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

[thesometimesaint]

Nope. Not claiming that. 

 

 

Which point specifically? 

 

Which laws of physics does evolution violate?

[Rob Osborn]

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.

To clarify- there are two kinds of sin-

1. sinning in ignorance to the law

2. sinning with a knowledge of the law (transgression)

A transgression is the type of sin where one willfully disobeyed the law in full knowledge of the law. I cite this scripture as evidence of this-

32 Thus was the gospel preached to those who had died in their sins, without a knowledge of the truth, or in transgression, having rejected the prophets. (D&C 138:32)

[Freedom]

 

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. 

Nothing in this verse suggests that sin causes death. The devil has the power of death. Provide for me through the bible the definition of the power of death. Nothing in genesis suggests that Adam sinned. All it states is that as a result of eating the fruit they became aware of good and evil. Please explain why this is a bad thing. 

[Freedom]

To clarify- there are two kinds of sin-

1. sinning in ignorance to the law

2. sinning with a knowledge of the law (transgression)

A transgression is the type of sin where one willfully disobeyed the law in full knowledge of the law. I cite this scripture as evidence of this-

32 Thus was the gospel preached to those who had died in their sins, without a knowledge of the truth, or in transgression, having rejected the prophets. (D&C 138:32)

No, a transgression is passing over something. Sin is a type of transgression that is forbidden. Murder is a sin, killing someone in self defense or during war is not a sin. Speeding is a sin, speeding in a police car with sirens blaring is not. 

[Rob Osborn]

No, a transgression is passing over something. Sin is a type of transgression that is forbidden. Murder is a sin, killing someone in self defense or during war is not a sin. Speeding is a sin, speeding in a police car with sirens blaring is not.

As used in the scriptures, a transgression is a sin where one goes against the known law. Transgression is a violation of the known law. A police car speeding beyond the speed limit to catch someone is not a transgression as they at that time are exempt from the speed limit. There is no instance in scripture where "transgression" is used in any other context other than one who is in direct violation to law and as such it is a sin.

Edited December 1, 2014 by Rob Osborn

[Freedom]

To transgress means to pass over. Sin is a type of transgression. In law, it is slightly different. In law, a sin is something that is inherently wrong such as murder. A transgression is something that is prohibited but not inherently wrong such as driving a car without a license. So in this sense, Adam transgressed the law but did not sin. It was an action he had to take and for which he was not punished. 

 

Regardless, there is no evidence that sin causes physical death. Mortality causes physical death, sin causes spiritual death. 

 

Another way to define transgression is to go beyond the established limits or conditions. Adam and Eve went beyond the limits or conditions of remaining in the Garden of Eden. They choose to partake of the fruit so that they could leave the garden, get married, and have children. They started their journey as independent adults away from the control and influence of their parents. This is the underlying message of the creation story. This brought death which comes upon all, and the consequence of sin which visits those who violate Gods laws. The atonement redeems us from both deaths. Sin causing one, mortality causing the other. It is no small coincidence that Eve was the one who introduced the fruit of the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil to Adam which brought about physical death and the ability to procreate, and that it was first to a women that Jesus showed himself to after his resurrection. Through women we have live, through man we have access to the saving ordinances of the gospel. 

Edited December 1, 2014 by Freedom

[Rob Osborn]

To transgress means to pass over. Sin is a type of transgression. In law, it is slightly different. In law, a sin is something that is inherently wrong such as murder. A transgression is something that is prohibited but not inherently wrong such as driving a car without a license. So in this sense, Adam transgressed the law but did not sin. It was an action he had to take and for which he was not punished. 

 

Regardless, there is no evidence that sin causes physical death. Mortality causes physical death, sin causes spiritual death. 

 

Another way to define transgression is to go beyond the established limits or conditions. Adam and Eve went beyond the limits or conditions of remaining in the Garden of Eden. They choose to partake of the fruit so that they could leave the garden, get married, and have children. They started their journey as independent adults away from the control and influence of their parents. This is the underlying message of the creation story. This brought death which comes upon all, and the consequence of sin which visits those who violate Gods laws. The atonement redeems us from both deaths. Sin causing one, mortality causing the other. It is no small coincidence that Eve was the one who introduced the fruit of the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil to Adam which brought about physical death and the ability to procreate, and that it was first to a women that Jesus showed himself to after his resurrection. Through women we have live, through man we have access to the saving ordinances of the gospel.

Adam transgressed the law which indeed was sin. Transgression is always sin. Adam and Eve disobeyed Heavenly Father and hearkened to Satan's temptations and they knew they were being disobedient and as such tried to hide from God. Because of this, God punished them because of their sin in hearkening to Satan. This brought about the fall which caused spiritual death and also physical death.

[Freedom]

Adam transgressed the law which indeed was sin. Transgression is always sin. Adam and Eve disobeyed Heavenly Father and hearkened to Satan's temptations and they knew they were being disobedient and as such tried to hide from God. Because of this, God punished them because of their sin in hearkening to Satan. This brought about the fall which caused spiritual death and also physical death.

Then how to you explain Moses 5:10? Praising god for sinning?

[Freedom]

From an LDS perspective, here is a quote I found that shows up in at least three different church manuals:

 

“I’m very, very grateful that in the Book of Mormon, and I think elsewhere in our scriptures, the fall of Adam has not been called a sin. It wasn’t a sin. … What did Adam do? The very thing the Lord wanted him to do; and I hate to hear anybody call it a sin, for it wasn’t a sin. Did Adam sin when he partook of the forbidden fruit? I say to you, no, he did not! Now, let me refer to what was written in the book of Mosesin regard to the command God gave to Adam. [Moses 3:16–17.]

“Now this is the way I interpret that: The Lord said to Adam, here is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. If you want to stay here, then you cannot eat of that fruit. If you want to stay here, then I forbid you to eat it. But you may act for yourself, and you may eat of it if you want to. And if you eat it, you will die.

“I see a great difference between transgressing the law and committing a sin” (Joseph Fielding Smith, “Fall—Atonement—Resurrection—Sacrament,” in Charge to Religious Educators, 124).

[Rob Osborn]

Then how to you explain Moses 5:10? Praising god for sinning?

Well, we can all praise God for this same thing when we individually sin and repent of it then knowing the good from the evil.

[Rob Osborn]

From an LDS perspective, here is a quote I found that shows up in at least three different church manuals:

 

“I’m very, very grateful that in the Book of Mormon, and I think elsewhere in our scriptures, the fall of Adam has not been called a sin. It wasn’t a sin. … What did Adam do? The very thing the Lord wanted him to do; and I hate to hear anybody call it a sin, for it wasn’t a sin. Did Adam sin when he partook of the forbidden fruit? I say to you, no, he did not! Now, let me refer to what was written in the book of Mosesin regard to the command God gave to Adam. [Moses 3:16–17.]

“Now this is the way I interpret that: The Lord said to Adam, here is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. If you want to stay here, then you cannot eat of that fruit. If you want to stay here, then I forbid you to eat it. But you may act for yourself, and you may eat of it if you want to. And if you eat it, you will die.

“I see a great difference between transgressing the law and committing a sin” (Joseph Fielding Smith, “Fall—Atonement—Resurrection—Sacrament,” in Charge to Religious Educators, 124).

From as much as I understand it, the word transgression has Germanic origins whose roots mean "to step across" or "beyond the limit". The process of disobedience to known law is transgression and when it is finished it is sin. Transgression in scripture is always tied directly to sin and always tied to needing forgiveness for and repentance for. Even the Atonement is set up for the sole purpose to cover sin and transgression..

Paramount to understanding the fall is the fact that Satan did come and tempt Adam nd Eve after they were given the law to only obey and worship God. Adam and Eve directly disobeyed when they partook of the fruit. The act of choosing to disobey Father was the transgression because they knowingly stepped over and beyond the limit of the commandments. As such, they had committed sin.

Look at every instance in scripture and you will find that transgression always means to pass over the law or rule of moral law of Gods commandments.

[Freedom]

In every instance, dogs are referred to as mammals. This does not mean that all mammals are dogs. All sins are transgressions in the same manner. In LDS doctrine, Adam and Eve did not sin. The story of the creation is a coming of age story of two people growing up, becoming adults and getting sealed in the temple. Then comes the rejoicing. In LDS doctrine, the fall was necessary. Eve saw that this was necessary, and realized that the consequence of eating the fruit was having to leave the garden. With your argument, Paul, they were sinning by remaining in the garden because they were not fulfilling Gods command to multiply. Yes, despite this sin of not multiplying, there is no mention of them sinning or being punished. IN like manner, there is no record of them sinning or being punished for eating the fruit. 

[Rob Osborn]

Well, there are a lot of opinions out there much of which are just plain wrong including many of my fellow LDS. The fall makes no sense if there is no sin with partaking of the fruit in direct disobedience to Gods command. God knew Satan would come and tempt them to eat of the fruit. Its a classic story of choosing whether we hearken to God and be obedient or be led away by temptation and follow after Satan. Hence the need for the Redeemer to save men from their fall. Here-

40 Wherefore, it came to pass that the devil tempted Adam, and he partook of the forbidden fruit and transgressed the commandment, wherein he became subject to the will of the devil, because he yielded unto temptation.

41 Wherefore, I, the Lord God, caused that he should be cast out from the Garden of Eden, from my presence, because of his transgression, wherein he became spiritually dead, which is the first death, even that same death which is the last death, which is spiritual, which shall be pronounced upon the wicked when I shall say: Depart, ye cursed

42 But, behold, I say unto you that I, the Lord God, gave unto Adam and unto his seed, that they should not die as to the temporal death, until I, the Lord God, should send forth angels to declare unto them repentance and redemption, through faith on the name of mine Only Begotten Son.

43 And thus did I, the Lord God, appoint unto man the days of his probation—that by his natural death he might be raised in immortality unto eternal life, even as many as would believe;

44 And they that believe not unto eternal damnation; for they cannot be redeemed from their spiritual fall, because they repent not; (D&C 29:40-44)

[MormonFreeThinker]

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. 

 

I used the Book of Mormon to demonstrate the word "earth" can also mean region or land.

 

Do you really care about academic Biblical studies? 

 

At this moment I don't have time

Edited December 2, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[ELF1024]

 

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?  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!

 

(Context) If man did indeed start out in the Garden of Eden, and were cast out... and providing the the Garden was on the North American Continent, and assuming that the area of habitation was still within the Mississippi River Flood plain... 

 

Secondly, I am not saying that the Arc is the same object on Mount Ararat...

 

Question 1: IF this is the time when man was moved from the "Promised Land" and into the old world, it would have been a good idea to bring non-food animals with. If for no other reason than to have domesticated animals with them unit such time as they could domesticate more.

 

Question 2: How do you define Mountains? The definition of "Mountains" from someone in Utah, and someone who has never left the Mississippi river valley would differ greatly. What people from the flat lands of Arkansas, Missouri, Illinois would call mountains would hardly qualify as foothills in the Rocky Mountain States Funk & Wagnalls.

 

I believe that the story of Lot's daughters gives enough logic to the idea of a localized flood, instead of the need for a global one. With the destruction of Sodom, they believed the world was coming to and end and that all man has been destroyed, which lead them to make some poor decisions with dear old Dad.

 

A localize flood in the Mississippi River Valley could have washed an Arc out to sea... I don't know if you could go from say... St. Louis to the Old World in as little as 40 days and 40 nights... but with God all things are possible.

[danielwoods]

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.

Which laws of physics does evolution violate?

My reference above, to answer you CFR is a reference specifically to abiogenesis. Life simply doesn't pop into existence based solely on the laws of physics alone.

[danielwoods]

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

How did the water get there? God put it there. How did the Moon get there?

How was it maintained there? Not sure. It's a theory used to explain the data.

[danielwoods]

Nothing in this verse suggests that sin causes death. The devil has the power of death. Provide for me through the bible the definition of the power of death. Nothing in genesis suggests that Adam sinned. All it states is that as a result of eating the fruit they became aware of good and evil. Please explain why this is a bad thing.

Either Adam sinned and was judged for it, or he didn't and God's judgement of Adam and Eve was actually a blessing.

[thesometimesaint]

My reference above, to answer you CFR is a reference specifically to abiogenesis. Life simply doesn't pop into existence based solely on the laws of physics alone.

 

CFR where Abiogenesis violates the laws of physics.

[thesometimesaint]

How did the water get there? God put it there. How did the Moon get there?

How was it maintained there? Not sure. It's a theory used to explain the data.

 

Surely, God could have caused birds to fly with their bones made of solid gold, with their veins full of quicksilver, with their flesh heavier than lead, and with their wings exceedingly small. He did not, and that ought to show something. It is only in order to shield your ignorance that you put the Lord at every turn to the refuge of a miracle.

Galileo the Theist

 

Ps;

Where did the Flood water come from, and where did it go? Several people have proposed answers to these questions, but none which consider all the implications of their models. A few of the commonly cited models are addressed below.

Vapor canopy. This model, proposed by Whitcomb & Morris and others, proposes that much of the Flood water was suspended overhead until the 40 days of rain which caused the Flood. The following objections are covered in more detail by Brown.

• How was the water suspended, and what caused it to fall all at once when it did?
• If a canopy holding the equivalent to more than 40 feet of water were part of the atmosphere, it would raise the atmospheric pressure accordingly, raising oxygen and nitrogen levels to toxic levels.
• If the canopy began as vapor, any water from it would be superheated. This scenario essentially starts with most of the Flood waters boiled off. Noah and company would be poached. If the water began as ice in orbit, the gravitational potential energy would likewise raise the temperature past boiling.
• A canopy of any significant thickness would have blocked a great deal of light, lowering the temperature of the earth greatly before the Flood.
• Any water above the ozone layer would not be shielded from ultraviolet light, and the light would break apart the water molecules.

Hydroplate. Walt Brown's model proposes that the Flood waters came from a layer of water about ten miles underground, which was released by a catastrophic rupture of the earth's crust, shot above the atmosphere, and fell as rain.

• How was the water contained? Rock, at least the rock which makes up the earth's crust, doesn't float. The water would have been forced to the surface long before Noah's time, or Adam's time for that matter.
• Even a mile deep, the earth is boiling hot, and thus the reservoir of water would be superheated. Further heat would be added by the energy of the water falling from above the atmosphere. As with the vapor canopy model, Noah would have been poached.
• Where is the evidence? The escaping waters would have eroded the sides of the fissures, producing poorly sorted basaltic erosional deposits. These would be concentrated mainly near the fissures, but some would be shot thousands of miles along with the water. (Noah would have had to worry about falling rocks along with the rain.) Such deposits would be quite noticeable but have never been seen.

Comet. Kent Hovind proposed that the Flood water came from a comet which broke up and fell on the earth. Again, this has the problem of the heat from the gravitational potential energy. The water would be steam by the time it reached the surface of the earth.

Runaway subduction. John Baumgardner created the runaway subduction model, which proposes that the pre-Flood lithosphere (ocean floor), being denser than the underlying mantle, began sinking. The heat released in the process decreased the viscosity of the mantle, so the process accelerated catastrophically. All the original lithosphere became subducted; the rising magma which replaced it raised the ocean floor, causing sea levels to rise and boiling off enough of the ocean to cause 150 days of rain. When it cooled, the ocean floor lowered again, and the Flood waters receded. Sedimentary mountains such as the Sierras and Andes rose after the Flood by isostatic rebound. [Baumgardner, 1990a; Austin et al., 1994]

• The main difficulty of this theory is that it admittedly doesn't work without miracles. [Baumgardner, 1990a, 1990b] The thermal diffusivity of the earth, for example, would have to increase 10,000 fold to get the subduction rates proposed [Matsumura, 1997], and miracles are also necessary to cool the new ocean floor and to raise sedimentary mountains in months rather than in the millions of years it would ordinarily take.
• Baumgardner estimates a release of 10²⁸ joules from the subduction process. This is more than enough to boil off all the oceans. In addition, Baumgardner postulates that the mantle was much hotter before the Flood (giving it greater viscosity); that heat would have to go somewhere, too.
• Cenozoic sediments are post-Flood according to this model. Yet fossils from Cenozoic sediments alone show a 65-million-year record of evolution, including a great deal of the diversification of mammals and angiosperms. [Carroll, 1997, chpts. 5, 6, & 13]
• Subduction on the scale Baumgardner proposes would have produced very much more vulcanism around plate boundaries than we see. [Matsumura, 1997]

New ocean basins. Most flood models (including those above, possibly excepting Hovind's) deal with the water after the flood by proposing that it became our present oceans. The earth's terrain, according to this model, was much, much flatter during the Flood, and through cataclysms, the mountains were pushed up and the ocean basins lowered. (Brown proposes that the cataclysms were caused by the crust sliding around on a cushion of water; Whitcomb & Morris don't give a cause.)

• How could such a change be effected? To change the density and/or temperature of at least a quarter of the earth's crust fast enough to raise and lower the ocean floor in a matter of months would require mechanisms beyond any proposed in any of the flood models.
• Why are most sediments on high ground? Most sediments are carried until the water slows down or stops. If the water stopped in the oceans, we should expect more sediments there. Baumgardner's own modeling shows that, during the Flood, currents would be faster over continents than over ocean basins [Baumgardner, 1994], so sediments should, on the whole, be removed from continents and deposited in ocean basins. Yet sediments on the ocean basin average 0.6 km thick, while on continents (including continental shelves), they average 2.6 km thick. [Poldervaart, 1955]
• Where's the evidence? The water draining from the continents would have produced tremendous torrents. There is evidence of similar flooding in the Scablands of Washington state (from the draining of a lake after the breaking of an ice dam) and on the far western floor of the Mediterranean Sea (from the ocean breaking through the Straits of Gibralter). Why is such evidence not found worldwide?
• How did the ark survive the process? Such a wholesale restructuring of the earth's topography, compressed into just a few months, would have produced tsunamis large enough to circle the earth. The aftershocks alone would have been devastating for years afterwards.

Edited December 2, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[MormonFreeThinker]

 Life simply doesn't pop into existence based solely on the laws of physics alone.

 

How do you know? Have you seen all the conditions in the universe? 

Have you seen God literally creating life out of the dust?

[mnn727]

 

A localize flood in the Mississippi River Valley could have washed an Arc out to sea... I don't know if you could go from say... St. Louis to the Old World in as little as 40 days and 40 nights... but with God all things are possible.

They actually h ad much longer, it rained for 40 days and nights, the water did not recede until much later (don't have a Bible handy right now but it was almost a year if I remember correctly)

[cinepro]

I used the Book of Mormon to demonstrate the word "earth" can also mean region or land.

 

Do you really care about academic Biblical studies? 

 

At this moment I don't have time

 

No one is doubting that the word "earth" can have different meanings.  But we're not talking about what the word means in certain Book of Mormon passages.  The question is what does it mean in the flood story in Genesis.  From what I can tell, Donald Parry (Ph.D. in Hebrew) is up-to-date on "academic Biblical Studies" (and has authored many such studies himself), and he is pretty clear that Genesis is describing a global flood. 

Edited December 3, 2014 by cinepro

[Rob Osborn]

How do you know? Have you seen all the conditions in the universe? 

Have you seen God literally creating life out of the dust?

Of all the conditions we have seen so far in the universe none of them support abiogenesis. I have seen myself literally create life from the dust of the earth. I created two children of mine own seed from the dust of the earth.

[Freedom]

Either Adam sinned and was judged for it, or he didn't and God's judgement of Adam and Eve was actually a blessing.

Since there is no evidence that he sinned and was judged for it, I suppose you are leaning towards the latter.