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

[danielwoods]

The atmosphere can only hold one inch of water suspended in vapor form.  If it happens to rain more than one inch at a time, there must be some transport of air masses involved, and this can only be in a small area, not global.  If you talk about a water canopy, this doesn't follow physical laws as we know it (the aforementioned one inch maximum), a canopy sufficient to dump miles of water would be opaque and black.  Even a thunderhead borders on being black.

 

Right, if the water is below the troposphere. If it's above the troposphere, it's light enough to not affect the lower atmospheric pressures. 

Edited November 30, 2014 by danielwoods

[Freedom]

I'm curious how physical death wasn't a judgement, yet you use the same word "redemption from" to describe both, yet one ins't a punishment, and one is? How can one be redeemed (forgiven) from something that isn't a punishment? 

Being an infant is not a punishment, nor is being elderly. These are just conditions of mortality that are necessary. Death is a blessing because it is the bookend of birth. We are given the gift of birth but of our own selves we are not capable of bringing about our own resurrection. The Savior effected this for us as a free gift. We are not being punished  by facing mortality, it is part of our Heavenly Fathers Plan. It was put in place before the world was. Adam was called to the first man, the first of Gods children here on earth. His responsibility included bringing about agency and mortality. These are necessary stages of our eternal progression. Nevertheless, we need Gods help to get out of this fallen state, just as children require help getting dressed or elderly people need help with mobility. They are not being punished, it is simply their condition that is an inevitable part of mortality. When my children were quite young, they got to a point where they were responsible to dress themselves, but we, as parents, had to clean their clothes and set them out. When they where into their teen years, they could dress themselves, but they needed our help with homework, dealing with social challenges, or getting to activities. 

 

Redemption is not only about forgiveness. There is redemption from sin and redemption from mortality. They are very different parts of the atonement. I am curious that you could not understand this very basic lds doctrine. It is the very foundation of our religion. 

[LinuxGal]

Being an infant is not a punishment, nor is being elderly. These are just conditions of mortality that are necessary. Death is a blessing because it is the bookend of birth. 

 

Paul and John of Patmos seemed to think death was an enemy, not a blessing:

 

1 Cor. 15:26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

 

Rev. 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. 

[mnn727]

Paul and John of Patmos seemed to think death was an enemy, not a blessing:

 

1 Cor. 15:26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

 

Rev. 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. 

What is your point here. After we die and are resurrected - we're done with death, it's no longer needed.

And once judgement day is over, hell is no longer needed either.

[Freedom]

Paul and John of Patmos seemed to think death was an enemy, not a blessing:

 

1 Cor. 15:26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

 

Rev. 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. 

Well of course. Wickedness which brings on the death that separates us from God will be done away with. what does this have to do with your argument that physical death is caused by sin? I do not follow your reasoning. Strong poetic imagery does not change the fact that there are two deaths. The physical death is caused when the spirit and body are separated. The spiritual death is caused by sin when we separate ourselves from god through our actions. Adam fell that man might be, man are that they might have joy. 

[danielwoods]

Being an infant is not a punishment, nor is being elderly. These are just conditions of mortality that are necessary. Death is a blessing because it is the bookend of birth. We are given the gift of birth but of our own selves we are not capable of bringing about our own resurrection. The Savior effected this for us as a free gift. We are not being punished  by facing mortality, it is part of our Heavenly Fathers Plan. It was put in place before the world was. Adam was called to the first man, the first of Gods children here on earth. His responsibility included bringing about agency and mortality. These are necessary stages of our eternal progression. Nevertheless, we need Gods help to get out of this fallen state, just as children require help getting dressed or elderly people need help with mobility. They are not being punished, it is simply their condition that is an inevitable part of mortality. When my children were quite young, they got to a point where they were responsible to dress themselves, but we, as parents, had to clean their clothes and set them out. When they where into their teen years, they could dress themselves, but they needed our help with homework, dealing with social challenges, or getting to activities. 

 

Redemption is not only about forgiveness. There is redemption from sin and redemption from mortality. They are very different parts of the atonement. I am curious that you could not understand this very basic lds doctrine. It is the very foundation of our religion.

 

Death is a blessing? Please cite where the bible says this? 

 

If it's only found in the LDS specific literature, then that is understandable. It just seems counter to what the Bible teaches. The sting of death is sin, certainly not a blessing.

Hebrews 2:14 Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil — 15 and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death.

It odd that Jesus would break the power of the Devil that held the power of a blessing? And that the fear of this blessing called death causes bondage that Jesus freed us from?

[Freedom]

 

Death is a blessing? Please cite where the bible says this? 

 

If it's only found in the LDS specific literature, then that is understandable. It just seems counter to what the Bible teaches. The sting of death is sin, certainly not a blessing.

Hebrews 2:14 Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil — 15 and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death.

It odd that Jesus would break the power of the Devil that held the power of a blessing? And that the fear of this blessing called death causes bondage that Jesus freed us from?

These are references to sin and not  physical death. V. 11 for both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified. All will be resurrected. If death is the result of sin then how do you explain Jesus's death? If death is caused by sin, then those who are righteous would live longer. Why would little children, who are without sin, die? You have lost me here.  

[LinuxGal]

Well of course. Wickedness which brings on the death that separates us from God will be done away with. what does this have to do with your argument that physical death is caused by sin? I do not follow your reasoning. 

 

My point is that death is not considered a blessing, at least in the Old World scriptures.  Whether it is a penalty for Adam's sin, or a consequence for it, makes no difference.  Sin remains the root cause, if one argues within the context of the Bible.  My own view is that without death, wealth and power would continue to accumulate in fewer and fewer immortal hands, and old ideas would never give way to new ones. Without death, people would not feel the vitality of living that the very brevity of our life stimulates, and the Earth would continue to fill up with people until everyone was eating those funny green graham crackers Charlton Heston found out about in Soylent Green.

[mnn727]

Right, if the water is below the troposphere. If it's above the troposphere, it's light enough to not affect the lower atmospheric pressures. 

But high enough to break the laws of physics

[thesometimesaint]

Of course this is based on faulty assumptions.

 

First, everything about the Universe and our existence is a miracle. Based on the laws of physics alone, we shouldn't be here, yet we are. 

Second, the cause of the world wide flood followed the laws of physics as we know them today. There wasn't a miracle that caused it, I would agree that all who were saved in the ark, was a miracle, but that's God he does that.

Third, I don't reject any of the geological records, I just interpret them in light of more reliable information.

 

CFR

[Freedom]

My point is that death is not considered a blessing, at least in the Old World scriptures.  Whether it is a penalty for Adam's sin, or a consequence for it, makes no difference.  Sin remains the root cause, if one argues within the context of the Bible.  My own view is that without death, wealth and power would continue to accumulate in fewer and fewer immortal hands, and old ideas would never give way to new ones. Without death, people would not feel the vitality of living that the very brevity of our life stimulates, and the Earth would continue to fill up with people until everyone was eating those funny green graham crackers Charlton Heston found out about in Soylent Green.

You have failed to provide any evidence that sin causes physical death. You see living for ever in mortality as a blessing? You want to live in this mortal sphere of ignorance and pain for eternity? No, death is a blessing. It is a part of the plan. We live here and then we go on to a higher sphere. Adam transgressed the law. I know that Paul refers to it as a sin but a better rendering is a transgression. He transgressed law as a necessary part of the plan of salvation. Eating the fruit allowed him to be married to Eve and to have children. If you put the creation story into its temple context, the fruit of the tree which is plain and white is the fruit of the holy of holy's, the fruits of the spirit. 

[Calm]

 Sin remains the root cause, if one argues within the context of the Bible.]

And yet in the context of the Bible, they could have been both immortal and sinful so sin itself cannot be the cause of physical death.

[bcuzbcuz]

Right, if the water is below the troposphere. If it's above the troposphere, it's light enough to not affect the lower atmospheric pressures.

What??? Water below the troposphere? Since the troposphere is the LOWEST layer of the atmosphere, just which or where is the water that you are speaking about. If it is water below the troposphere, then it is water, in water or ice form, on the ground or underneath the ground.....all of which can not be called the troposphere or atmosphere at all, mud would be a better name for it.

The tropsophere contains 99% of the water held in the atmosphere. When you say water above the troposphere, are you talking about water in the tropopause or in the stratosphere? Either way, you will a physics review to convince how the water gets there and can be maintained there.

I await your answer.

http://web.physics.ucsb.edu/~lgrace/chem123/troposphere.htm

[LinuxGal]

You have failed to provide any evidence that sin causes physical death....Adam transgressed the law. I know that Paul refers to it as a sin but a better rendering is a transgression. 

 

The Apostle John defines sin as the transgression of the law.

 

1 John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

 

But whatever you call it, sin or transgression, what Adam did was disobey God, and death came from this disobedience.

 

Rom. 5:19  For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

[thesometimesaint]

Sin is the knowing willful disobedience to God. Adam and Eve were innocent as children, they didn't sin.

[cinepro]

The scriptures are not saying that, you are. Where does it say "planet Earth"?

Yes, all life was destroyed on the entire Earth (the entire region). 

 

Earth in Hebrew can mean region. 

 

Sorry I'm late for this CFR.  The question is whether or not the Hebrew phrasing in the story of Noah's flood in Genesis 6-9 means the whole planet, or a specific region of the planet.

 

I am not capable of determining which is the correct interpretation.  I don't speak Hebrew, and I am not familiar with Hebrew usage in the Old Testament.

 

But Donald Parry is.  For those who are unfamiliar with Professor Parry, here's a brief intro:

 

Donald W. Parry, Professor of Hebrew Bible and Dead Sea Scrolls at Brigham Young University. He has served as a member of the International Team of Translators of the Dead Sea Scrolls since 1994. He has authored or edited thirty-three books, ten of which pertain to the scrolls and five deal with the writings of Isaiah. Parry has also published articles in journals, festschrifts, conference proceedings, and encyclopedias. He is also a member of several other professional organizations, including the International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament, Groningen, The Netherlands, Society for Biblical Literature, Atlanta, Georgia, and the National Association of Professors of Hebrew, Madison, Wisconsin. Parry served as a member of the Board of Directors of Brigham Young University's Institute for the Study and Preservation of Ancient Religious Texts from 1987-2005.

 

So here is what Professor Parry (or is it Doctor Parry?) has to say about whether or not the Hebrew story of Noah's flood is meant to apply to a local region, or the entire planet, as recounted in the Hebrew Bible (emphasis added):

 

Genesis 7:19–20 [Gen. 7:19–20] states, “All the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered … ; and the mountains were covered.” These verses explicitly state that all of earth’s high mountains (“hills” should read “mountains” here; Hebrew harim) were covered by the waters. Lest one believe that the statement “under the whole heaven” is figurative and can be read or interpreted in different ways, a scriptural search through the entire Old Testament reveals that the phrase is used elsewhere only in a universal sense, as it is here; the phrase does not refer to a geographically restricted area (see Deut. 2:25; Deut. 4:19; Job 28:24; Job 37:3; Dan. 9:12). For instance, Job 28:24 also uses the phrase when referring to God’s omniscience, which is certainly not restricted to a specific geographical region on the earth.

 

Genesis 7:21 [Gen. 7:21] states, “All flesh died that moved upon the earth, … every creeping thing … every man.” The phrase “all flesh” refers to all land animals, creeping things, and fowls and all of humanity, with the exception of those in the ark (see Gen. 7:23). The entry every in the Oxford American Dictionary reads: “each single one, without exception.” Moses is clearly trying to let us understand that the Flood was universal.

 

Verse 22 [Gen. 7:22] states, “All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.” Again the term “all” expresses a sum total. The term “dry land” should be read literally here, having reference to the land masses of our planet.

 

Verse 23 [Gen. 7:23] states, “Every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl.” Moses’ list of those destroyed by the Flood is inclusive; only Noah “remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.”

 

Genesis 8:5 [Gen. 8:5] states, “In the tenth month … were the tops of the mountains seen.” After the flood, the “waters decreased” until Noah and his group were able to once again see mountaintops.

Verse 9 states, “The waters were on the face of the whole earth.” The phrase “on the face of the whole earth” refers to a worldwide flood (see Gen. 1:29; Gen. 11:4, 8, 9).

 

Taken altogether, these statements should convince every believer in the Bible that the great Deluge was a worldwide event,⁴ not a localized flood that filled only the Mesopotamian or some other region.

[Freedom]

The Apostle John defines sin as the transgression of the law.

 

1 John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

 

But whatever you call it, sin or transgression, what Adam did was disobey God, and death came from this disobedience.

 

Rom. 5:19  For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

Sin is a type of transgression. Sin and transgression are not synonymous any more than dog and mammal are synonymous. Police for example transgress the law when they speed to an emergency but they are not sinning. They are transgressing or stepping over the law. I have a rule of no shoes in the house, however guests have to transgress this law when they first enter because they have to enter the house before they can take off their shoes. Adam transgressed the law, but it was necessary to fulfill Gods commandments. He was not punished. It was a necessary part of the plan. Any other view would have to argue that Adam screwed up Gods plan because God did not anticipate Adam eating the tree that god himself put in the garden. So all His wisdom and foreknowledge did not prepare him for Adam eating the fruit of the tree that God put right in front of his face anyways? No, eating the fruit made him as the gods. In a sense, eating the fruit is symbolic of going through puberty. He became self aware. Once this occurred, God taught him and Eve about the facts of life and sent them off to live their live as self sufficient adults. 

 

But you continue to avoid the issue. Sin does not cause death. if so, as I pointed out, Jesus should not have died. Sin causes a separation from God or a spiritual death. If Adam had not eaten of the fruit, we never would have been born and Adam and Eve would have remained in the garden as innocent children. 

 

In your scenario I suppose if Adam had not eaten of the fruit we would still have been born but we would not have died so Adam and all this children would still be alive with more and more people being born. By now, we would have countless trillions of people on the planet all producing babies for ever. Thank heavens Adam messed things up or we would have been suffocating under an ocean of humans and animals. Perhaps Adam saw the serious flaw in Gods plan and took the fruit to save God from his own ignorance? 

 

No, the plan was laid before we were born. It was all planed out and Adam fulfilled his duty to become an adult and to multiply and replenish the earth. It was not his transgression that brought death, it was eating the fruit. The fruit cause death to enter the world. If Adam had chosen a different transgression such as lying or injuring innocent animals, the result would not have been death. Only the fruit of the tree brings this power. Think of the temple visions throughout the old testament. They all speak to the same principle. The fruit brings life and joy, as well as sorrow and pain. It is part of our mortal journey. 

[Freedom]

Sorry I'm late for this CFR.  The question is whether or not the Hebrew phrasing in the story of Noah's flood in Genesis 6-9 means the whole planet, or a specific region of the planet.

 

I am not capable of determining which is the correct interpretation.  I don't speak Hebrew, and I am not familiar with Hebrew usage in the Old Testament.

 

But Donald Parry is.  For those who are unfamiliar with Professor Parry, here's a brief intro:

 

 

 

 

So here is what Professor Parry (or is it Doctor Parry?) has to say about whether or not the Hebrew story of Noah's flood is meant to apply to a local region, or the entire planet, as recounted in the Hebrew Bible (emphasis added):

Parry has some very interesting point of views but he is very much a literalist and is often criticized by his contemporaries for being too narrow minded. He is of the Bruce R McConkie school of interpreting the scriptures. there are many lds scholars who disagree with him. 

[LinuxGal]

Sin is a type of transgression. Sin and transgression are not synonymous any more than dog and mammal are synonymous. Police for example transgress the law when they speed to an emergency but they are not sinning. They are transgressing or stepping over the law. I have a rule of no shoes in the house, however guests have to transgress this law when they first enter because they have to enter the house before they can take off their shoes. Adam transgressed the law, but it was necessary to fulfill Gods commandments.

 

At the time, God didn't have commandments, plural, he had just one.  Thou shalt not eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.  Adam and Eve had one commandment, and they still broke it.  That is sin.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

At the time, God didn't have commandments, plural, he had just one.  Thou shalt not eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.  Adam and Eve had one commandment, and they still broke it.  That is sin.

Yet it was never said once, in scripture that Adam sinned. Just that he transgressed. And a sin is a trangression but is a trangression a sin? Where does it say that in scripture? I think you are adding to the word.

[Freedom]

At the time, God didn't have commandments, plural, he had just one.  Thou shalt not eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.  Adam and Eve had one commandment, and they still broke it.  That is sin.

I would suggest you revisit Genesis chapters 1 & 2. 

[Freedom]

At the time, God didn't have commandments, plural, he had just one.  Thou shalt not eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.  Adam and Eve had one commandment, and they still broke it.  That is sin.

3:22 tells us what the consequence of eating the fruit was. knowing good and evil. I do not see this as a bad thing. I have met people who cannot distinguish between good and evil. I think the term we use is psychopath. You are welcome to your interpretation but you cannot simply continue to ignore the points we make. Your interpretation has serious flaws and requires God to be in gross error and utterly incompetent. It poses a conundrum with Jesus dying despite being perfect. It ignores the difference between physical death and spiritual death. It suggests that living for ever in this word is preferable to living with God. 

[cinepro]

Parry has some very interesting point of views but he is very much a literalist and is often criticized by his contemporaries for being too narrow minded. He is of the Bruce R McConkie school of interpreting the scriptures. there are many lds scholars who disagree with him. 

 

I would love to see some references from LDS scholars in biblical Hebrew who disagree with him about the scope of the flood described in Genesis. 

[danielwoods]

These are references to sin and not  physical death. V. 11 for both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified. All will be resurrected. If death is the result of sin then how do you explain Jesus's death? If death is caused by sin, then those who are righteous would live longer. Why would little children, who are without sin, die? You have lost me here.

 

Notice: Hebrews 2:14 Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil

 

Notice that the context is physical death. 

 

Why did Jesus die? He took the punishment for our sins, death. 

 

Why do children die physically? Because they are human. Born into a world where things die. Until the whole Universe is changed, the effects of sin continue. 

[danielwoods]

But high enough to break the laws of physics

 

Nope. Not claiming that. 

 

CFR

 

Which point specifically?