A Better Worldwide Flood Theory (New Theory)

[MormonFreeThinker]

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.

 

See so I didn't take Elder Witsoe out of context. "A fraction on an inch" and "twenty-six feet" are not an ocean.

That was my point. No ocean that created continents and mountains. Thank you. 

Edited May 12, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[MormonFreeThinker]

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.

 

Interesting 

[frank_jessop]

See so I didn't take Elder Witsoe out of context. "A fraction on an inch" and "twenty-six feet" are not an ocean.

That was my point. No ocean that created continents and mountains. Thank you. 

Yes, you did use Widtsoe out of context and I say you continue to do so.

Tell, have you read the article in which Widtsoe makes the statement? I say "No you have not". If you had, you wouldn't be misusing Widtsoe to make your claim. It is clear, you do not know the context of the quote you use. Widstoe was addressing whether or not the water completely covered mountains. Widtsoe says "Yes" the mountains were completely UNDER WATER/IMMERSED, as was the entire globe. Widtsoe says that at any particular point the depth of the water is immaterial, the essential point being the entire earth was completely immersed.

Though I understand you seem to reject the immersion, symbolism of baptism position.

Edited May 12, 2014 by frank_jessop

[MormonFreeThinker]

Tell, have you read the article in which Widtsoe makes the statement? I say "No you have not". If you had, you wouldn't be misusing Widtsoe to make your claim. It is clear, you do not know the context of the quote you use. Widstoe was addressing whether or not the water completely covered mountains. Widtsoe says "Yes" the mountains were completely UNDER WATER/IMMERSED, as was the entire globe. Widtsoe says that at any particular point the depth of the water is immaterial, the essential point being the entire earth was completely immersed.

Though I understand you seem to reject the immersion, symbolism of baptism position.

 

Elder Widtsoe

 

"The suggestion has been made that the flood filled every hollow and valley until the earth was a great sphere of water covering the highest mountain peaks twenty-six feet deep, Mount Ararat, seventeen thousand feet high, "upon the mountains" of which the ark rested, would according to this view have been completely under water. It is doubtful whether the water in the sky and all the oceans would suffice to cover the earth so completely.

 

Another suggestion is that the earth at that time was so flat that a depth of water of twenty-six feet would cover the highest hill. There is no existing evidence of this supposition; and Mount Ararat did exist then according to the record.

 

It has also been suggested that a blanket of water twenty-six feet thick lay up and down the sides of every hill, mountain, and valley. This would seem to be in defiance of the law of gravity, though under a long-continued, furious rainfall such a layer, not too thick, might roll down every slope.

 

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. We should remember that when inspired writers deal with historical incidents they relate that which they have seen or that which may have been told them, unless indeed the past is opened to them by revelation"

 

What is the symbolism of Noah and the flood?

God uses symbols to teach gospel truths. In the New Testament, Peter explained that the flood was a “like figure” or symbol of baptism (1 Peter 3:20–21). Just as the earth was immersed in water, so we must be baptized by water and by the Spirit before we can enter the celestial kingdom. Also, Noah himself was a symbol of Christ. It was necessary for any living creature who wished to be saved to come “unto Noah into the ark” (Genesis 7:9, 15).

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

[mnn727]

Just a question for Rob and others that believe in a worldwide flood completely covering the earth to the depth greater than the highest mountain, killing everything that was not in the ark.

 

1. After the water receded  where did the fresh olive branch come from?(the one the dove brought back)

Have you ever grown an olive tree from seed? Do you know how long it takes to get to the point of having a branch? Have you ever seen what happens to vegetation when water covers it for over a year? (we have a few man made lakes in my part of the south, the vegetation all dies including tree's)

 

2. Do you also believe man was created from dust?

Edited May 13, 2014 by mnn727

[DJBrown]

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.

 

Somebody quoted Ether 13.  Does it provide an interesting corroborating statement on the flood?

 

"For behold, they rejected all the words of Ether; for he truly told them of all things, from the beginning of man; and that after the waters had receded from off the face of this land it became a choice land above all other lands, a chosen land of the Lord; wherefore the Lord would have that all men should serve him who dwell upon the face thereof"  Ether 13:2

 

This is Moroni explaining the teachings of Ether, a prophet among the Jaredites who originated in Mesopotamia (probably).  But clearly, the land upon which the Jaredites and Nephites lived was believed to have been covered in the flood.

 

Does this have weight in this discussion?

[thesometimesaint]

Somebody quoted Ether 13.  Does it provide an interesting corroborating statement on the flood?

 

"For behold, they rejected all the words of Ether; for he truly told them of all things, from the beginning of man; and that after the waters had receded from off the face of this land it became a choice land above all other lands, a chosen land of the Lord; wherefore the Lord would have that all men should serve him who dwell upon the face thereof"  Ether 13:2

 

This is Moroni explaining the teachings of Ether, a prophet among the Jaredites who originated in Mesopotamia (probably).  But clearly, the land upon which the Jaredites and Nephites lived was believed to have been covered in the flood.

 

Does this have weight in this discussion?

 

Lots depends on what he meant by lands.

[DJBrown]

Lots depends on what he meant by lands.

 

It seems the prophet Ether clearly believed and taught that "this land" had once been under water and that it became a choice land after those waters receded.  It almost doesn't matter what he meant by "other lands."  

[thesometimesaint]

It seems the prophet Ether clearly believed and taught that "this land" had once been under water and that it became a choice land after those waters receded.  It almost doesn't matter what he meant by "other lands."  

 

Scripturally "Land" is indefinite. Abraham talks about the land of his fathers. Alma talks about the land of Jerusalem. Luke talks about the whole world to be taxed by Caesar Augustus.  I think we do error when we get overly broad in the use of the word land.

[DJBrown]

Scripturally "Land" is indefinite. Abraham talks about the land of his fathers. Alma talks about the land of Jerusalem. Luke talks about the whole world to be taxed by Caesar Augustus.  I think we do error when we get overly broad in the use of the word land.

 

Yes.  But Ether spoke of "this land," being the land that he was then standing on and upon which the Jaredites lived.  Unless you believe Ether lived some place other than the Americas or that he was referring to some other land, the BOM text certainly seems to claim that the Americas were once under water and that the water receded at some point.  And there is no reason given in the text to think that Ether did not mean the land of the Jaredites.

[DJBrown]

Yes.  But Ether spoke of "this land," being the land that he was then standing on and upon which the Jaredites lived.  Unless you believe Ether lived some place other than the Americas or that he was referring to some other land, the BOM text certainly seems to claim that the Americas were once under water and that the water receded at some point.  And there is no reason given in the text to think that Ether did not mean the land of the Jaredites.

 

I will qualify this by saying that the land to which Ether spoke was at least the land on which he stood and which the Jaredite civilization existed.  It does not require that the whole hemisphere was under water.  But whatever land which Ether spoke of, it was under water at some point.

[thesometimesaint]

Yes.  But Ether spoke of "this land," being the land that he was then standing on and upon which the Jaredites lived.  Unless you believe Ether lived some place other than the Americas or that he was referring to some other land, the BOM text certainly seems to claim that the Americas were once under water and that the water receded at some point.  And there is no reason given in the text to think that Ether did not mean the land of the Jaredites.

 

The entirety of the Americas has never been underwater at least for the last 10,000 years. But I am fine with the relatively tiny area that Ether stood on.

[MormonFreeThinker]

It seems the prophet Ether clearly believed and taught that "this land" had once been under water and that it became a choice land after those waters receded.  It almost doesn't matter what he meant by "other lands."  

 

Science agrees

[Rob Osborn]

Just a question for Rob and others that believe in a worldwide flood completely covering the earth to the depth greater than the highest mountain, killing everything that was not in the ark.

 

1. After the water receded  where did the fresh olive branch come from?(the one the dove brought back)

Have you ever grown an olive tree from seed? Do you know how long it takes to get to the point of having a branch? Have you ever seen what happens to vegetation when water covers it for over a year? (we have a few man made lakes in my part of the south, the vegetation all dies including tree's)

 

2. Do you also believe man was created from dust?

To clarify, it wasn't an olive branch but actually an olive leaf. Olive seeds germinate and can create leafs within 4-8 weeks. So your argument doesn't hold up on that count.

11 And the dove came in to him in the evening; and, lo, in her mouth was an olive leaf plucked off: so Noah knew that the waters were abated from off the earth. (Gen. 8:11)

Man was created from the dust of the earth the same way as you and I are also created from the dust of the earth.

[Rob Osborn]

The entirety of the Americas has never been underwater at least for the last 10,000 years. But I am fine with the relatively tiny area that Ether stood on.

Opinions, opinions, opinions.

[MormonFreeThinker]

Listen to  0:33

Edited May 14, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[MormonFreeThinker]

Opinions, opinions, opinions.

Listen to  0:33

 

[Rob Osborn]

Listen to  0:33

 

And?

[thesometimesaint]

Opinions, opinions, opinions.

 

Everyone has one. Mine is supported by science. You Biboliters has a horrendous record of burning people at the stake for daring to disagree with you.

 

BTW We closer to ancient sea water than dust.

[thesometimesaint]

And?

 

So? Million of years is long before any proposed Garden of Eden, and even man himself.

[Rob Osborn]

Everyone has one. Mine is supported by science. You Biboliters has a horrendous record of burning people at the stake for daring to disagree with you.

 

BTW We closer to ancient sea water than dust.

More opinions I see. My views are also supported by science, just not your godless science.

[ERayR]

Everyone has one. Mine is supported by science. You Biboliters has a horrendous record of burning people at the stake for daring to disagree with you.

 

BTW We closer to ancient sea water than dust.

 

I would think science and scientist would duck there heads and hope nobody remembered who brought the atomic bomb and the wonderful technological toys designed to break things and kill people but go ahead and worship at whatever alter you choose.

 

I have heard that too much sea water intake can cause delirium.

Edited May 14, 2014 by ERayR

[Rob Osborn]

So? Million of years is long before any proposed Garden of Eden, and even man himself.

So, we have some unsubstantiated claim of "millions of years" and you take it as truth? Opinions I say, opinions. We have no way to validate dating methods that do not coincide with historical accounts.

[MormonFreeThinker]

More opinions I see. My views are also supported by science, just not your godless science.

 

There is no godless science, many scientists that reject the global flood are Christian.

If the Global Flood theory didn't have serious problems, atheists would still reject it, but not the Christian scientists.

 

The fact that almost all legit scientists that belong to one of the Abrahamic religions, don't believe in a Global Flood.

That is a good reason to douth the Great Global Flood. 

Edited May 14, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[ERayR]

There is no godless science, many scientists that reject the global flood are Christian.

If the Global Flood theory didn't have serious problems, atheists would still reject it, but not the Christian scientist.

 

The fact that almost all legit scientists that belong to one of the Abrahamic religions, don't believe in a Global Flood.

That is a good reason to douth the Great Global Flood. 

 

You better get with tss.  He proclaims that science can not consider God as having a hand in the creation.  That sounds godless to me.