longview Posted January 2, 2019 Posted January 2, 2019 11 minutes ago, SouthernMo said: I meant that it will happen: 3 Nephi 26:3 Mormon 5:23 Mormon 9:2 These scriptures indicate that Earth will be moved from place to place. Not destroyed. 26 minutes ago, SouthernMo said: You said the earth is a sentient (feeling) being. So do you include all life as sentient and covenant-making? Have ants made covenants? Grass? How would either of these entities hypothetically not live up to the measure of their creation and break these covenants? Yes, pretty much. If the "dust" can move hither and thither at the command of God (see my scripture quotation in my signature block below), then everything (even bacteria and viruses) are invited to play out the Great Plan of Happiness. It is like taking part in a pageant. 31 minutes ago, SouthernMo said: Is there teaching somewhere about these supposed covenants, or are they your personal beliefs? I would have to say my personal beliefs developed from decades of scripture study and ponderings, based on my understanding that God does NOT coerce anyone or anything.
SouthernMo Posted January 2, 2019 Posted January 2, 2019 2 minutes ago, longview said: These scriptures indicate that Earth will be moved from place to place. Not destroyed. Yes, pretty much. If the "dust" can move hither and thither at the command of God (see my scripture quotation in my signature block below), then everything (even bacteria and viruses) are invited to play out the Great Plan of Happiness. It is like taking part in a pageant. I would have to say my personal beliefs developed from decades of scripture study and ponderings, based on my understanding that God does NOT coerce anyone or anything. I’d love a hypothetical example of how grass can disobey god? Not live up to the measure of its creation? Your last paragraph indicates that god does not coerce? What did he do to Jonah when he held him hostage in a whale? That’s pretty close to coercion, although we can discuss how literally you mean “coerce.” Does god not use a shovel to move dirt because that would be coercive? Or does he just walk up to the place where he wants a trench dug, and ask/command that dirt to move?
longview Posted January 2, 2019 Posted January 2, 2019 2 minutes ago, SouthernMo said: I’d love a hypothetical example of how grass can disobey god? Not live up to the measure of its creation? I don't think grass would necessarily be a candidate for exaltation in the Eternities as a "glorified blade of grass." Though I may have seen a quotation by Joseph Smith that your pet will be there to greet you in Heaven.
clarkgoble Posted January 2, 2019 Posted January 2, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, SouthernMo said: There are so many things that have to have gone right in your narrative - Chaldea or not. Noah landing anywhere in the Middle East after a trans-Atlantic voyage is highly problematic! Having a vessel to make the voyage is the biggest problem. As I said once you make it then the trade winds and currents naturally take you to Spain. There were large mayan canoes somewhat similar to Polynesian ones, but they were intended only for coastal trade and some leaps to islands in the Caribbean and possibly Florida and the Carolinas. However those are also thousands of years after the time Noah most likely left. So the vessel is the biggest issue - particularly a vessel that could survive a hurricane. 1 hour ago, SouthernMo said: Sure - the version we have in Genesis is corrupt. Compare it to an older version in the Quran. I'm not sure the Quran version is older. I'll confess I don't know the textual history of the Quran though. In any case since it's corrupt we don't really need be limited by the text beyond the idea of Noah sailing in some sense from a large storm that flooded the region he originally lived in. The Carolina hypothesis is largely due to Joseph possibly stating that (albeit late third hand account and thus not entirely trustworthy as representing Joseph's thought). However even if it wasn't the Carolina's it was probably somewhere on the Atlantic coast. A hurricane is a very plausible explanation especially given the lowlands from Texas to Florida. While Georgia and the Carolinas have more elevation, the area around the coast is very low. A hurricane flooding the area and killing a primitive village seems completely plausible. Again the vessel is the main controversial issue. Not really the flooding, if taken as local, nor the time/sail path. 1 hour ago, SouthernMo said: How would a hurricane speed up a ship? I’m not a meteorologist, but to have a storm of hurricane magnitude that causes globally or even regionally catastrophic flooding is very, very unlikely to ‘push’ an ark. More likely, a storm would wreak havoc on such a massive vessel. Also, how could such a storm push the ark east - especially when hurricanes in the Carolinas are coming from the east and pushing west... Hurricanes have big winds. Where I grew up in Halifax the sailors of some clippers used to use them to reach ludicrous speeds coming back to Nova Scotia from the gulf region. Although many perished trying that trick. Again, the main issue isn't that a hurricane would speed up a ship - it definitely could including ships with no sails. The main issue is a vessel that would survive as well as getting on the proper side of the hurricane. (Hurricane winds are counter-clockwise) So long as you set sail on the right side of the hurricane it'll push you in the correct direction until you're out of the storm. Then the trade winds and gulf current will push you naturally towards Southern Europe. The only real tricky part (assuming no sailing knowledge) would be hitting the Azores Current rather than the North Atlantic Current. However since our tale is in the Middle East and not England it seems plausible to think they made it. Further in modern times people have crossed the Atlantic in rafts. In 1956 Henri Beaudout sailed from Halifax to England on a raft, completing the journey in 88 days. Now that's the faster, albeit more dangerous, northern route. Also he took the northern route rather than the Azores route that Columbus took back. But he showed one could do it in a relatively primitive raft. Ironically Beaudout's first attempt failed due to running aground in Newfoundland during a hurricane. But it shows the plausibility of this account. Beaudout's vessel was definitely something Noah could have constructed. 1 hour ago, SouthernMo said: As for getting off the ark in North Africa and walking west - this is all possible, but there is no record or hint of this in the Old Testament. My point is that how we get the Syria region really isn't an issue. That's just one way they could have. Once you reach the Spanish coast the rest really isn't a big deal. 1 hour ago, SouthernMo said: It’s a difficult subject to debate when you and I both agree that the Genesis account is surely corrupt. We’d both be making up plausible versions of some semblance of an ark account. Poking holes in historical fiction is easy! Right, but I'm not really arguing for how he did it, just that it's plausible, if unlikely, that someone from the Atlantic coast could reach Southern Europe. The farther north you go, the faster the trip is (partially due to wind and currents), the shorter the distance, but also the much higher danger. (That's just as true today for people in small yachts) But crossing really isn't a big deal. Going the other direction is much harder. The main issue would be a vessel that could manage it. The only semi-plausible boats are the Mayan, but as I said they date much later. We don't know when they originated. (There are no archeological finds of these boats despite descriptions and clear sea trade in the gulf) Further even the Mayan boats — really large canoes — would be very unlikely to survive a trip across the Atlantic. The best solution would be a variant on the canoe like the Jaredites may have used. That is something more like a Polynesian vessel. That's somewhat out of keeping of the region, but as I mentioned it's actually not a huge difference between the Polynesian and Mayan vessels. Although clearly the former were much more ocean worthy whereas the latter were intended to hug the coasts. (The mayans were apparently terrified of hurricanes) Edited January 2, 2019 by clarkgoble 1
rchorse Posted January 2, 2019 Posted January 2, 2019 After a few extremely improbable series of events in my own life that just shouldn't have happened based on how unlikely they were, I'm not inclined to give that particular line of argument much weight. Extremely unlikely things can and do happen. The Flood, global or otherwise, either happened or it didn't. I can't bring myself to care much either way. If everything in the accounts we have of the flood is symbolic or figurative, it would not bother me. On the other hand, I believe that God has the power to do what He needs/wants to. I'm really agnostic about the flood, evolution, methods of creation, Book of Mormon geography, etc. What I care about and what impacts my life in many positive ways is a testimony of Jesus Christ and His restored gospel. The flood and similar common topics of discussion only matter to me in terms of what I can learn from them to bring me closer to Christ. It's fun sometimes to speculate and hypothesize about what might have happened, but speculation is all it is, as I don't believe there will ever be enough evidence to prove it one way or another, at least not in mortality. 4
Robert F. Smith Posted January 2, 2019 Posted January 2, 2019 7 hours ago, FunOnlineMan said: For the earth to have been properly baptized, the flood in the account of Noah would have to be global. Such a flood would also be necessary to transport the biblical narrative from Missouri to Mt. Ararat, etc. As long as you understand that the traditional Mt Ararat has nothing to do with the actual Mt Ararat, we'll be fine. Then too, the NT makes it clear that the baptism of Israel took place as they crossed the Red Sea dryshod -- no water touched them. We also have a GA speculating that rain on the mountains was enough to baptize them. Sorry, but all your normative assumptions have just floated away. 7 hours ago, FunOnlineMan said: This incredible account would also necessitate an explanation for the accounts of the Native American prophet Noah and his gopherwood ark rescuing all terrestrial life, and floating along for a year before landing finally disembarking on another hemisphere and completely repopulating the globe approximately 4,000 years ago. Let’s call this account and it’s accompanying flood the global flood model and move on. How does one reconcile a global flood model with the consensus of current evidence from every field of science to the contrary? No global flood model has ever been necessary, what with massive ocean surges possible in the Pluvial Rainy period at the end of the last Ice Age. We only require that a boat with some animals and humans on board go from one continent to another and run aground. As to the chronology of Earth from Creation to Flood, we have no agreement in the various versions (Hebrew, Greek, Samaritan), and we do know (courtesy of David Bokovoy and others) that the OT chronology of the Ante Diluvian Patriarchs must be translated into a sexigesimal sequence. It might be better if we see all such numbers as figurative or symbolic. 7 hours ago, FunOnlineMan said: Or, in case I’m accused of pigeonholing anyone (I’m coining the term “doveholing” here to keep with the biblical symbology), how does one reconcile a non-literal reading of the Noah myths—a non-global flood model—with a consensus of M-word doctrines reinforced by scripture and modern prophecy to the contrary? I would hate to inadvertently dovehole anyone—wait, now I’m also coining ”ravenholing” to delineate between being forced into a global flood position (being doveholed) and being forced into a non-global flood model (being ravenholed). So, anyway, I’m also welcoming non-global and non-non-global models, if any of you are feeling sneaky. I could use a complicated read. What is an M-word doctrine? No matter. You should at least realize that we have a bunch of Mesopotamian Flood Stories which predate the one in Genesis, and they are all obviously closely related.
FunOnlineMan Posted January 2, 2019 Author Posted January 2, 2019 7 hours ago, Calm said: Someone just came across this interesting (interesting because of who said it) quote a day or two ago in another discussion I was reading that might be relevant: https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/selected-articles/second-coming-christ-questions-and-answers Still, even for a symbolic baptism, shouldn’t there be immersion? Otherwise, it’s not consistent with the doctrines on baptism, like, say, death and burial, etc. Also, how does Noah make an intercontinental journey without a means of crossing the Atlantic Ocean?
FunOnlineMan Posted January 2, 2019 Author Posted January 2, 2019 7 hours ago, clarkgoble said: Yup the main argument is the baptism argument but the symbolism would work if it were just one land that was submerged IMO. How does Noah leave North America? 1
Hamba Tuhan Posted January 2, 2019 Posted January 2, 2019 (edited) 3 hours ago, rchorse said: After a few extremely improbable series of events in my own life that just shouldn't have happened based on how unlikely they were, I'm not inclined to give that particular line of argument much weight. Extremely unlikely things can and do happen. This is the key to so many things: personal experience. We don't know things from the past. We can't. We can only know our individual presents. When those presents resemble other people's stories (including from the past), then we have reason to consider believing them. Otherwise, why would we? I was asked to teach youth Sunday school back in November. I quickly picked a lesson on overcoming doubt. We had a good discussion. I asked if any of the class members were willing to share a doubt they struggled with. One young man (a thoughtful deacon) raised his hand and said, 'I don't know if Joseph Smith was telling the truth or just making stuff up'. It really could be either, I pointed out. Everyone agreed. Then I asked what the first step to figuring this out might be. The same young man said, 'Well, I know that God talks to me ... and that means there is a God and He talks to boys, so it's possible'. I told him that was a fantastic first step! As I've argued on this forum many times in the past, Saints who are daily interacting with God and receiving personal revelation don't seem to be the ones who get hung up on Latter-day prophets and whether or not they are. We recognise in them and their words/experiences the patterns we've become familiar with in our own lives. As I described nearly eight years ago, as another example, I know from personal experience that God can and does give the exact same set of words to two different men. As a consequence, I'm just not fussed by so-called plagiarisms in the Book of Mormon. What is otherwise unlikely becomes completely likely because of what I've personally witnessed. And on it goes. In the end, it's not blind faith at all. We really can know things for ourselves. Edited January 2, 2019 by Hamba Tuhan 1
FunOnlineMan Posted January 2, 2019 Author Posted January 2, 2019 6 hours ago, katherine the great said: Why does the earth need baptism? Does any other religion teach this? It never made any sense to me. I attribute the belief to a statement in the New Testament coupled with statements from modern apostles, etc.
FunOnlineMan Posted January 2, 2019 Author Posted January 2, 2019 11 hours ago, carbon dioxide said: Two issues right off the bat. 1. It is said that Adam was in Missouri. That does not mean Noah was. It is said that Joseph Smith held a position that Noah lived in the Carolina area. My mistake. 11 hours ago, carbon dioxide said: 2. Baptism does require something being submerged by water but it does not say how deep it has to be. The earth did not need to be dunk in a large pool of water. All it had to be was raining everywhere and if every square inch of a mountain was wet, it was covered by water. One does not need a global flood to accomplish this but simply a global rainstorm that would not leave any long term geological evidence behind to see. How catholic of you
FunOnlineMan Posted January 2, 2019 Author Posted January 2, 2019 11 hours ago, The Nehor said: Make sure to copy in plain text so your copy and pasting is less obvious. I wish I’d copied and pasted. I typed this whole swear word thing on my phone’s broken screen. The things I do for a good argument. I think the wacky text came as a result of me inadvertently coding as a result of my getting to clever with the parentheses and brackets. Thank you for. Your suggestion, though. I’ve copied and pasted it in plain text to a secret location. 11 hours ago, The Nehor said: And I do not reconcile it because I do not accept the premises. Even if you take the story as written Noah clearly did not know if there was land still out there or he would not have tried releasing birds. Sounds like you’re on team non-global to me, but you’re the expert here. If I take the story exactly as written, then Noah floated around for a year with at least two of every animal that breathes air floating from the United States to Mesopotamia and then reseeding the entire earth with terrestrial life quickly enough for such an event to be completely absent from any evidence. But your way does seem easier to believe, I guess. It does still need a little reconciliation, though.
FunOnlineMan Posted January 2, 2019 Author Posted January 2, 2019 9 hours ago, clarkgoble said: The main issue would be the construction of the vessel. I believe the main issue would be the construction of the flood narrative. The story you’re telling is pretty far from the one we get from scripture and modern prophecy, unless I’ve missed the ones that downplay Noah’s story in such a a way.
CV75 Posted January 2, 2019 Posted January 2, 2019 13 hours ago, FunOnlineMan said: For the earth to have been properly baptized, the flood in the account of Noah would have to be global. Such a flood would also be necessary to transport the biblical narrative from Missouri to Mt. Ararat, etc. This incredible account would also necessitate an explanation for the accounts of the Native American prophet Noah and his gopherwood ark rescuing all terrestrial life, and floating along for a year before landing finally disembarking on another hemisphere and completely repopulating the globe approximately 4,000 years ago. Let’s call this account and it’s accompanying flood the global flood model and move on. How does one reconcile a global flood model with the consensus of current evidence from every field of science to the contrary? Or, in case I’m accused of pigeonholing anyone (I’m coining the term “doveholing” here to keep with the biblical symbology), how does one reconcile a non-literal reading of the Noah myths—a non-global flood model—with a consensus of M-word doctrines reinforced by scripture and modern prophecy to the contrary? I would hate to inadvertently dovehole anyone—wait, now I’m also coining ”ravenholing” to delineate between being forced into a global flood position (being doveholed) and being forced into a non-global flood model (being ravenholed). So, anyway, I’m also welcoming non-global and non-non-global models, if any of you are feeling sneaky. I could use a complicated read. One way to reconcile the Biblical account with science is: At some point the lands of Sharon, Enoch, Omner, Heni, Shem, Haner, and Hanannihah were washed clean of those who willfully rejected Enoch. This could have been a symbolic temple or other proxy* ordinance involving water (or not), or a literal flooding of these lands. At any rate, Noah picked up Adam’s stewardship from Methuselah, preserved it, and passed it on. Today, the reach of the gospel message is literally global instead of nestled among the former relatively isolated covenant groups. * From one perspective, when you baptize a man you baptize an entire world. ("Whoever destroys a single life is considered by Scripture to have destroyed the whole world, and whoever saves a single life is considered by Scripture to have saved the whole world." -- The Mishnah).
CV75 Posted January 2, 2019 Posted January 2, 2019 15 minutes ago, FunOnlineMan said: I believe the main issue would be the construction of the flood narrative. The story you’re telling is pretty far from the one we get from scripture and modern prophecy, unless I’ve missed the ones that downplay Noah’s story in such a a way. The covenant meaning is the same, either way.
FunOnlineMan Posted January 2, 2019 Author Posted January 2, 2019 7 hours ago, rchorse said: The Flood, global or otherwise, either happened or it didn't. Yes. I am of a mind that the latter and the latter happened. 7 hours ago, rchorse said: I can't bring myself to care much either way. If everything in the accounts we have of the flood is symbolic or figurative, it would not bother me. On the other hand, I believe that God has the power to do what He needs/wants to. I'm really agnostic about the flood, evolution, methods of creation, Book of Mormon geography, etc. You must get left out of a lot of discussions on here with that attitude. 7 hours ago, rchorse said: What I care about and what impacts my life in many positive ways is a testimony of Jesus Christ and His restored gospel. The flood and similar common topics of discussion only matter to me in terms of what I can learn from them to bring me closer to Christ. This is an odd way to find truth. 7 hours ago, rchorse said: It's fun sometimes to speculate and hypothesize about what might have happened, but speculation is all it is, as I don't believe there will ever be enough evidence to prove it one way or another, at least not in mortality. I agree, but probably for different reasons on every point. Still fun to agree sometimes, though.
FunOnlineMan Posted January 2, 2019 Author Posted January 2, 2019 6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: As long as you understand that the traditional Mt Ararat has nothing to do with the actual Mt Ararat, we'll be fine. It’s like he hill cumorah then? 6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Then too, the NT makes it clear that the baptism of Israel took place as they crossed the Red Sea dryshod -- no water touched them. We also have a GA speculating that rain on the mountains was enough to baptize them. Sorry, but all your normative assumptions have just floated away. I wonder how long I could keep my assumptions alive and floating on a boat. 6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: No global flood model has ever been necessary, what with massive ocean surges possible in the Pluvial Rainy period at the end of the last Ice Age. We only require that a boat with some animals and humans on board go from one continent to another and run aground. Well, that and every human would have to die on the outside of the ark. I see no other reason why that aspect of the flood would be emphasized if it was actually just a wacky transatlantic cruise. 6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: As to the chronology of Earth from Creation to Flood, we have no agreement in the various versions (Hebrew, Greek, Samaritan), and we do know (courtesy of David Bokovoy and others) that the OT chronology of the Ante Diluvian Patriarchs must be translated into a sexigesimal sequence. It might be better if we see all such numbers as figurative or symbolic. Might as well chalk the whole thing up as figurative. Was there actually a guy named Noah? 6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: What is an M-word doctrine? Nice try. I won’t be baited. 6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: No matter. You should at least realize that we have a bunch of Mesopotamian Flood Stories which predate the one in Genesis, and they are all obviously closely related. I would think those have more ability discredit the biblical versions than to support them, but I think we’re coming at all of this from opposite ends.
FunOnlineMan Posted January 2, 2019 Author Posted January 2, 2019 24 minutes ago, CV75 said: One way to reconcile the Biblical account with science is: At some point the lands of Sharon, Enoch, Omner, Heni, Shem, Haner, and Hanannihah were washed clean of those who willfully rejected Enoch. This could have been a symbolic temple or other proxy* ordinance involving water (or not), or a literal flooding of these lands. At any rate, Noah picked up Adam’s stewardship from Methuselah, preserved it, and passed it on. Today, the reach of the gospel message is literally global instead of nestled among the former relatively isolated covenant groups. The entire account might be myth then? Quote * From one perspective, when you baptize a man you baptize an entire world. ("Whoever destroys a single life is considered by Scripture to have destroyed the whole world, and whoever saves a single life is considered by Scripture to have saved the whole world." -- The Mishnah). That’s very poetic. But now I’m thinking god could have just flooded one unlucky/unrighteous guy as a warning to the rest then called it the whole earth. That is a much wilder story, imo
Robert F. Smith Posted January 2, 2019 Posted January 2, 2019 22 minutes ago, FunOnlineMan said: It’s like he hill cumorah then? Yup. Same dispute, same details. 22 minutes ago, FunOnlineMan said: I wonder how long I could keep my assumptions alive and floating on a boat. Well, that and every human would have to die on the outside of the ark. I see no other reason why that aspect of the flood would be emphasized if it was actually just a wacky transatlantic cruise. What often gets overlooked is that the Semitic (and Hebrew) word for "earth" is also the word for "land," which can be a small region or the entire planet. People innocently misread to fit their preconceptions. They forget that the story is told from the POV of the humans on board, who don't actually have the bigger picture. 22 minutes ago, FunOnlineMan said: Might as well chalk the whole thing up as figurative. Was there actually a guy named Noah? All the Flood Stories have different names for the "Noah," none of them definitively his actual name. Look up Ziusudra, Utnapishtim, Atrahkasis, Deucalion, et al. 22 minutes ago, FunOnlineMan said: Nice try. I won’t be baited. I did find this online: "regarded as a vulgar or taboo word. m-word (Noun). Any word beginning with m that is not normally taboo but is considered (often humorously) to be so in the given context." 22 minutes ago, FunOnlineMan said: I would think those have more ability discredit the biblical versions than to support them, but I think we’re coming at all of this from opposite ends. Upside down and sideways? Scholars are less interested in supporting any particular version (biblical or not) than in analyzing them.
CV75 Posted January 2, 2019 Posted January 2, 2019 26 minutes ago, FunOnlineMan said: The entire account might be myth then? That’s very poetic. But now I’m thinking god could have just flooded one unlucky/unrighteous guy as a warning to the rest then called it the whole earth. That is a much wilder story, imo I'm sure there's some real-world basis to it no matter how imperfectly it has been transmitted. You can make the account as wild as you want! The covenant meaning is the same, any way one conceptualizes the writings. And you can even make the covenant as meaningless as you want, too!
Robert F. Smith Posted January 2, 2019 Posted January 2, 2019 26 minutes ago, FunOnlineMan said: The entire account might be myth then? See Joseph Campbell, The Power of Myth 26 minutes ago, FunOnlineMan said: That’s very poetic. That too. 26 minutes ago, FunOnlineMan said: But now I’m thinking god could have just flooded one unlucky/unrighteous guy as a warning to the rest then called it the whole earth. That is a much wilder story, imo The Bible constantly uses phrases such as "throughout the whole land" (referring to Egypt, or to Palestine, etc.) and the translators take into account the immediate context. The same Hebrew words can mean "the whole earth." Which is applicable? Depends on your POV. The upshot is that hyperbole is all too common in Holy Writ. So does the water of the Great Deluge actually cover all the mountains, and are all the Jaredites destroyed, and later all the Nephites, or is that a matter of exaggeration for effect? All ancient Near Eastern literature (including the Bible) use that type of phrasing. We should read carefully and intelligently. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted January 2, 2019 Posted January 2, 2019 1 minute ago, CV75 said: I'm sure there's some real-world basis to it no matter how imperfectly it has been transmitted. You can make the account as wild as you want! The covenant meaning is the same, any way one conceptualizes the writings. And you can even make the covenant as meaningless as you want, too! The Brethren even make much of the Endowment to be figurative and symbolic., and rightly so.
The Nehor Posted January 2, 2019 Posted January 2, 2019 2 hours ago, FunOnlineMan said: Sounds like you’re on team non-global to me, but you’re the expert here. If I take the story exactly as written, then Noah floated around for a year with at least two of every animal that breathes air floating from the United States to Mesopotamia and then reseeding the entire earth with terrestrial life quickly enough for such an event to be completely absent from any evidence. But your way does seem easier to believe, I guess. It does still need a little reconciliation, though. Not really, if you take the account as Noah describing what he saw and the more localized understanding of “the world”. In modern scripture we talk about the end of the world but it does not involve a Death Star-style destruction or even everyone dying. And I do not believe God packed two of every animal into that ark. They would not fit. It does sound like he was told to pack up his breeding stock which makes sense so he could rebuild his herds.
clarkgoble Posted January 2, 2019 Posted January 2, 2019 (edited) 8 hours ago, FunOnlineMan said: How does Noah leave North America? Boat. See the example of the Frenchman in 1954 I linked to for its plausibility. Honestly getting Nephi to the Americas is much harder than getting an American to Europe. 3 hours ago, FunOnlineMan said: I believe the main issue would be the construction of the flood narrative. The story you’re telling is pretty far from the one we get from scripture and modern prophecy, unless I’ve missed the ones that downplay Noah’s story in such a a way. The flood narrative would get corrupted by association with other flood narratives like the Gilgamesh one. The Old Testament, particularly pre-exilic writings, are corrupt. It's Mormon doctrine they're corrupt. (1 Nephi 13:23) It's scholarly consensus they're late works. The assumption is that they were originally oral traditions that started to be written down around the 9th century. Then the Priestly tradition during the exile modified them, possibly under strong Babylonian or Persian influence. Given that, I'm not sure we should trust it too much. From a Mormon perspective what's important are the modern revelations. There we had Adam in Missouri. Noah's descendants have to get to the near east thus there has to be a boat trip of some sort. The issue then becomes how much of the Genesis account is trustworthy? We know the global flood and storing all animals in the ark is impossible. So those can be dismissed. We're then just left dealing with a local flood. A hurricane explains that. Edited January 2, 2019 by clarkgoble
FunOnlineMan Posted January 2, 2019 Author Posted January 2, 2019 1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said: Yup. Same dispute, same details. God seems to be establishing a peculiar and confusing pattern. 1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said: What often gets overlooked is that the Semitic (and Hebrew) word for "earth" is also the word for "land," which can be a small region or the entire planet. People innocently misread to fit their preconceptions. They forget that the story is told from the POV of the humans on board, who don't actually have the bigger picture. So, god had Noah tell the people they would all be destroyed, had him construct a giant box out of gopherwood, had him load all the local animals into his box, had him get in the box, flooded some stuff, but not everything, covertly transported Noah to wherever Mt. Asterisk Ararat is, let Noah out and convinced Noah that all his old enemies were dead? 1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said: All the Flood Stories have different names for the "Noah," none of them definitively his actual name. Look up Ziusudra, Utnapishtim, Atrahkasis, Deucalion, et al. What reason would we have to believe Noah’s account over these older versions? 1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said: I did find this online: "regarded as a vulgar or taboo word. m-word (Noun). Any word beginning with m that is not normally taboo but is considered (often humorously) to be so in the given context." If was a snake, it would’a bit ya. 1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said: Upside down and sideways? Scholars are less interested in supporting any particular version (biblical or not) than in analyzing them. Have scholars found any indication that any of these accounts are anything more than tall tales about a really rainy day?
Recommended Posts