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

[Flyonthewall]

By magical I mean someone who changes the very laws the world was set up under drastically - creating enough water to cover all the mountains would not be a miracle, it would be magical - ex-nihlo creation and we LDS do not believe that either.

If the geological record clearly shows (as it does) there was no global flood, then by creating the geological record showing no global flood - God would be a liar.

Well, I see you think the very laws the world was set up under are totally and clearly understood by man.

Tell me, what laws this world was set up under would allow 5 loaves and 2 fishes to feed 5000 people with 12 baskets of leftovers?

Tell me, what would the geological record look like after a worldwide flood? How would we recognize a worldwide flood from the record? Could it be we simply aren't interpreting the geological record correctly? Perhaps we don't have the knowledge to interpret it correctly.

I don't claim to know these things. I can't prove the flood was global, but if the scriptures say it was, and there are references to it as global by prophets that came much later, then I will leave it open to the possibility that it was global until it is verified by revelation.

If God says He did something and science says it is impossible, well, I'm not limiting myself to man's understanding of science - that can be improved upon.

[BCSpace]

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?

 

The flood account we have now is a mythologized version of the actual events.  The local flood was so great and catastrophic that it was easy for it to quickly grow into a global flood in the retelling and even, in some cultures, become the story of creation.

 

I hypotheisize perhaps the flooding of the Black Sea.  A prophet, Noah, preached the coming of this event and barely escaped with his family on a large boat or raft with some of his herds, perhaps resettling in the region of Mt Ararat giving rise to the legend that the Ark is there.

 

By the time of BoM times (waters receeding of the face of the American continent(s)), this expanded story was taken as a matter of fact in much of the world.

 

Another hypothesis:  Could there not have been such a catastrophic and global event involving water and floods but one that did not kill off all life or people? A meteor/comet strike, possibly in the ocean?

[tana]

The flood account we have now is a mythologized version of the actual events.  The local flood was so great and catastrophic that it was easy for it to quickly grow into a global flood in the retelling and even, in some cultures, become the story of creation.

 

I hypotheisize perhaps the flooding of the Black Sea.  A prophet, Noah, preached the coming of this event and barely escaped with his family on a large boat or raft with some of his herds, perhaps resettling in the region of Mt Ararat giving rise to the legend that the Ark is there.

 

By the time of BoM times (waters receeding of the face of the American continent(s)), this expanded story was taken as a matter of fact in much of the world.

 

Another hypothesis:  Could there not have been such a catastrophic and global event involving water and floods but one that did not kill off all life or people? A meteor/comet strike, possibly in the ocean?

It seems like this type of theory makes scripture a bit too malleable to be of any use doesn't it?

[BCSpace]

It seems like this type of theory makes scripture a bit too malleable to be of any use doesn't it?

 

For the undisciplined of faith (not accusing you of such), I can certainly see how it can. The question of course being when is scripture metaphorical or legendary or literal?

 

Consider that LDS doctrine specifically considers the Eve created from Adam's rib story to be figurative.  So not all scripture is literal.  Consider also the fact that the Church is founded on the notion that the BoM is a legitimate historical record of real people. So scripture must be mostly, imho, historical.

 

In the Flood case, I have blended all that with:

 

1. The fact that the word translated as 'world' in the Hebrew account can be translated as a locality such as a region or country, in addition to the entire Earth.

 

2. Unlike the Book of Mormon case, there is actual and plentiful scientific evidence against a world-wide flood especially in the appropriate range of time. There is no scientific evidence against the BoM claims.

 

3. I interpret LDS scripture and doctrine on educaiton as a call to accept all science.

 

4. I interpret LDS doctrine in such a way as there is ultimately no conflict between science and doctrine. Because of #5 below, I believe there is no conflict between science and doctrine today.

 

5. I believe there is room to think that the LDS Church is just going with traditional Christian doctrine on this rather than there being a specific revelation on the subject.

 

6. With my hypothesises, I have preserved the general historicity of the story and specifically, the people involved.

 

I freely admit that, despite a seeming conflict with what I just said in #4, with these hypothesises, I personally am in conflict with the Church's official Global Flood doctrine and the offical doctrine that the Earth was baptised.

[cinepro]

 

I am still waiting, where does the "no blood" before the Fall come from? Where is it in the scriptures?  or official church statements? 

A student manual says, "When Adam was in the Garden of Eden, he was not subject to death. There was no blood in his body and he could have remained there forever. This is true of all the other creations” https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrines-of-the-gospel-student-manual/chapter-8-the-fall?lang=eng

 

Why do Global Flood theorists ignore that the word "earth" can have many meanings? 

 

 

I suspect that Global Flood theorists understand that the word "earth" can have many meanings.  But I also suspect they understand that in the context of the flood story in Genesis 7, the word "earth" is meant to describe the entire planet, relying not the least of which on the words of modern day Prophets and Apostles to figure out which meaning was intended.

[MormonFreeThinker]

 But I also suspect they understand that in the context of the flood story in Genesis 7, the word "earth" is meant to describe the entire planet, relying not the least of which on the words of modern day Prophets and Apostles to figure out which meaning was intended.

 

CFR

[emarkp]

My comment was not intended as a "backhand".

I didn't say anything about intent.

The thread was originally started 5 months ago, back in June. It has lain dormant for months.

Yep, the zombie was revived by another poster who ignored the request. I didn't notice his post, because he's on my ignore list.

Your implication that I did something deliberately to "backhand" (not sure exactly what that term means when used on a forum, but I sense an extremely hostile tone) the OP or the thread is hurtful.

Oh drop the "hurtful" melodrama. I said nothing of your intent. I meant "backhand" akin to a "backhanded compliment".

Please refrain from ascribing intent to my comments that isn't there. You can have no idea of what was in my heart when I posted my comments, so please do not assume that ill intent was a factor. I assure you it was not.

I didn't say a word about your intent, nor really care what was "in your heart".

[emarkp]

CFR

As an exercise, look in the Book of Mormon for the phrase "whole earth" (it's there multiple times). Look at the context -- does every instance mean the entire globe? Just try for once to process something.

[Silhouette]

I didn't say anything about intent.

Yep, the zombie was revived by another poster who ignored the request. I didn't notice his post, because he's on my ignore list.

Oh drop the "hurtful" melodrama. I said nothing of your intent. I meant "backhand" akin to a "backhanded compliment".

I didn't say a word about your intent, nor really care what was "in your heart".

"Hurtful melodrama"? You're doing it again. Making accusations and assumptions that I'm doing things deliberately. And ascribing intent to my comments that wasn't there. Why is it such a stretch for you to believe that your words really are hurtful? Are you like the proverbial bull in a china shop, running over everyone without any care for the damage you leave in your wake? Or do you just assume that people don't have feelings? You seem to go on the attack with me for some reason I have yet to fathom.

You say in your last paragraph that you don't care what was in my heart. Based on your comments to me, I believe it, and I think your life must be pretty tough with that attitude. I don't understand how some people can go through life uncaring of others' feelings. I've met a few people like that in my lifetime, and am still at a loss to understand what drives them to be that way.

Perhaps if you did try to care more about what is in peoples' hearts, your life would improve and your outlook would change and not be so bitter and cynical. You might be pleasantly surprised at how much more positive your interactions with other people would be.

I wish you well, and I would encourage you to perhaps seek spiritual counsel. It can be a great blessing for people struggling with being able to interact with others for whatever reason.

If you have other comments for me, I invite you to stare a private conversation with me so that we don't derail the purpose of the thread any further than we already have.

I have to go for tonight, as it's 12:37 a.m. here, and I have to get up early for Church, which starts at 9 a.m. I won't get out until around noon, and I still have to go and be set apart for a new calling after that, so if you do private me and I don't respond until later in the day or evening, you'll know why.

Hoping for more positive interaction between us,

Best Wishes,

Melanie

Edited November 23, 2014 by Silhouette

[MormonFreeThinker]

As an exercise, look in the Book of Mormon for the phrase "whole earth" (it's there multiple times). Look at the context -- does every instance mean the entire globe? Just try for once to process something.

 

That is my point dude, "whole earth" can have many meanings. 

 

You look at the context, where does "whole earth" mean the entire globe in Genesis? If you read scholarly books about ancient Hebrew, you will learn that Genesis doesn't talk about the entire globe. 

Edited November 23, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[LinuxGal]

That is my point dude, "whole earth" can have many meanings. 

 

You look at the context, where does "whole earth" mean the entire globe in Genesis? If you read scholarly books about ancient Hebrew, you will learn that Genesis doesn't talk about the entire globe. 

 

GEN 7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.

 

So what we have is "all the high hills" under the "whole heaven".  Sounds pretty clear to me.

[thesometimesaint]

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.

[MormonFreeThinker]

GEN 7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.

 

So what we have is "all the high hills" under the "whole heaven".  Sounds pretty clear to me.

 

Not so clear, it is talking about all the hills of the area. 

 

Was the great earthquake global? 

3 Nephi 8:10 "And the earth was carried up upon the city of Moronihah, that in the place of the city there became a great mountain"

Was the darkness global? 

Helaman 14:27 "that darkness should cover the face of the whole earth for the space of three days"

 

"The Caspian Sea scenario for Noah's Flood fits all the parameters. It is a large enough basin so that Noah would be unable to see any land masses. Based on the latest archaeological research, the Garden of Eden is included inside this basin. And, the ark could come to rest on mountains on the west side of the sea that are part of the Ararat range. It can work both within the framework of progressive creationism and theistic evolution. Is this evidence conclusive? No. However, it is the best fit that we have based on the evidence available to us. Since the sediments from such a flood would mostly be eroded away, we will never be able to prove it conclusively"

http://www.oldearth.org/articles/flood_location.htm

 

Edited November 23, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[Flyonthewall]

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.

I don't believe all the flood waters came from the atmosphere - the fountains of the deep were involved too.

Would it be so impossible to have underground reservoirs of water be drawn to the surface for a while then drain away back to where it came from?

I, for one, believe there was a lot more going on than a big rain storm, and I leave all options open when it comes to the miracles of God.

[LinuxGal]

 

 

"The Caspian Sea scenario for Noah's Flood fits all the parameters. It is a large enough basin so that Noah would be unable to see any land masses. Based on the latest archaeological research, the Garden of Eden is included inside this basin. And, the ark could come to rest on mountains on the west side of the sea that are part of the Ararat range. It can work both within the framework of progressive creationism and theistic evolution..."

 

It doesn't work scripturally.  God said he brought the flood to destroy all life on planet Earth:

 

GEN 6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.

 

In Genesis 1:29 we see that the range of life on Earth is global, not limited to one lake and the vicinity, because God provided food for them on a global basis: "...And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth."

[MormonFreeThinker]

It doesn't work scripturally.  God said he brought the flood to destroy all life on planet Earth

 

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. 

Edited November 23, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[thesometimesaint]

I don't believe all the flood waters came from the atmosphere - the fountains of the deep were involved too.

Would it be so impossible to have underground reservoirs of water be drawn to the surface for a while then drain away back to where it came from?

I, for one, believe there was a lot more going on than a big rain storm, and I leave all options open when it comes to the miracles of God.

 

We still have geysers, but that wont help you any, the water is superheated. Sufficient water in the atmosphere to give 40 ft over the highest hills would parboil Noah and company.

 

With 40 ft over the highest hills where is it going to drain to?

 

God can do anything he wants. For just a few of the problems with a Global Flood SEE http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

[mnn727]

Make yourself clear. Are you trying to say that the Latter-day Saints don't believe in the worldwide flood, don't believe the universal resurrection of the dead into immortality, or that they don't believe in either of these?

 

(the post you responded to was sent by my wife)

We don't believe: "God recreating from inanimate dust (resurrection) billions of immortal superhumans in the twinkling of an eye?"

[mnn727]

It seems like this type of theory makes scripture a bit too malleable to be of any use doesn't it?

Not at all, the question is not how bad scripture is, but that even though not 100% historical/scientific we still find lessons of Gods love and His message to mankind.

[LinuxGal]

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. 

 

Since the quote I provided says all life under heaven, I presume that heaven covers every region.

[mnn727]

. For just a few of the problems with a Global Flood SEE http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

 

Here's one that most global flood believers don't even think about from your above source:  How did the human population rebound so fast? Genealogies in Genesis put the Tower of Babel about 110 to 150 years after the Flood [Gen 10:25, 11:10-19]. How did the world population regrow so fast to make its construction (and the city around it) possible? Similarly, there would have been very few people around to build Stonehenge and the Pyramids, rebuild the Sumerian and Indus Valley civilizations, populate the Americas, etc.

 

Any global flood believer want to tackle that one?

Edited November 23, 2014 by mnn727

[MormonFreeThinker]

Since the quote I provided says all life under heaven

 

All life under heaven was not destroyed, Noah and his ark were under heaven, do you agree? What about fish? Do you agree that fish are under heaven? A region is under heaven, so life in the region was destroyed. 

 

Just change the word, it makes sense.

 

GEN 6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the region, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the region shall die.

 

Note the comma "breath of life, from" 

Edited November 23, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[teddyaware]

We don't believe: "God recreating from inanimate dust (resurrection) billions of immortal superhumans in the twinkling of an eye?"

 

I'm wondering if this is some sort of stalling tactic on your part because you're trying to avoid answering my question. It's obvious you're an intelligent and insightful LDS person, therefore I'm quite sure you know what I'm trying to say and that I simply made use of one graphic word (superhuman) in order to make my point of argument more compelling. So I will dissect and make the line in dispute more plain to your understanding so that you will, hopefully, answer my original question.

 

1) As a Latter-day Saint, you must surely believe that in the resurrection billions of human bodies, that have long since crumbled to lifeless dust, will by the power of God be raised from that state of lifeless dust back to a state of life as human beings with tangible bodies of flesh and bone. If this statement is incorrect, please show me where I'm in error?

 

2) As a Latter-day Saint, you must surely believe all the billions human beings who ever lived will receive their now deceased human bodies back as an immortal possession in the glorious resurrection from the dead. If this statement is doctrinally incorrect, please show me where I'm in error?

 

3) Compared to the fallen state in which we now live, in the resurrection we fallen mortals will be superhuman (substitute the expression 'spiritually glorified' if you prefer) compared to what we are now based on the fact that we will no longer be subject to the fallen nature, will have conquered physical and spiritual death through the atonement (except for the sons of perdition), and will be filled with the gifts and powers of God to a far greater degree than we now enjoy. If this statement is incorrect, please show me where I'm in error?

 

4) The resurrection from the dead into immortality can and will happen "in the twinkling of an eye," as it were, as amply demonstrated by the fact that the scriptures testify multitudes of the dead were simultaneously resurrected at the very moment of the resurrection of Christ. So as the scriptures testify, the resurrection from the dead is a speedy process and that at the sounding of the trump of God, at the time of the last resurrection just prior to the time of the final judgement, billions of once dead human beings will be quickly raised from the dead to stand before God.  If I'm doctrinally incorrect with this statement, please show me my error.

 

So now that I've made myself more clear, if you're willing please answer my original question by substituting the word 'superhuman' with the expression 'spiritually glorified." Thanks

[lds-convert-sw]

Wow, this thread has been going on a long time. I read the first two pages, and then realized there are 9 pages, so I didn't keep reading, but here is my quick take on Noah and the flood.
1. The new movie with Russell Crowe? Horrible rendition, seriously, rock monsters helped build the ark?
2. On a more serious note, my interpretation of the flood is similiar to my interpretation of the creation story. What I mean is, both stories are true, but in both cases, we don't have all the details, nor will we ever. That's what faith is for. For instance, certainly I'm not the only one who has ever wondered about the logistics behind populating the Earth (needs it's own thread). Were Adam and Eve (not their real names, English didn't exist) the only humans on Earth? Did God bring more souls and bodies to Earth? What about genetic inbreeding? On the same track of thinking, is it possible that Noah got two of every species on the ark? Probably not. But again, from a logical standpoint it seems impossible, but with God, all things are possible. Ultimately the specifics don't matter, but it is interesting to contemplate.

[Flyonthewall]

We still have geysers, but that wont help you any, the water is superheated. Sufficient water in the atmosphere to give 40 ft over the highest hills would parboil Noah and company.

 

With 40 ft over the highest hills where is it going to drain to?

 

God can do anything he wants. For just a few of the problems with a Global Flood SEE http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

Geysers aren't what I had in mind, but they could be a part of it. I was thinking what if all underground water tables came to the surface, not just ones we know about but ones we may not know about.

I could not tell you what may have caused it, other than God. Once they served God's purpose thy would have retreated back underground.

I am not set in my thinking on a global or local flood but I do not eliminate from possibility something God has done simply because science cannot explain it.