The Book of Mormon requires that the Tower of Babel was real

[Rivers]

On March 9, 2016 at 10:10 PM, BCSpace said:

I'm fully aware that my acceptance of a local Flood is contrary to official LDS doctrine.

Which is ok since this is nothing the church makes much of a fuss about. 

[Freedom]

22 hours ago, Nevo said:

The "doctrine of the flood" is also found in Moses 7 and 1 and 2 Peter and it is clearly a global flood that is described. The Church's official position is described here, among other places.

I don't believe that there was a global flood, but that is what the Church teaches.

Moses 7 requires it NOT to be a global flood. Earth should not be interpreted to mean planet. Why would God give a promise to Enoch that a remnant of his seed would always be found among all nations if all nations are his seed? Moses was his grandson. It suggests that line could be lost which requires there to be other people other than the descendants of Moses. You would have to be more specific than saying 1 & 2 Peter.

 

The church’s teaching is of a global flood, but this is not the doctrine. The doctrine is contained only in the scriptures and in the official proclamations. The church does have a number of teachings that are even inconsistent and even contradictory. Compare how the various manuals define the Oath and Covenant of the priesthood as an example. You might also consider the contradictory statements on homosexuality and the age of the earth. The scriptures do not require a global flood and, as is stated in Moses 7:51.

[ksfisher]

On 3/8/2016 at 0:05 AM, Maedros said:

It's a very good assumption though - what other tower could it refer to other than that of Babel where the tongues were confounded. We can't prove that beyond reasonable doubt but luckily we don't have to because what the Lord reveals 'has within it the evidence of its own authenticity'; we need but seek it.

The OP asked if it was required that the Tower of Babel story was real.  My point has been that whether if was the biblical Tower of Babel or some other tower has very little impact on the veracity of or the narrative of the Book of Mormon. 

Robert F Smith has made some very good points about the association of the tower story with Babel being post exile.   

[cinepro]

2 hours ago, Freedom said:

Moses 7 requires it NOT to be a global flood. Earth should not be interpreted to mean planet. Why would God give a promise to Enoch that a remnant of his seed would always be found among all nations if all nations are his seed? Moses was his grandson. It suggests that line could be lost which requires there to be other people other than the descendants of Moses. You would have to be more specific than saying 1 & 2 Peter.

 

The scope of Moses' knowledge encompassed the entire planet:

 

Quote

 

7 And now, behold, this one thing I show unto thee, Moses, my son, for thou art in the world, and now I show it unto thee.

 8 And it came to pass that Moses looked, and beheld the world upon which he was created; and Moses beheld the world and the ends thereof, and all the children of men which are, and which were created; of the same he greatly marveled and wondered.

Moses 1

 

 

So if Moses (whom LDS teach was the author of Genesis) says it was global, he knew what he was talking about.

As for Enoch, the common interpretation seems to be that he didn't know if his "seed" would survive through the flood (perhaps he knew someone would survive, but didn't know if it would be his descendant), so the promise was that whoever did survive would be a descendant of his, thus preserving his "seed":

 

Quote

The implication of Enoch’s vision is arresting. Hundreds of years before the Flood, both he and his people knew it was coming “upon the residue of the wicked” (Moses 7:43). Neither the Lord nor his people kept the fact a secret. But Enoch knew that most would not respond to the warning, and “he had bitterness of soul, and wept over his brethren” (Moses 7:44). The Lord, controlling his own grief in order to comfort his prophet, revealed to Enoch that Noah and his family would survive and establish humankind upon the earth once more. But Enoch remained troubled. He desired peace and salvation for the souls of men. Therefore, he asked when the Savior would bring about his Atonement, that “they that mourn may be sanctified and have eternal life” (Moses 7:45).

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1998/01/enoch-what-modern-scripture-teaches?lang=eng

 

 

Edited March 10, 2016 by cinepro

[cinepro]

9 hours ago, juliann said:

Seriously? What should FM fix? The part where they use the Widstoe quote as an example of the early belief in a global flood? You haven't read the FM article, have you.  Fess up.

Now where do I complain about how long it takes the critics to fix their errors? 

Fair enough.  I hadn't fully scrutinized the much improved version of the article (compared to how it was a few years ago). It is especially good that they acknowledge Widtsoe's belief in the context of his quote.

[thesometimesaint]

17 minutes ago, cinepro said:

The scope of Moses' knowledge encompassed the entire planet:

So if Moses (whom LDS teach was the author of Genesis) says it was global, he knew what he was talking about.

As for Enoch, the common interpretation seems to be that he didn't know if his "seed" would survive through the flood (perhaps he knew someone would survive, but didn't know if it would be his descendant), so the promise was that whoever did survive would be a descendant of his, thus preserving his "seed":

Noah not so much.

Moses doesn't say it was global either. That is our projection onto what he allegedly said. IE; The Scriptures says "the whole world". Which can mean many different things in context.

SEE  Luke 2:1 refers to a decree which went out to tax "the whole world." But this can only refer to the territories that the Romans controlled.

I think anytime we have to posit any God or Godlike force onto science to make science work. It is no longer science but religion. Much better to keep them separate until we know a whole lot more about both.

Edited March 10, 2016 by thesometimesaint

[cinepro]

10 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Noah not so much.

Moses doesn't say it was global either. That is our projection onto what he allegedly said. IE; The Scriptures says "the whole world". Which can mean many different things in context.

SEE  Luke 2:1 refers to a decree which went out to tax "the whole world." But this can only refer to the territories that the Romans controlled.

I think anytime we have to posit any God or Godlike force onto science to make science work. It is no longer science but religion. Much better to keep them separate until we know a whole lot more about both.

If Luke claimed that God had lifted him up in a vision and shown him the whole planet, then I would be more convinced.

The argument also fails on account that Luke knew that there were other people living outside the Roman empire, so not even he believed it was "the whole world" getting taxed.  That's different than arguing that the author of Genesis really did think it was "the whole world" and just didn't know about all the Chinese, Egyptian and Olmec people running around flood-free.

Perhaps this is why most modern translations render it as "the entire Roman world."

Edited March 10, 2016 by cinepro

[Nevo]

1 hour ago, Freedom said:

Moses 7 requires it NOT to be a global flood. Earth should not be interpreted to mean planet. Why would God give a promise to Enoch that a remnant of his seed would always be found among all nations if all nations are his seed?

Earth should absolutely be interpreted to mean planet in Moses 7. Enoch is shown in vision "all the inhabitants of the earth" (v. 21); "all the nations of the earth were before him" (v. 23). When he sees the God of heaven weep, Enoch exclaims "were it possible that man could number the particles of the earth, yea, millions of earths like this, it would not be a beginning to the number of thy creations" (v. 30). Later, Enoch hears "the earth" mourn, saying: "Wo, wo is me, the mother of men; I am pained, I am weary, because of the wickedness of my children. When shall I rest, and be cleansed from the filthiness which is gone forth out of me? When will my Creator sanctify me, that I may rest, and righteousness for a season abide upon my face?" (v. 48). This is clearly a reference to the Millennium, as subsequent verses make clear (see vv. 58–61; 64–65). Is the Millennium to be a worldwide event or is it to only cover the portion of South Carolina where Noah lived?

Why would God promise Enoch that a remnant of his seed would "always be found among all nations" and survive through the Millennium (see vv. 51–52, 60)? Given that the Book of Moses repeatedly indicates that only Noah's family survived the flood (e.g., v. 45: "from Noah, he beheld all the families of the earth"; cf. Moses 8:3), I'm going to guess that v. 52 is just a way of saying that Noah's descendants would always remain on the earth and not be destroyed by further floods (compare v. 50).

[thesometimesaint]

32 minutes ago, cinepro said:

If Luke claimed that God had lifted him up in a vision and shown him the whole planet, then I would be more convinced.

The argument also fails on account that Luke knew that there were other people living outside the Roman empire, so not even he believed it was "the whole world" getting taxed.  That's different than arguing that the author of Genesis really did think it was "the whole world" and just didn't know about all the Chinese, Egyptian and Olmec people running around flood-free.

Perhaps this is why most modern translations render it as "the entire Roman world."

God can do anything he wants. Mortal people not so much.

There is no indications that any of the writers of the Bible knew just how big the whole earth is.

I eagerly await for when the Church puts out the LDS Translation of the Bible correlated with what science has found out about our natural world/universe.

[Kevin Christensen]

• Exodus 10:15

  15 For they [locusts]  covered the face of the whole earth, so that the land was darkened; and they did eat every herb of the land, and all the fruit of the trees which the hail had left: and there remained not any green thing in the trees, or in the herbs of the field, through all the land of Egypt.

Are we to assume that the locusts here also left the kangaroos, Celts, Inuits, and Emperor Penguins short of herbs?  Or would that interpretation seem a bit unreasonable?

Also, from Moses 1

27 And it came to pass, as the voice was still speaking, Moses cast his eyes and beheld the earth, yea, even all of it; and there was not a particle of it which he did not behold, discerning it by the Spirit of God.

 28 And he beheld also the inhabitants thereof, and there was not a soul which he beheld not; and he discerned them by the Spirit of God; and their numbers were great, even numberless as the sand upon the sea shore.

 29 And he beheld many lands; and each land was called earth, and there were inhabitants on the face thereof.

For your consideration, when trying impose absolute interpretations of what is reported by observers who had both a specific non-absolute perspective, a cultural context, and who obviously had no problems referring to their local environment as the face of the whole earth.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Nevo]

8 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

• Exodus 10:15

  15 For they [locusts]  covered the face of the whole earth, so that the land was darkened; and they did eat every herb of the land, and all the fruit of the trees which the hail had left: and there remained not any green thing in the trees, or in the herbs of the field, through all the land of Egypt.

Are we to assume that the locusts here also left the kangaroos, Celts, Inuits, and Emperor Penguins short of herbs?

You take this passage to demonstrate that ancient Hebrews "obviously had no problems referring to their local environment as the face of the whole earth," but that's a bit misleading, isn't it? As you well know, Exodus 10:15 doesn't actually refer to "the whole earth" but rather to "the whole land"—namely, the whole land of Egypt. Thus, the NRSV has: "They covered the surface of the whole land, so that the land was black; and they ate all the plants in the land and all the fruit of the trees that the hail had left; nothing green was left, no tree, no plant in the field, in all the land of Egypt." The account is still full of hyperbole, but the writer isn't claiming that the plague was universal.

Is the flood story in Genesis 6–9 analogous to what we see in Exodus 10:15? Well, no. Whatever the history behind it, in its literary form, the story describes a cosmic undoing of creation. As John H. Walton has observed, "creation both in the Bible and in the ancient Near East entailed deity bringing order which pushed back chaos. The forces of chaos were most consistently represented in the cosmic waters. In this sense, the flood represented a reversal of creation." Further, "the Hebrew word for Noah's flood . . . mabbûl . . . is very similar to the Akkadian word for the cosmic deluge, abubu. In Akkadian it refers to a devastating flood of cosmic proportions that is seen as a destructive weapon of the gods" (J. H. Walton, "Flood," in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch, ed. T. Desmond Alexander and David W. Baker [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003], 317, 322). Whether or not a local flood is what actually occurred, a cosmic flood is what is described.

As for Moses 1:29, I think "earths" does indicate planets there. That seems to me to be the context. In any case, Moses 7 wasn't translated from Hebrew. The word "earth" there isn't rendering the Hebrew aretz/eretz. It has the range of meanings it had in 1830—which includes "the terraqueous globe which we inhabit."

Edited March 11, 2016 by Nevo

[Freedom]

7 hours ago, cinepro said:

The scope of Moses' knowledge encompassed the entire planet:

 

 

So if Moses (whom LDS teach was the author of Genesis) says it was global, he knew what he was talking about.

As for Enoch, the common interpretation seems to be that he didn't know if his "seed" would survive through the flood (perhaps he knew someone would survive, but didn't know if it would be his descendant), so the promise was that whoever did survive would be a descendant of his, thus preserving his "seed":

 

 

Sorry, nothing in this requires Moses to understand what a planet is. He saw his world, or the state of his people and his culture. 

[Kevin Christensen]

2 hours ago, Nevo said:

You take this passage to demonstrate that ancient Hebrews "obviously had no problems referring to their local environment as the face of the whole earth," but that's a bit misleading, isn't it? As you well know, Exodus 10:15 doesn't actually refer to "the whole earth" but rather to "the whole land"—namely, the whole land of Egypt. Thus, the NRSV has: "They covered the surface of the whole land, so that the land was black; and they ate all the plants in the land and all the fruit of the trees that the hail had left; nothing green was left, no tree, no plant in the field, in all the land of Egypt." The account is still full of hyperbole, but the writer isn't claiming that the plague was universal.

Is the flood story in Genesis 6–9 analogous to what we see in Exodus 10:15? Well, no. Whatever the history behind it, in its literary form, the story describes a cosmic undoing of creation. As John H. Walton has observed, "creation both in the Bible and in the ancient Near East entailed deity bringing order which pushing back chaos. The forces of chaos were most consistently represented in the cosmic waters. In this sense, the flood represented a reversal of creation." Further, "the Hebrew word for Noah's flood . . . mabbûl . . . is very similar to the Akkadian word for the cosmic deluge, abubu. In Akkadian it refers to a devastating flood of cosmic proportions that is seen as a destructive weapon of the gods" (s.v. "Flood," in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch, ed. T. Desmond Alexander and David W. Baker [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003]). Whether or not a local flood is what actually occurred, a cosmic flood is what is described.

As for Moses 1:29, I think "earths" does indicate planets there. That seems to me to be the context. In any case, Moses 7 wasn't translated from Hebrew. The word "earth" there isn't rendering the Hebrew aretz/eretz. It has the range of meanings it had in 1830—which includes "the terraqueous globe which we inhabit."

Hebrew, I've been told often, uses the same word for land and earth, which translators do with as they please, which is why the KJV has earth and the NRSV can have land.  It also makes the express equivalence in Moses interesting.  

In Moses 1, God shows Moses "the world, and the ends thereof" (1: 8 _), "the earth, yea, even all of it" (verse 27).  God tells him that "worlds without number have I created," but shows him "only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof..." 

If you want to interpret it differently, fine, just so you don't suppose that the language used in the Bible, or the nature of a transmitted, translated text via humans who are products of specific times and cultures, and interpreted by humans who are also products of specific times and cultures must bind us to a single, conveniently implausible, uninterpreted, indisputable understanding.

It's difficult for me to express how liberating it was for me when I first heard a recording of Nibley's "Before Adam" back in 1980.  As delighted and enlightened as I was back then, it's hard to accept that over 35 years later, some people have a hard time appreciating the concepts,  still preferring, as Nibley observed back then, taking sides with the traditional rivals, rather than looking closely at what we've got.

Best,

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Maedros]

13 hours ago, ksfisher said:

The OP asked if it was required that the Tower of Babel story was real.  My point has been that whether if was the biblical Tower of Babel or some other tower has very little impact on the veracity of or the narrative of the Book of Mormon. 

Robert F Smith has made some very good points about the association of the tower story with Babel being post exile.   

Agreed.

[Freedom]

5 hours ago, Nevo said:

 

As for Moses 1:29, I think "earths" does indicate planets there. That seems to me to be the context. In any case, Moses 7 wasn't translated from Hebrew. The word "earth" there isn't rendering the Hebrew aretz/eretz. It has the range of meanings it had in 1830—which includes "the terraqueous globe which we inhabit."

Yes, the English definition does include this, but you are requiring the text of Moses to have been created by Joseph rather than transmitted by Joseph. The original language from which The Book of Moses sprang did not have a word for planet, and the people had no concept of planet, therefore your arguments are without merit. As Kevin  points out, the Book of Moses itself gives a definition of earth that you are ignoring. 

[cinepro]

17 hours ago, Freedom said:

Sorry, nothing in this requires Moses to understand what a planet is. He saw his world, or the state of his people and his culture. 

 

Really? 

 27 And it came to pass, as the voice was still speaking, Moses cast his eyes and beheld the earth, yea, even all of it; and there was not a particle of it which he did not behold, discerning it by the Spirit of God.

 28 And he beheld also the inhabitants thereof, and there was not a soul which he beheld not; and he discerned them by the Spirit of God; and their numbers were great, even numberless as the sand upon the sea shore.

So you're saying that verse 28 is actually limited to Moses' "people and his culture"?

 

 

 

[consiglieri]

I think arguing for a literal reading of the Flood narrative while restricting it to a limited area may be missing the point.

The goal of such an argument seems to be to try to make the story still "true" while reinterpreting it from what appears to have been its original intent.

Personally, I find it more rewarding to accept the fact that the story describes a global phenomenon, recognize that it is a myth, and then try to understand what the author meant by employing this myth in his narrative.

But that's just me.

 

 

[Rivers]

13 hours ago, consiglieri said:

I think arguing for a literal reading of the Flood narrative while restricting it to a limited area may be missing the point.

The goal of such an argument seems to be to try to make the story still "true" while reinterpreting it from what appears to have been its original intent.

Personally, I find it more rewarding to accept the fact that the story describes a global phenomenon, recognize that it is a myth, and then try to understand what the author meant by employing this myth in his narrative.

But that's just me.

 

 

That's how I look at it as well.  Adam Miller takes a similar approach.  I remember him saying in an interview once that it would be more productive to take these stories literally because  doing so would help us better understand the message being conveyed.