Moses written by revelation in latter day. Just so happens that the book of Moses adds further clarification to the global deluge. So now what?

Well, we peruse it and see that God said he would send floods.....more then one upon the earth. If it was global why would there be more then one. Now we're cooking with lighter fluid.

[The Nehor]

Could I get a CFR?

"Of course you may not."

-Comic Book Guy

[Rob Osborn]

Well, we peruse it and see that God said he would send floods.....more then one upon the earth. If it was global why would there be more then one. Now we're cooking with lighter fluid.

And round and round we go...

If it was just local floods then God has broken his promise thousands of times since then-

50 And it came to pass that Enoch continued his cry unto the Lord, saying: I ask thee, O Lord, in the name of thine Only Begotten, even Jesus Christ, that thou wilt have mercy upon Noah and his seed, that the earth might never more be covered by the floods.

51 And the Lord could not withhold; and he covenanted with Enoch, and sware unto him with an oath, that he would stay the floods; that he would call upon the children of Noah;

52 And he sent forth an unalterable decree, that a remnant of his seed should always be found among all nations, while the earth should stand; (Moses 7:50-52)

[thesometimesaint]

So, do you think the inspired book of Moses is translated correctly? It speaks of the global deluge there. Just admit that the church doctrine believes the flood was global and lets move on. You can choose to disagree with church doctrine but at least admit it.

 

We don't believe in the infallibility of any mortal production.

SEE Articles of Faith #8 We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

 

We're not Bibolulterers either.

SEE http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scientific_errors_in_the_Bible