A Better Worldwide Flood Theory (New Theory)

[The Nehor]

Whats there to interpret? Verse 2-3 lay out exactly the reason why Methuselah wasnt taken up to Enoch in the heavens so that from his loins could come Noah from the which would spring all the nations of the earth after the flood. Its that simple.

Then why would it be found amongst the nations until the end of the world. You're cherry picking. Cafeteria Mormons go to hell.

[thesometimesaint]

Is that your belief- that it was? Or do you just like to use atheist attacks on the bible constantly?

 

Don't be obtuse. Those claims are in the Bible, open to believers and nonbelievers alike.  Was Joseph Smith Jr. attacking the Bible in the First Vision or just interpretations of it?

 

BTW; Some 40% of all American scientists are Theists.

[The Nehor]

Then you do so entirely with the church and not just me. You disrespectfully disagree with the church doctrine. Okay, we both agree with that, lets move on.

No, I only disagree with you.

It appears you are arguing for the sake of arguing and not coming to grips with the plain language of the scriptures provided by Rob Osborn.

Me? Argue for the sake of arguing? My honor has been impugned. I challenge you to a duel and demand satisfaction.

[Rob Osborn]

http://www.byui.edu/Documents/instructional_development/Perspective/V4n2/v4n2_ott_s.pdf

We both agree that the 1909 statement is the current official position of the church regarding the evolution of man. Here is what the BYU evolution packet admits to about the 1909 statement, read it carefully- " ddressing the suggestion that “the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation,” the First Presidency responds that “[t]hese, however, are the theories of men.” Although comments about the evolution of life on earth are absent in this 909 statement, these sentences clarify the position of the First Presidency that mankind is not a result of evolution from simpler or less intelligent life."

[Rob Osborn]

Then why would it be found amongst the nations until the end of the world. You're cherry picking. Cafeteria Mormons go to hell.

Because the lineage comes from Enoch to Methuselah and from him to Noah. All mankind on the earth are a witness to this promise- all of us can trace direct lineage back to Noah himself and from him to Methuselah and from him to Enoch.

[longview]

No, I only disagree with you.

Me? Argue for the sake of arguing? My honor has been impugned. I challenge you to a duel and demand satisfaction.

When you are this combative, you simply can't think straight.

[thesometimesaint]

We both agree that the 1909 statement is the current official position of the church regarding the evolution of man. Here is what the BYU evolution packet admits to about the 1909 statement, read it carefully- " ddressing the suggestion that “the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation,” the First Presidency responds that “[t]hese, however, are the theories of men.” Although comments about the evolution of life on earth are absent in this 909 statement, these sentences clarify the position of the First Presidency that mankind is not a result of evolution from simpler or less intelligent life."

 

Read for comprehension this  time .

 

With assistance from D Robert L. Millet, Dean of the College of Religion at

BYU, Evenson submitted a collection of statements to the administration. The BYU

President’s Council approved this collection, and it was submitted to the BYU

Board of Trustees, which consists of the First Presidency, members

of the Council of the Twelve Apostles, and other Church leaders. The

Board approved the packet and attached a cover letter to the collection.

 

Elder Talmage emphasized this principle of properly interpreting

scripture with this paragraph from his Tabernacle address:

Let us not try to wrest the scriptures in an attempt to explain away what we

cannot explain. The opening chapters of Genesis, and scriptures related thereto,

were never intended as a text-book of geology, archaeology, Earth-science or

man-science.... We do not show reverence for the scriptures when we misapply

them through faulty interpretation. (Talmage, 1931)

Edited May 12, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[Rob Osborn]

Don't be obtuse. Those claims are in the Bible, open to believers and nonbelievers alike.  Was Joseph Smith Jr. attacking the Bible in the First Vision or just interpretations of it?

 

BTW; Some 40% of all American scientists are Theists.

So why do you endlessly use atheist attcks on a bible you yourself are supposed to believe in?

[The Nehor]

When you are this combative, you simply can't think straight.

So you are dishonoring yourself by not accepting the duel? Has honor truly fallen so far?

Also, how much longer do I have to continue this charade in order to drive Rob insane? Anyone want to start a pool?

[Rob Osborn]

Read for comprehension this  time .

 

Elder Talmage emphasized this principle of properly interpreting

scripture with this paragraph from his Tabernacle address:

Let us not try to wrest the scriptures in an attempt to explain away what we

cannot explain. The opening chapters of Genesis, and scriptures related thereto,

were never intended as a text-book of geology, archaeology, Earth-science or

man-science.... We do not show reverence for the scriptures when we misapply

them through faulty interpretation. (Talmage, 1931)

Is this official doctrine?

[The Nehor]

Because the lineage comes from Enoch to Methuselah and from him to Noah. All mankind on the earth are a witness to this promise- all of us can trace direct lineage back to Noah himself and from him to Methuselah and from him to Enoch.

I am about 70% other flood survivors.

[Rob Osborn]

So you are dishonoring yourself by not accepting the duel? Has honor truly fallen so far?

Also, how much longer do I have to continue this charade in order to drive Rob insane? Anyone want to start a pool?

I am already insane so it isnt going to work. My bet is that I will outlive you.

[Rob Osborn]

I am about 70% other flood survivors.

Church official doctrine is that all mankind on this earth an trace direct lineage back to Noah. It is official church doctrine that only 8 souls on the entire earth were saved from the flood and that from these 8 souls sprang every nation of the earth which are now on the earth.

[The Nehor]

I am already insane so it isnt going to work. My bet is that I will outlive you.

Only the good die young.

[The Nehor]

Church official doctrine is that all mankind on this earth an trace direct lineage back to Noah. It is official church doctrine that only 8 souls on the entire earth were saved from the flood and that from these 8 souls sprang every nation of the earth which are now on the earth.

CFR

[longview]

I am about 70% other flood survivors.

70% of Shem, Ham, or Japheth?  I am really getting embarrassed for your sake.

[The Nehor]

70% of Shem, Ham, or Japheth?  I am really getting embarrassed for your sake.

Well, that is very sweet and smugly condescending.

[frank_jessop]

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.

Not relevant to misuse of Widtsoe's "assumption" quote.

[thesometimesaint]

Is this official doctrine?

 

Yes.

[thesometimesaint]

Not relevant to misuse of Widtsoe's "assumption" quote.

 

Brigham Young taught Adam is God. That men live on the sun. That adobe bricks turns harder than granite.

 

The fact that something is taught is not an argument for that claim.

[halconero]

Rob, what would say to the ambiguity of the word "erets" used in the Noah account also being used to indicate small locales, countries, and lands?

[Rob Osborn]

Yes.

Cherry picking. So, if that is official, then even moreso is the doctrine that the flood was global.

[frank_jessop]

Brigham Young taught Adam is God. That men live on the sun. That adobe bricks turns harder than granite.

The fact that something is taught is not an argument for that claim.

Again, not relevant.

MormonFreeThinker has misused a statement from Widtsoe. What the Church teaches is not relevant to the fact that MormonFreethinker, used a quote completely out of context and then misapplied the quote.

[MormonFreeThinker]

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.)

 

Elder Widtsoe said "the fact remains that the exact nature of the flood is not known" for a reason

Yes, he believed that water covered the whole planet, but I don't think he believed in a Flood that created a great ocean that formed mountains and continents, and killed all animal life. 

 

Notice that Elder Widtsoe said, "it does not matter how far under the water he is brought, nor whether every part of him is at the same depth"

 

Perhaps his theorized about an unknown liquid water that caused a strange water run off that covered the Earth without creating an ocean everywhere.

The videos are just examples.

 

 

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.

 

Something like that. 

 

The Flood was probably just a symbol of baptism. 

https://www.lds.org/topics/noah?lang=eng

 

Edited May 12, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[frank_jessop]

Widtsoe:

Though the whole of the earth was covered with water, the depth was immaterial.

So with the story of the flood. All parts of the earth were under water at the same time. In some places the layer of water might have been twenty-six feet deep or more; in others, as on sloping hillsides, it might have been only a fraction of an inch in depth. That the whole earth, however, was under water at the same time was easily possible under a terrific, long-continued downpour, such as is described ii, Genesis. The depth of the layer of water is of no consequence.