Noah's Ark.....i know call me crazy.

[cinepro]

51 minutes ago, Calm said:

 Peleg scripture in the Bible is not always interpreted as land division.  As far as I can tell that is a relatively recent interpretation with young earth creationists.  The Jews interpreted it as division of nations.

Just so we're all clear...

D&C 133

Quote

24 And the land of Jerusalem and the land of Zion shall be turned back into their own place, and the earth shall be like as it was in the days before it was divided.

 

The above verse explained in the current D&C Manual at LDS.org: (emphasis added)

 

Quote

D&C 133:23–24. Will the Continents Be Rejoined?

Genesis indicates that in the early history of the world the land masses were united. Moses recorded that one of the great-great-grandsons of Shem was named Peleg (a Hebrew word meaning division) because “in his days was the earth divided” (Genesis 10:25). Many scholars have passed this reference off as meaning some sort of cultural or political division, but modern prophets have taught that this statement should be taken literally.

An article published early in the history of the Church under the direction of the Prophet Joseph Smith stated: “The Eternal God hath declared that the great deep shall roll back into the north countries and that the land of Zion and the land of Jerusalem shall be joined together, as they were before they were divided in the days of Peleg. No wonder the mind starts at the sound of the last days!” (“The Last Days,” Evening and Morning Star, Feb. 1833, p. 1.)

President Joseph Fielding Smith wrote: “If … the earth is to be restored as it was in the beginning, then all the land surface will again be in one place as it was before the days of Peleg, when this great division was accomplished. Europe, Africa, and the islands of the sea including Australia, New Zealand, and other places in the Pacific must be brought back and joined together as they were in the beginning.” (Answers to Gospel Questions, 5:74.)

In an introduction to a book on continental drift, a scientist writes:

“Formerly, most scientists regarded the earth as rigid and the continents as fixed, but now the surface of the earth is seen as slowly deformable and the continents as ‘rafts’ floating on a ‘sea’ of denser rock. The continents have repeatedly collided and joined, repeatedly broken and separated in different patterns, and, very likely, they have grown larger in the process.

“This scientific revolution, as others before it, was long in the making, but it was not until the late 1960s that it began to succeed. At a meeting of the world’s geophysicists in August of 1971, it was made clear that the notion of continental drift, which had been heresy only a few years before, had become the orthodoxy of the great majority.” (Continents Adrift, preface.)

Though the time of this division of the land is placed much earlier by scientists than by the biblical chronology, the idea of one land mass is widely accepted. This revelation in Doctrine and Covenants 133 declares that sometime in the future that geographical unity will be restored.

 

Institute OT Manual (currently at LDS.org)

Quote

(4-22) Genesis 10:25. Was the Earth Divided in the Days of Peleg?

“The dividing of the earth was not an act of division by the inhabitants of the earth by tribes and peoples, but a breaking asunder of the continents, thus dividing the land surface and creating the Eastern Hemisphere and Western Hemisphere. By looking at a wall map of the world, you will discover how the land surface along the northern and southern coast of the American Hemisphere and Europe and Africa has the appearance of having been together at one time. Of course, there have been many changes on the earth’s surface since the beginning. We are informed by revelation that the time will come when this condition will be changed and that the land surface of the earth will come back again as it was in the beginning and all be in one place. This is definitely stated in the Doctrine and Covenants. [D&C 133:18–20 is then cited.]” (Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, 5:73–74.)

 

Edited April 18, 2018 by cinepro

[cinepro]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

Does that make the earth human simply because it has a spirit and consciousness?

I am asking if the rules of sanctification have to be identical for nonhuman beings.  Is there anything in the scriptures that indicate this?

Perhaps a proxy baptism might be applied.

Those would all be questions only a Prophet could answer.  So I'll defer to what they've said on the subject.

Interestingly (or maybe not), I only remember that verse because a speaker at EFY used it in one of their talks.  I thought it was weird that the planet had a spirit and talked, but lo, I looked it up and there it was.   And I still remember that 30 years later.

[mrmarklin]

47 minutes ago, snowflake said:

Do you think the text itself is wrong? because the bible is pretty clear that it was a global flood and that all flesh perished except what was on the ark. 

I think the text is correct. But people read it without CONTEXT. 

[pogi]

23 hours ago, rongo said:

What do you do with JST (Book of Moses) and BoM passages that perpetuate the "mistaken notion of primitive people" explanation, though? Why did God perpetuate the myth in translated scripture?

Myths/legends are not always the mistaken notions of primitive people.  Here is one explanation of myths: 

Quote

A myth is a story based on tradition or legend, which has a deep symbolic meaning. A myth 'conveys a truth' to those who tell it and hear it, rather than necessarily recording a true event. Although some myths can be accounts of actual events, they have become transformed by symbolic meaning or shifted in time or place.

In that sense, one could understand why a myth might be perpetuated by God. 

[rongo]

42 minutes ago, mnn727 said:

Its obvious something happened, too many cultures have a flood myth,

Why would the flood myth be universal (and it is) if it was a local flood in the Black Sea, or the Carolinas, or the Tigris/Euphrates, or the Nile? 

but there is zero geological or zoological evidence of a worldwide flood that wiped everything and everybody out.

This is all due to assumptions and interpretation. 

[pogi]

15 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I don't think that's true. I bet most apologists are fallibilists for instance. Typically the inclination is to try and keep as much of the narrative as possible. So, for instance, with the Noah story rather than just reject it as a myth you have Noah living in the Carolinas facing a giant hurricane taking Noah across the ocean. Slight errors of the sort you'd find in the New Testament.

My experience is that those who reject everything as myth tend to do so more out of political/cultural inclination. It's not due to fallibilism.

Depends on your definition of "myth".  I could accept a historical local flood theory, while still calling the Biblical account a "myth".  Myths can be loosely based on historical accounts.

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Those would all be questions only a Prophet could answer.  So I'll defer to what they've said on the subject.

Interestingly (or maybe not), I only remember that verse because a speaker at EFY used it in one of their talks.  I thought it was weird that the planet had a spirit and talked, but lo, I looked it up and there it was.   And I still remember that 30 years later.

I love the idea the earth and other creatures have a spirit and consciousness.  I have been well aware of that since at least early teens by reading the scriptures on my own and talking about it with Mom.

Now what that means as far as their eternal progression, little is actually known.

And yes, I am well aware of the various LDS commentary and scriptural interpretation that get into young earth creationism...which has always been strange to me given JS and others started from an old earth understanding.

Edited April 18, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, rongo said:

Why would the flood myth be universal (and it is) if it was a local flood in the Black Sea, or the Carolinas, or the Tigris/Euphrates, or the Nile? 

Because massive floods are not uncommon all over the earth, including way back in man's early history.

[2PairsofCletes]

On 4/17/2018 at 12:51 PM, snowflake said:

Many Christians I know believe the story of Noah's Ark....but most think it was a local flood, not global. 

Im one of those who believe it was a local flood and not global. People in ancient times such as the time of Noah's view of "the entire earth" was actually very small and not global

[Calm]

"And the land of Jerusalem and the land of Zion shall be turned back into their own place, and the earth shall be like as it was in the days before it was divided."

As in possibly the people are given the land of their inheritance, they know who they are, their heritage, their place in God's Plan and all are of one nation as it was before competition, hate, pride split the family of man.

Or possibly everything gets moved somehow to the identical condition it was at a certain time in the past.

"Turned back into their own place"

Why this phrasing?  Why would one particular geological placement be seen as "their own place" as if the continents don't belong just as much where they are now as where they have ever been?  The crust must have always been moving if basic knowledge of how things work is accurate, why one formation would be preferred to another, not sure.

There is a sense that something must be rigid and unchanging in order to be perfect, that there is only one ideal, perfected condition for anything rather than change being perfect in its own way.

I find it difficult to believe God would have us give up the grandeur of the Alps or stunning ways of the Fjords and beauty of New Zealand and curious islands like Phuket, Thailand.  While beautiful in their own way, endless plains or even rolling hills need variety to achieve full appreciation.

Otoh, "their own place" sounds much like heritage to me...or even social relationship.

Edited April 18, 2018 by Calm

[mrmarklin]

4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

It's still scriptural- days of Peleg etc.  Scripture still represents official doctrine of the Church doesn't it?

I don’t have a problem with Peleg’s times being a division of lands. The Atlantis myth backs this up somewhat.  There is also current archeological evidence that this division took place. 

The flood myth is likely universal because it’s true and is the history of a clearly small population reboot. 

[rongo]

35 minutes ago, Calm said:

Because massive floods are not uncommon all over the earth, including way back in man's early history.

Why would the existence of massive floods necessarily lead to universal deluge/new creation myths?

I think the ubiquity of them is striking, beyond just concluding that massive floods were part of the collective ancient human experience. All cultures use the stories the same way. 

[MiserereNobis]

5 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

What good Catholics we would make.

I could help you out with that, ya know

 

[cinepro]

30 minutes ago, 2PairsofCletes said:

Im one of those who believe it was a local flood and not global. People in ancient times such as the time of Noah's view of "the entire earth" was actually very small and not global

If only there was a Church on the Earth (global) today that had modern Prophets who could read these ancient scriptures and tell us what they mean...

Oh, wait.

Of course, the greatest irony would be if such a Church did exist, but the members of that Church ignored their Prophets because they didn't like what they were saying...

 

[mnn727]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

Why would the flood myth be universal (and it is) if it was a local flood in the Black Sea, or the Carolinas, or the Tigris/Euphrates, or the Nile? 

 

A tsunami caused by a large meteor or comet strike (or even a large enough earthquake) could affect the coastal areas of all continents.

A large enough ice shelf breaking off of Antarctica would do it also.

Edited April 18, 2018 by mnn727

[Atheist Mormon]

On 4/17/2018 at 9:21 AM, snowflake said:

I've been fascinated with the story of Noah's ark since I was a kid.....

This is an unbelievable fantasy that it is baffling how a land/rock formation could lead you to believe this thing is a ship. I spent most of my free time hiking/exploring in utah's deserts and have a dozen very good samples of human/animal looking rock formations I understand the longing tendency of Pareidolia. Before going the Noah's Ark, you should realize that before this tale was writeen 99%of all living species of the Planet was extinct. There was no possible way for Noah to carry out this mission.

[pogi]

56 minutes ago, Calm said:

"...and curious islands like Phuket, Thailand...

Just be careful how you pronounce that one.  I work in an international travel clinic and have to keep myself from laughing sometimes. 

[The Nehor]

The downside is that if the scripture does mean Pangea is coming back then there will be a lot less beachside property on the New Earth. This is why I already called dibs on some oceanfront land. Better hurry up and do the same before it is all gone.

[clarkgoble]

6 hours ago, rongo said:

What makes you think that the manuals "adopted the ideas from a Seventh-day Adventist creationist text?" What text would that be?

The old Old Testament Institute manual. A good article on the influence of Seventh-day Adventist thinkers on this matter on Joseph Fielding Smith and company is this Dialog article. My copy of the Old Testament manual and what I recall being similar problems in the old D&C Institute manual. Unfortunately my copies are in storage from when we renovated my basement. An other good article is David Bailey's. 

Since Pres. Hinkley became President there's been a move away from such things although I think Pres. Nelson still believes in a young earth and a global flood.

6 hours ago, Sevenbak said:

No, the current manuals teach this...   D&C  manual, old testament manual (multiple times),  bible dictionary, topical guide, all reference the division as a physical separation.   Then there are many prophetic statements sprinkled throughout curriculum as well,  including those by Joseph Smith.

 The argument that this is not a current correlated teaching doesn’t work.

It'd be helpful if you could supply references so we know what you're talking about.

I know the current Institute manual still has the JFS "Answers to Gospel Questions" about Peleg where he asserts it's continents not people. I'm sure there's a few others too.

 

Edited April 18, 2018 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, snowflake said:

Help me understand why the LDS don't fall into this circular argument as well. When I look at the Moroni challenge, it just reminds me of the "Christian" faith healers. Their game is: that if you have enough faith and send us your money you will get (whatever you want riches, children, spouse, healing..etc).  The faith healer promises that if you have enough faith you will get your answer......and if you don't get your answer....all the fault falls on the believer that didn't have enough faith. 

This is exactly what the Moroni challenge is. We all know it is true (LDS Leadership) , but if you don't have enough faith, with total trust in God then you have failed (either with a sin in your life, or not confessing something....etc). So please help me to distinguish the difference between the faith healer and the moroni challenge....and why isn't the moroni challenge circular reasoning? 

The claim is an empirical one that God will answer you. The question then arises what happens for those who don't receive answers or claim to receive a negative answer. But the claim put forth isn't circular but empirical.

Now to explain those who don't get the answer people might devolve into circular apologetic. I don't think the "you don't have enough faith" is an adequate explanation. There's lots of reasons it might not work but realistically at best you can say "I don't know why they didn't get an answer." (At least typically - in some cases there are external reasons to hypothesize a view) To the person praying, assuming they were sincere, studying, and earnestly trying, then they'd be justified in the belief the Church isn't true even if it is. 

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

Depends on your definition of "myth".  I could accept a historical local flood theory, while still calling the Biblical account a "myth".  Myths can be loosely based on historical accounts.

True. I was using it with the assumption of no basis. But you're right people might hypothesize a historical origin for a myth. But most likely don't have one.

1 hour ago, mnn727 said:

A tsunami caused by a large meteor or comet strike (or even a large enough earthquake) could affect the coastal areas of all continents.

A large enough ice shelf breaking off of Antarctica would do it also.

Yes but such things leave evidence as would an universal flood. At a minimum caves would have evidence of an influx of water. Those adopting an universal flood that covered all the mountains and then a massive movement of continents a little later have to end up adopting the view that God intentionally hid the history of such things by making the earth as if it followed what all the scientists following the evidence present. That is pretty well such people are committed to God more or less creating the world from scratch around the time of Peleg so that it would appear like civilizations had been continuous for 10,000 years, that animals evolved, and so forth. 

The question would then become, why on earth would God do such a thing?

[Jeanne]

Just curious..is Primary still teaching the story of  Noah'sArk?  With the felt board and animals two by two?

Edited April 18, 2018 by Jeanne

[mnn727]

19 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Just curious..is Primary still teaching the story of  Noah'sArk?  With the felt board and animals two by two?

Yes but not with a felt board (my wife teaches primary)

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, snowflake said:

Thanks for you response and I will do my best to respond here with several points and I do respect your opinion on this forum MFB.

Help me understand why the LDS don't fall into this circular argument as well. When I look at the Moroni challenge, it just reminds me of the "Christian" faith healers. Their game is: that if you have enough faith and send us your money you will get (whatever you want riches, children, spouse, healing..etc).  The faith healer promises that if you have enough faith you will get your answer......and if you don't get your answer....all the fault falls on the believer that didn't have enough faith. 

This is exactly what the Moroni challenge is. We all know it is true (LDS Leadership) , but if you don't have enough faith, with total trust in God then you have failed (either with a sin in your life, or not confessing something....etc). So please help me to distinguish the difference between the faith healer and the moroni challenge....and why isn't the moroni challenge circular reasoning? 

I think what you are trying to tell me (and I can be a little slow) is that because you get a feeling...burning in the bosom....emotional response....etc.. you trust in your self conscience that satisfies you as an "answer" that is why it isn't circular reasoning? 

Again, I know you are well versed in Philosophy and I appreciate you dumbing it down for me. 

Also I know that many different LDS sects rely on the moroni challenge to determine "truth"....are they falling into my fallacy too?  Thanks MFB!

 

Fair enough- great question but not so good an answer

My question was essentially why YOU believe the bible was the word of God and instead it kind of got switched to comparing LDS views to charlatans.  

I am glad we can discuss this reasonably- It is a rare chance for a reasonable dialogue!    

I am not quite following your argument here on why the Moroni challenge is "circular" exactly, but let's take it back to your comment that the "LDS fall into this circular argument as well."

I would certainly agree that both those who accept the Bible based on their "emotional" (using your word) justification AND the LDS folks who do the same in the Moroni challenge ARE agreeing that one should follow one's emotions in deciding if God has spoken to them, but I don't see why that is a "circular" argument.

A circular argument is one when one is already ASSUMING the conclusion in the premise.  "The Bible is true because it says it is" is circular because one is not really examining WHY the bible is "true", but simply accepting that it is.   It completely avoids the "why" question- which incidentally you have not yet answered either. 

BUT Evangelicals typically do NOT want to admit that they accept the Bible "because God has told them it is true"  BECAUSE that is exactly the Mormon challenge itself- which is of course that we should "ask God" if it is true and "He will manifest the truth to you".   

Yes, arguably the same thing as a faith healer but also the same thing for someone in a Billy Graham crusade "accepting Jesus" OR someone saying "the bible is true because it says it is,"  OR someone saying "The bible is true because God told me so" OR "I know I am saved because God has manifested the truth to me !!

THEY ARE ALL THE SAME LOGIC!   That is the crucial point I am trying to make!  ALL are based on an emotional response!

BUT is that bad?  NO!

How do you know rape and murder are wrong?  Emotional response!  How do you even know God exists?  Emotional response!  Can you prove it scientifically?  NO!

AND that is what philosophers freely acknowledge and is why I am here trying to get this point through people's heads- and it helps ALL THEISTS equally!

The only "evidence " we have that we are "saved" or that the "Bible is true" or the Book of Mormon is true" or that God exists is within our hearts!

So yes all theists are in the same boat with the faith healers and charlatans, unfortunately,and  there are false prophets and real prophets and real choices.

So we must choose wisely the path we will take, and acknowledge that in the final analysis we have to live and let live- because every argument we make AGAINST the other guy's religion can come right back and bite us. 

God is our only judge on whether or not we get it "right"- not other people.

And atheists actually also have the same problem!  They cannot prove THEIR morality- "save the whales" or WHATEVER it is is "right" except by basing it on emotion.  Democrats and Republicans, Liberals and Conservatives all have their arguments, all based in the final analysis on emotion.

Every decision we make about whom to marry, what values we have and what is important in life are based on emotion and not scientific evidence- so their arguments that theists are stupid because they have no evidence are just as stupid as the theists- IF they are stupid.

All people have beliefs that give them comfort and all people think they are "right" in their beliefs.

I know that is not a pleasant notion to one who has never seen it that way, but that is the truth.   You cannot justify the bible any more than I can justify the Book of Mormon and atheists cannot justify what gives their personal lives meaning any more than we can without emotion.

That's just the way that is, and philosophers acknowledge it.

Values and what we consider important in life are all based on personal subjective values.  Period.

Edited April 19, 2018 by mfbukowski

[Jeanne]

2 hours ago, mnn727 said:

Yes but not with a felt board (my wife teaches primary)

I am sure they do it differently now..In my mind, I see the old flannel board of years ago.