Noah's Flood And "mental Gymanstics" - Local Flooders Wanted!

[cinepro]

In the ongoing discussion of Widstoe's theory regarding the scope of Noah's Flood (he believed it was global), the comment was made that a belief in a global flood requires some sort of "mental gymnastics".  This implies that some degree of illogical or excessively creative thinking is required to maintain a belief in a global flood. 

 

The implication was that a belief in a local flood (i.e. Noah's flood being limited to a specific region of the planet, and not covering the whole globe) does not require "mental gymnastics".  I'm not so sure.

 

So this thread is devoted solely and specifically to those who believe that Noah's flood as recorded in the Bible was a real, historical event, but that it only covered a specific region of the planet.

 

If you believe the flood was "global", please stay out of this thread (sorry, but that means you Rob Osborn).  If you believe the story is purely allegorical, please enjoy the discussion as a spectator.

 

But if you believe the flood as recorded in Genesis 6-8 was accurately reported but local in scope, please explain your answers to the two following questions:

 

In Genesis chapter 6, we read the following about Noah and the animals:

 

 

 

6:19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.

 6: 20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.

 

Then in chapter 7:

 

 

 

 14 They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort.

 15 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life.

 16 And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God had commanded him: and the Lord shut him in.

 

Question 1: If the flood were "local" or regional, why did Noah need to bring non-food animals into the ark?

 

Later, at the end of the story, we learn the following in Genesis 8:

 

 

 

4 And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat.

 

Also, keep in mind that depending on the exact measure of a "cubit", the dimensions in Genesis 6:15 give an ark that is 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high.

 

Question 2: If the flood were "local" or regional, where did the ark end up after the flood, and how did it get there?  Please explain the hydrologic actions needed in a local flood to float such a vessel, presumably, "upwards" into the mountains, instead of downwards towards a valley or the ocean.

 

Looking forward to some mental-gymnastics free answers!

Edited June 9, 2014 by cinepro

[mnn727]

I am the one that said it takes mental gymnastics to believe much of the O.T. and tie it to the New Testament and weave it into our religious beliefs.

I need to first state before I answer your question that I do not believe the Bible or the BoM is 100% true/historical/scientific. I do believe that the writers did the best they could with what they knew at the time, but what appears as a world wide flood to someone 5-6000 years ago or so, long before satellites and weathermen could very well be a large but localized flood.

 

Now onto your questions:

1. Why not? the local flora and fauna were going to be disrupted so it would be logical for him to gather local animals. To think he carried animals from all over the world; kangaroos, mongoose, platypuses, elephants, giraffes, etc is far fetched. If he started from either the middle east or even the Americas, how did he get the kangaroo's? How did both salt water and freshwater fish survive at the same time in the same water? How did a bird find a fresh olive leaf before they even landed if the entire world was covered to a depth of 17 cubits? And where did all that water go? The Bible never said they brought seeds, how did the plants survive after being covered with water for about a year?

2. We only have one reference to where the Ark landed and it was recorded a couple thousand years after the fact. Have you ever played the game where a story is repeated from person to person and it turns out it ain't even close to the original? Noah could have very well floated around the ocean for a while and then landed on a beach somewhere, perhaps even close to a mountain. 

 

I believe something happened, too many cultures have a flood myth for something not to have happened; perhaps a large comet strike in an ocean, or an earthquake causing a giant tsunami.

Edited June 9, 2014 by mnn727

[mnn727]

Just to add to the above, I lean towards Joseph Smith's ideas that humanity started in the America's. A Comet strike near a coastal area and Noah gets washed out to sea, floats across the Ocean and lands in the middle east. A comet strike explains both the flood and the 40 days of rain.

Wouldn't be disappointed if I was wrong about them starting in the America's but it makes sense; since the vegetation was already established when Noah and family landed in the Middle East.

Edited June 9, 2014 by mnn727

[thesometimesaint]

In the ongoing discussion of Widstoe's theory regarding the scope of Noah's Flood (he believed it was global), the comment was made that a belief in a global flood requires some sort of "mental gymnastics".  This implies that some degree of illogical or excessively creative thinking is required to maintain a belief in a global flood. 

 

The implication was that a belief in a local flood (i.e. Noah's flood being limited to a specific region of the planet, and not covering the whole globe) does not require "mental gymnastics".  I'm not so sure.

 

So this thread is devoted solely and specifically to those who believe that Noah's flood as recorded in the Bible was a real, historical event, but that it only covered a specific region of the planet.

 

If you believe the flood was "global", please stay out of this thread (sorry, but that means you Rob Osborn).  If you believe the story is purely allegorical, please enjoy the discussion as a spectator.

 

But if you believe the flood as recorded in Genesis 6-8 was accurately reported but local in scope, please explain your answers to the two following questions:

 

In Genesis chapter 6, we read the following about Noah and the animals:

 

 

 

 

Then in chapter 7:

 

 

 

 

Question 1: If the flood were "local" or regional, why did Noah need to bring non-food animals into the ark?

 

Later, at the end of the story, we learn the following in Genesis 8:

 

 

 

 

Also, keep in mind that depending on the exact measure of a "cubit", the dimensions in Genesis 6:15 give an ark that is 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high.

 

Question 2: If the flood were "local" or regional, where did the ark end up after the flood, and how did it get there?  Please explain the hydrologic actions needed in a local flood to float such a vessel, presumably, "upwards" into the mountains, instead of downwards towards a valley or the ocean.

 

Looking forward to some mental-gymnastics free answers!

 

1. All life forms are food for some other life form. Breathairians not withstanding. The logistics of the capture, containment, meeting the nutritional requirements for having all those animals is mind-blowingly bizarre mental gymnastics. IE; There are over 300,000 species of beetles alone. They live in very different locales, requiring very different habitats, and foods just to survive.

 

Even a boat a hundred times bigger wouldn't be any where near big enough to hold even a small fraction of two of all the animals that have lived on this planet. Not to mention the poop that would have to be gotten rid of each day before disease killed all the rest.

 

Then what did all those animals live on after being let off onto a dead planet?

 

2. If the Scriptures are to be believed as literal. The boat landed somewhere on Mt. Ararat in what is today modern day Turkey. It is possible that a massive albeit regional flood could have raised such a sized boat. But any wooden boat suffers from leaks caused by torsional twisting. Just keeping that boat afloat would be problematic without modern bilge pump technology.

Edited June 9, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[The Nehor]

Question 1: If the flood were "local" or regional, why did Noah need to bring non-food animals into the ark?

 

Question 2: If the flood were "local" or regional, where did the ark end up after the flood, and how did it get there?

 

1. He didn't have to. Plus, if you take that at face value (no idea about the original text) he only loaded livestock, birds, and insects.

 

2. I think it ended up somewhere that was not Ararat.

 

So, I guess my cop-out answer is that the account was embellished over many years. I wish Joseph Smith had gone a bit father with his Book of Moses. Would have been interesting.

[mfbukowski]

In the ongoing discussion of Widstoe's theory regarding the scope of Noah's Flood (he believed it was global), the comment was made that a belief in a global flood requires some sort of "mental gymnastics".  This implies that some degree of illogical or excessively creative thinking is required to maintain a belief in a global flood. 

 

The implication was that a belief in a local flood (i.e. Noah's flood being limited to a specific region of the planet, and not covering the whole globe) does not require "mental gymnastics".  I'm not so sure.

 

So this thread is devoted solely and specifically to those who believe that Noah's flood as recorded in the Bible was a real, historical event, but that it only covered a specific region of the planet.

 

If you believe the flood was "global", please stay out of this thread (sorry, but that means you Rob Osborn).  If you believe the story is purely allegorical, please enjoy the discussion as a spectator.

 

But if you believe the flood as recorded in Genesis 6-8 was accurately reported but local in scope, please explain your answers to the two following questions:

 

In Genesis chapter 6, we read the following about Noah and the animals:

 

 

 

 

Then in chapter 7:

 

 

 

 

Question 1: If the flood were "local" or regional, why did Noah need to bring non-food animals into the ark?

 

Later, at the end of the story, we learn the following in Genesis 8:

 

 

 

 

Also, keep in mind that depending on the exact measure of a "cubit", the dimensions in Genesis 6:15 give an ark that is 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high.

 

Question 2: If the flood were "local" or regional, where did the ark end up after the flood, and how did it get there?  Please explain the hydrologic actions needed in a local flood to float such a vessel, presumably, "upwards" into the mountains, instead of downwards towards a valley or the ocean.

 

Looking forward to some mental-gymnastics free answers!

This is a snap.

Local flood, actually happened, Noah saved some animals, became legend and written in the bible- the important thing is the lessons it teaches.

Not allegorical- it happened. No worries about the details.

There you go. Simple.

Your questions need a lot more mental gymnastics than are required by the answer.

Edited June 9, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

1. He didn't have to. Plus, if you take that at face value (no idea about the original text) he only loaded livestock, birds, and insects.

 

2. I think it ended up somewhere that was not Ararat.

 

So, I guess my cop-out answer is that the account was embellished over many years. I wish Joseph Smith had gone a bit father with his Book of Moses. Would have been interesting.

What he said.

[Grudunza]

Grapevine/telephone thing. Noah is inspired of God to warn people of an imminent large (albeit localized) flood. He gathers his family and many of his own livestock with him into a vessel, whereby they are preserved. The story grows and becomes Hollywood-ized in the retelling... a large local flood or tsunami becomes a "worldwide flood", that he took all of his livestock with him becomes "he took two of every animal!", which as has been pointed out already is ABSURD to expect, no matter what scenario it could possibly be imagined into... but the important principles remain the same. The essence of the story is true, I believe. The tale we have recorded in the OT is the "based on a true story" version.

Edited June 9, 2014 by Grudunza

[Rob Osborn]

NOT ANOTHER FLOOD THREAD< OH MY

[MormonFreeThinker]

NOT ANOTHER FLOOD THREAD< OH MY

 

Dear Rob, the only Biologist you found and quoted said, wrote, "The fossils in the earth's sedimentary rocks are the remains of organisms that lived and died on the earth. If there were no death of any organisms until after the fall, all of these fossils must have been produced in the Noachian flood—and that is what some people during the Middle Ages believed. This idea can be found now among the young-earth creationists. This would mean that all those organisms—for example, dinosaurs and humans—were living on earth at the same time. The ordering of the strata in the earth's crust just does not fit this picture. No traces of humans have ever been found in the same strata as dinosaur bones, for example. I see large quantities of the remains of living organisms that testify to an ancient earth: coal, limestones, dolomites, and diatomaceous earth represent such remains. The diatomaceous earth, for example, consists of microscopic shells of diatoms laid down one cell at a time, a process that would require millions of years to produce the known strata thicknesses" 

Dr. Frank B. Salisbury (PhD in plant physiology and geochemistry) 

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/18/1/S00015-5176a9c5ba37115Salsibury.pdf

 

If you are not going to believe in Evolution and a local flood, at least believe in death before the Fall. 

Edited June 9, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[MormonFreeThinker]

 

Question 1: If the flood were "local" or regional, why did Noah need to bring non-food animals into the ark?

 

 

 

You can ask "why" many times when you read the scriptures

1. Why did the Isralites walk around the city of Jerico?

2. Why Laban didn't just get a heart attack? Wouldn't it have been easier for Nephi? 

3. Why did Naam have to wash himself seven times in the river? why not just one? 

 

What about the Global Flood problems?

 

Even if Nature and the laws of physics were different in the time of Noah, even if the laws of physics were broken, that still doesn't explain the fossils we find in the layers, and that totally contradicts a Global Flood, see 

 

Other problems

1. Göbekli Tepe—11,600 years old

 

2. Elder Widtsoe didn't believe the Flood covered or created mountains, he said, "Mount Ararat did exist then according to the record"

So even if you don't believe in the dating methods, how do you explain this? 

 

Edited June 9, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[Senator]

This is a snap.

Local flood, actually happened, Noah saved some animals, became legend and written in the bible- the important thing is the lessons it teaches.

Not allegorical- it happened. No worries about the details.

There you go. Simple.

Your questions need a lot more mental gymnastics than are required by the answer.

 

I agree with you that the "snap" method is a much, much easier way to handle the story.

 

But, I'm curious (given this method) why not just go with the global rendition? The end result is the same.

[thesometimesaint]

I agree with you that the "snap" method is a much, much easier way to handle the story.

 

But, I'm curious (given this method) why not just go with the global rendition? The end result is the same.

 

Not really. Theologically it is not necessary for any non-humans to be baptized. Scientifically it is impossible.

[Senator]

Not really. Theologically it is not necessary for any non-humans to be baptized. Scientifically it is impossible.

Irrelevant

[mfbukowski]

I agree with you that the "snap" method is a much, much easier way to handle the story.

 

But, I'm curious (given this method) why not just go with the global rendition? The end result is the same.

Works for me, but obviously not others.

I have no clue why not.

It could be all allegory as far as I care, it's all total speculation anyway.

[thesometimesaint]

But, I'm curious (given this method) why not just go with the global rendition? The end result is the same.

 

I posted two good reasons.

[Senator]

I posted two good reasons.

Good for you!

 

Literally

[mfbukowski]

1. All life forms are food for some other life form. Breathairians not withstanding. The logistics of the capture, containment, meeting the nutritional requirements for having all those animals is mind-blowingly bizarre mental gymnastics. IE; There are over 300,000 species of beetles alone. They live in very different locales, requiring very different habitats, and foods just to survive.

 

Even a boat a hundred times bigger wouldn't be any where near big enough to hold even a small fraction of two of all the animals that have lived on this planet. Not to mention the poop that would have to be gotten rid of each day before disease killed all the rest.

 

Then what did all those animals live on after being let off onto a dead planet?

 

2. If the Scriptures are to be believed as literal. The boat landed somewhere on Mt. Ararat in what is today modern day Turkey. It is possible that a massive albeit regional flood could have raised such a sized boat. But any wooden boat suffers from leaks caused by torsional twisting. Just keeping that boat afloat would be problematic without modern bilge pump technology.

I like your first point. If you accept 1, you don't need 2.

[thesometimesaint]

I like your first point. If you accept 1, you don't need 2.

 

True.

[mnn727]

Irrelevant

Not at all, that is the reason many give (that the Earth had to be baptized). Why do you think refuting an answer given by many to be irrelevant?

[Senator]

Not at all, that is the reason many give (that the Earth had to be baptized). Why do you think refuting an answer given by many to be irrelevant?

 

It is irrelevant to mfbukowski's "it's a snap" method, to which I was responding.

[thesometimesaint]

It is irrelevant to mfbukowski's "it's a snap" method, to which I was responding.

 

Sorry I still don't understand. If taken as symbolic then all the other criticisms of a literal Global Flood disappear.

[Senator]

Sorry I still don't understand. If taken as symbolic then all the other criticisms of a literal Global Flood disappear.

Exactly!

 

That's the beauty of mb's approach.

 

And tomorrow, whatever you or I conclude about the flood, will have no affect on how I fry my egg, pick which cloths to wear, how I accomplish my tasks at work or whether I will enjoy watching my son's football game.

 

As far as we're concerned it has all disappeared, and all we're left with is an idea.

Edited June 9, 2014 by Senator

[mnn727]

It is irrelevant to mfbukowski's "it's a snap" method, to which I was responding.

Yet you quoted thesometimessaints baptism post. 

[thesometimesaint]

Exactly!

 

That's the beauty of mb's approach.

 

And tomorrow, whatever you or I conclude about the flood, will have no affect on how I fry my egg, pick which cloths to wear, how I accomplish my tasks at work or whether I will enjoy watching my son's football game.

 

As far as we're concerned it has all disappeared, and all we're left with is an idea.

 

Sorry. I still don't understand your point. Stories of what happened a long time ago have very little effect on my day to day life now, let alone on some future date. IE; If a bear crapped in the woods 10,000 years ago it really doesn't do much to change my daily schedule.