The significance of the literal global flood in the days of Noah

[LDS Watchman]

It has been suggested that it doesn't matter whether Noah's flood and other stories in the scriptures actually happened.

I would suggest that the reality of the literal global flood in the days of Noah matters. 

Here are some reasons why I  believe it matters.

1. Ancient and modern prophets have taught that the flood literally happened. The world wide global flood is spoken of as a literal historical event in the Old and New Testaments (including the JST) and in the Book of Mormon. From the days of Joseph Smith to the present, the leaders of the church who we sustain as prophets, seers, and revelators have taught that the flood literally happened.

If we doubt the truthfulness of the words of the prophets in regards to the flood, what other words of the prophets will we doubt?

2. According to the scriptures, God the Father and his Son Jesus Christ both stated that the flood literally happened.

If we doubt the truthfulness of the word of God in regards to the flood, what other words of God will we doubt?

3. Why do we feel the need to doubt the word of God in regards to the flood having literally happened? 

The only reason we would doubt that the flood literally happened is because we have been taught in secular schools not to believe it. There's literally no other reason to doubt it. 

If we doubt God's word about the flood because of what secular schools tell us, what else will they cause us to doubt? 

Shouldn't our trust be in the word of God and not in the teachings of secular schools?

4. According to the scriptures the reality of the destruction of all life upon the earth, except for the lives on board the arc, during the literal global flood and the reality of the destruction of the wicked prior to the Lord's second coming are connected.

Doubting the one leads to doubting the other.

3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

(2 Peter 3:3-7)

36 ¶ But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,

39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

(Matthew 24:36-39)

26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.

27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.

(Luke 17:26-27)

If we doubt that the flood literally happened because of what we have be taught in secular schools, what reason do we have to believe in the literal second coming of the Savior and the literal fulfillment of the prophesied events that are to precede it?

And if we doubt the prophesies about the events of the last days and the return of the Savior, why would be anxiously watching and preparing for his return like he has commanded us to do?

In my opinion there is a very real danger in doubting whether the global flood and other stories in the scriptures actually happened?

I see absolutely no benefit in doubting these stories. All I see is a step down the road to loss of faith and disillusionment.

But what do you all think?

Is there any good thing that can come from doubting that the flood literally happened?

Edited December 17, 2020 by LDS Watchman

[JustAnAustralian]

Given the widespreadness of a flood narrative across multiple cultures, it seems pretty likely there was at one stage a flood.

The main debate I see is not whether a flood happened, but the scope of that flood.

[InCognitus]

53 minutes ago, LDS Watchman said:

It has been suggested that it doesn't matter whether Noah's flood and other stories in the scriptures actually happened.

This is too generalized.  Of course it matters whether "other" stories in the scriptures actually happened.  But we need to be specific about which stories.  For example, do you believe the story of the good Samaritan actually happened?   Do you believe the story of the sower who sowed seeds actually happened?  What about the story of the tame and wild olive tree in Jacob chapter 5?  Did that really happen?  Does it matter whether those stories actually happened for them to teach us truth?

[Calm]

Speaking of the creation (Adam created from dust) and possibly the rest of Genesis, Brigham Young said:

Quote

I do not believe that portion of the Bible as the Christian world do. I never did, and I never want to. What is the reason I do not? Because I have come to understanding, and banished from my mind all the baby stories my mother taught me when I was a child.

https://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/2009_Brigham_Youngs_Teachings_On_Adam.pdf

[The Nehor]

If the apostles were speaking as you are I would accept the global flood narrative but be confused by it. Since it is just you insisting how vital that belief is I will carry on.

[LDS Watchman]

4 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

Given the widespreadness of a flood narrative across multiple cultures, it seems pretty likely there was at one stage a flood.

Yeah, it's a virtual certainty. Especially when you add all the geological evidence for widespread flooding in the past.

5 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

The main debate I see is not whether a flood happened, but the scope of that flood.

There is a growing movement of people who believe Noah's flood was simply a local flood and not global, but this belief is contrary to what the scriptures teach and changes the whole meaning of the story. 

[LDS Watchman]

4 hours ago, InCognitus said:

do you believe the story of the good Samaritan actually happened?   Do you believe the story of the sower who sowed seeds actually happened?  What about the story of the tame and wild olive tree in Jacob chapter 5?  Did that really happen?  Does it matter whether those stories actually happened for them to teach us truth?

These stories were all presented as parables or allegories in the scriptures and in the church. The flood on the other hand is presented as historical fact in the scriptures and by the church.

So, in my opinion we can't compare the flood to these stories. It's at best an apples to oranges comparison.

A better comparison would be the story of the destruction and massive changes to the land in a 3 hour span in the Americas at the death of Christ, as described in the Book of Mormon. 

Does it matter if that story actually happened or not?

What about Christ's miracles, like turning water to wine, the feeding of the 5 thousand, raising the dead, giving the blind their sight, and so on?

Does it matter if these stories, which cannot be explained by secular science, actually happened? 

[LDS Watchman]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

Speaking of the creation (Adam created from dust) and possibly the rest of Genesis, Brigham Young said:

https://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/2009_Brigham_Youngs_Teachings_On_Adam.pdf

I didn't read through the paper, but I'm well aware of what Brigham Young taught in regards to Adam-God and the "bedtime story" of Adam being made out of mud like an adobe.

Brigham Young taught (and I'm paraphrasing) that Adam was made of the dust or "elements" of the earth, but not of this earth and that he was born on another earth and came here with one of his wives, Eve, for the purpose "falling" and providing physical bodies for the inhabitants of the earth.

To my knowledge, Brigham Young never called all of Genesis a "bed time story" or the global flood a "bed time story," either. 

Brigham Young considered the story of the fall of man as described in the scriptures to be a description of a real event, which Moses intentionally presented in a simplified and veiled way in order to hide the mysteries of Godliness from a people with darkened minds, who weren't ready for the deeper knowledge of how man really came to be and what the nature of God really was.

Just out of curiosity, do you believe Brigham Young's Adam-God teachings? Or are you simply bringing this up in order to try and undermine my arguments in the OP about the problem with doubting that the flood literally happened, without believing what he taught about who Adam is?

[LDS Watchman]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

If the apostles were speaking as you are I would accept the global flood narrative but be confused by it. Since it is just you insisting how vital that belief is I will carry on.

The apostle Peter considered disbelief in the global flood to be a serious problem.

3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

(2 Peter 3:3-7)

I'll have to check if any modern prophets or apostles have said anything similar. If I find any quotes along these lines, I'll share them.

But by all means carry on. 

[The Nehor]

38 minutes ago, LDS Watchman said:

Yeah, it's a virtual certainty. Especially when you add all the geological evidence for widespread flooding in the past.

There is a growing movement of people who believe Noah's flood was simply a local flood and not global, but this belief is contrary to what the scriptures teach and changes the whole meaning of the story. 

There is no geological evidence for a worldwide flood nor is there an extinction record you would see if there were one. If you take the timeline of the flood literally and assume it is global all land was covered for about a year. That means all animals not on the ark are dead. All insects are dead. Virtually all vegetation that is not oceanic is dead and a lot of that oceanic plant and animal life are dead due to the sudden increase in volume. What were once areas oceanic plant life could dwell in are now miles deep. They die. The coral reefs die. Everything is covered by ocean water (i.e. salty, maybe diluted a little). Then Noah lands. All non-aquatic animals are dead. All freshwater only animals are dead. Virtually all the vegetation is dead. The earth is literally salted as the waters recede so you will not be able to grow much of anything so even if you brought seeds of every plant on Earth it would be difficult to grow them. Do you know how long it would take for vegetation to be everywhere? How long it would take for animals to spread from wherever the ark landed to the rest of the world. What about the animals not adapted to the area the ark landed? Why didn’t they die off? Wouldn’t they all die off just from their being nothing to eat when they landed? How did Noah feed the carnivores. When he let them out did how did they survive without eating one of the breeding pairs for a species. Did Noah store every freshwater animal on the ark too? How did he replenish their water supply? How did he redistribute them to every river and lake system after the flood? They don’t all link up anywhere. What about the weird very specialized animals that only live in one spot on the earth? Did Noah’s family have to transport them all back to their environment (assuming it even still existed)?

Then you have the question of where the water came from and how it is impossible for 40 days of rain to get the water level high enough. Then where did the water go?

Of course you can throw in miracles and I even believe God could remove the salt, respread the vegetation, transport animals, redistribute them back Himself, and cause a huge boom in animal populations. So God does it (which I can accept as possible) and covers the whole thing up. Why?

The evidence against a global flood are also in the Genesis narrative. When it talks about collecting animals it doesn’t mention going out to gather all of them. The ark is also not large enough to hold all animals and definitely not if they had to eat. It talks as if Noah is just told to bring breeding stock of his herds and that is it which makes sense. Wherever he lands he will need that stock to rebuild the herds.

Also what is the whole meaning of the story that is lost?

[The Nehor]

23 minutes ago, LDS Watchman said:

The apostle Peter considered disbelief in the global flood to be a serious problem.

3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

(2 Peter 3:3-7)

I'll have to check if any modern prophets or apostles have said anything similar. If I find any quotes along these lines, I'll share them.

But by all means carry on. 

I believe there was a flood or series of floods that wiped out a lot of humanity that were depraved. I don’t think I qualify as a scoffer. I do not believe that all will continue as it was “from the beginning”. I believe in a literal Second Coming and that there will come a day of judgement and fire.

[AtlanticMike]

I love what you said here LDS Watchman, it shows a true love for the gospel and a dedication that's hard to find these days. And I totally respect your point of view because no matter the evidence that someone might bring to prove otherwise,  there's no way anyone can be 100% sure there truth is better than yours, atleast not as it pertains to the flood.

    When I reflect on some of the stories in the bible I like to keep in mind that the people writing them didnt see the world like we do today. To them the world was flat, it was also seen to be alot smaller back then, atleast I assume, because traveling 50 miles to them was a big deal and probably a 2 or 3 day process. Also, and most importantly, because this is really the point to your thread to me, back then religion was science. Everything was viewed through the lens of religion, there wasn't many other places to turn for answers. 

   So that's what I think is frustrating so many people these days. All religions are becoming less relevant because science is producing answers that religion just cant. And the separation between the two will only get bigger. I think there's a pretty good chance the bulk of the brethrens daily routine is taken up by trying to decide what to do with the amount of information that is being produced daily that goes against everything our church holds dear.  So yes, as you asked, our trust should be in God first, and in secular schools second. ✊keep the faith!

[LDS Watchman]

36 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

There is no geological evidence for a worldwide flood

There's plenty actually. Check out icr.org, they have a lot of information about this.

36 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Of course you can throw in miracles and I even believe God could remove the salt, respread the vegetation, transport animals, redistribute them back Himself, and cause a huge boom in animal populations. So God does it (which I can accept as possible) and covers the whole thing up. Why?

The flood is an incredible miracle, which cannot be explained by human logic. God is all powerful and can do all things. The global flood is no different than Christ turning water to wine or preserving Shadrach, Meshach, and Abinadago from a fiery furnace. It's just on a much bigger scale. With God all things are possible.

I don't think God "covered the whole thing up." There's lots of scientific evidence for the flood. But there's also plenty of reasons to doubt this miracle, because elements of it cannot be satisfactorily explained using only human logic. 

Why is this? It's because God wants us to become as little children and put our trust fully in him. He doesn't want us to lean on our own understanding. 

36 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The evidence against a global flood are also in the Genesis narrative.

I don't think there's any evidence against a global flood in Genesis. Genesis describes a miracle taking place that only God could have performed.

Just because what is described cannot be logically explained, doesn't mean there's evidence that the global flood didn't happen.

Does the New Testament provide evidence that Christ really didn't turn water to wine or that he didn't feed the 5 thousand from a few loaves and fishes?

36 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Also what is the whole meaning of the story that is lost?

1. That only God could have done this. That it was a miracle and not some natural occurrence.

2. That the earth died and was reborn by water in the days of Noah and will again by fire in the last days prior to the Lord's return.

3. That the ALL of the wicked and ALL life upon the earth which were not found upon the ark died, just like how in the last days all those who are not gathered to Zion and her stakes will be destroyed in the last days.

[LDS Watchman]

57 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I believe there was a flood or series of floods that wiped out a lot of humanity that were depraved. I don’t think I qualify as a scoffer. I do not believe that all will continue as it was “from the beginning”. I believe in a literal Second Coming and that there will come a day of judgement and fire.

I wasn't suggesting that you are a scoffer. 

There's nothing wrong with having questions or marveling at God's incredible miracles. 

The people in the scriptures who experienced these types of miracles sometimes had a hard time believing them, too.

The scoffers are the unbelievers who deny the Christ and try to use secular science to destroy the faith and testimonies of believers. 

Edited December 17, 2020 by LDS Watchman
Added last paragraph

[Calm]

1 hour ago, LDS Watchman said:

Just out of curiosity, do you believe Brigham Young's Adam-God teachings? Or are you simply bringing this up in order to try and undermine my arguments in the OP about the problem with doubting...

If BY was comfortable with calling scriptures in Genesis baby stories (plural, not singular), perceiving the reality as something based in scientific law we can comprehend, why should we assume other scriptures are not also so structured?  It is his method of viewing the Genesis scriptures that I find interesting.

——

Why does the entire earth need to be baptized? Why couldn’t a form of proxy baptism apply to that just as it can for humans?

What sin did the earth commit to be fallen?  How did it transgress its creation?  If it did not do so, and it is only fallen due to the action of men upon it, does it actually need baptism?

——

I don’t have all of BY’s teachings of Adam so I can hardly accept or reject them.  What is there is often second and thirdhand (shorthand reconstructed not by BY but Watts for example, iirc) and others’ summaries (Nutrall’s journal, not the document BY actually approved) I understand how we got the form they are currently in.  

I am withholding judgment until more of the original material is found or retranslated from the shorthand if possible and if not, until he can tell me himself or another he and God have appointed to do so.  But if it turns out that the one who we think of as Heavenly Father appointed Adam and Eve as both father and mother of our spirits as well as the first parents of their children’s earthly bodiesand they continue in their role as our father and mother, there is a beautiful symmetry to it and I see no disrespect to the Father if he was the one who instructed them to do so. 

The only real difficulty I see is we are taught our final judgment is when we are resurrected and there is no parting of the spirit and the body thereafter for some version of multiple mortal probations.   That is a big doctrinal wall to get over.  So I see it as possible Brigham was attempting to construct his own “dark saying”  for his own purpose. 

Edited December 17, 2020 by Calm

[LDS Watchman]

11 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Welp, turns out I am a scoffer. Just not of what the scriptures talked about.

I take the fact that I'm being mocked for believing the word of God, like the believers in Lehi's dream were mocked by those in the great and spacious building, as validation that I'm on the right path. 

I also find it fitting that this mocking comes from a person who identifies  as "The Nehor."

11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.

(Matthew 5)

Edited December 18, 2020 by LDS Watchman

[Amulek]

7 hours ago, LDS Watchman said:

It has been suggested that it doesn't matter whether Noah's flood and other stories in the scriptures actually happened.

I'm open to the idea that certain portions of the Bible might not be literal.

However, I think most observant Latter-day Saints - myself included - believe that there actually was a great flood. 

 

Quote

I would suggest that the reality of the literal global flood in the days of Noah matters. 

Well, I think the crux of the matter is in how you interpret the word "global." 

If you take that to mean that the entire earth was, at one point, completely covered by 30 feet or more of water, then I'm not sure I would agree with that proposition. There are some serious reasons to doubt that particular belief. I could certainly be wrong about that, but I think the science is pretty much on the side of the skeptic there.

Personally, I tend to think that the destructive part of the flood was a local / regional event - though I'm certainly open to the idea that, at one point, literally every portion of the earth had some amount of water on it (even if it were only a minuscule amount), but that's largely for symbolic reasons - the earth being baptized and all.

Fortunately, failing to believe that the flood happened in some particular way isn't a deal breaker for pretty much anything. 

 

[Calm]

35 minutes ago, LDS Watchman said:

The flood is an incredible miracle, which cannot be explained by human logic. God is all powerful and can do all things. The global flood is no different than Christ turning water to wine or preserving Shadrach, Meshach, and Abinadago from a fiery furnace. It's just on a much bigger scale. With God all things are possible.

 

It is easy to comprehend the purpose of many miracles. It is God withholding his miracles that is harder to comprehend in my view. 

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, LDS Watchman said:

I take the fact that I'm being mocked for believing the word of God, like the believers in Lehi's dream were mocked by those in the great and spacious building, as validation that I'm on the right path. 

I also find it fitting that this mocking comes from a person who identifies  as "The Nehor."

11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.

(Matthew 5)

I’m not mocking you for believing the Word of God. I am laughing at you for believing the quacks at the Institute of Creation Research. Slight caveat: If you think the ICR conveys the Word of God then yes, I am mocking you for believing the Word of God. In that case I withdraw the correction and need to find a way to somehow laugh even harder. It will be a tough job but it has to be done.

[CV75]

8 hours ago, LDS Watchman said:

It has been suggested that it doesn't matter whether Noah's flood and other stories in the scriptures actually happened.

I would suggest that the reality of the literal global flood in the days of Noah matters. 

My view is that whatever actually happened really happened, but that they are scripturally accounted for in good faith in a way that liberally allows the faithful reader/hearer a literal or figurative interpretation of the text and enjoy the same actual results.

Edited December 17, 2020 by CV75

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, LDS Watchman said:

take the fact that I'm being mocked for believing the word of God, like the believers in Lehi's dream were mocked by those in the great and spacious building, as validation that I'm on the right path. 

Icr.org is not the word of God

The people of ICR are the ones trying to use the tools of science to be accepted by the world.  They would do better to just claim a miracle and God hid it than misuse science as it taints faith as well.   They are trying to have it both ways, but are refusing to commit to the necessities of both methods.  Instead they are mixing faith and science in a way that damages both. 
 

Not saying faith can’t work with science, but it isn’t working if you have to ignore most of the science data to make it fit. Not a good example of faith either, acting on one’s own trying to force belief to be twisted ways rather than waiting on the Lord to reveal more. 

[Calm]

51 minutes ago, LDS Watchman said:

2. That the earth died and was reborn by water in the days of Noah and will again by fire in the last days prior to the Lord's return.

What do you mean by died?  Do you believe its internal fires went out?  All life died?

Do you see humans as dying and being reborn in baptism?  If not, why the earth?  If so, how?

[rchorse]

Since the flood and other stories can't be proven one way or the other with secular/scientific means (although the scientific means argue very strongly against a global flood), all I have left is revelation. God has not seen fit to reveal to me whether the flood was global or local, and the modern prophets haven't published any revelation on the matter.

Given that combination of circumstances, I've settled on the belief that it could have been global if God wanted it to be or it could have been local. If God doesn't think it's important enough to reveal one way or another, it can't really be important to my salvation. Especially when I contrast that against other points of gospel doctrine. God has revealed to me that he lives, that Jesus is his son and was resurrected, and that the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be. God has revealed to me that he still works miracles and speaks to modern prophets. 

In light of that, I'll take God's impressions on me of what's important to believe over what someone with no stewardship over me tells me is important to believe. While these historical, archaeological, and theological questions are fun to research and discuss, I could ultimately go either way on the majority of them and still sleep just fine at night in terms of my standing before God.

Edited December 17, 2020 by rchorse

[katherine the great]

The same DNA science that tells us who our relatives are and puts rapists and murderers in prison also tells us that there was no global flood. Humans and animals did not spring from single (or 4) breeding couples in a single location several thousand years ago. If there was a global flood it was in an alternate universe. I don’t believe in a God who tests our faith in a clear morality story by changing all of the physical evidence. 

[MrShorty]

9 hours ago, LDS Watchman said:

If we doubt the truthfulness of the words of the prophets in regards to the flood, what other words of the prophets will we doubt?

A few examples of other words of the prophets that I doubt (or even outright reject):

That the universe consists of a flat earth sandwiched between the waters of heaven and hell.

That God commanded the genocide of whole populations as part of the Israelite conquest of Canaan.

That a man survived 3 days in the belly of a fish.

That God approves of slavery.

That God instituted a segregated priesthood and segregated access to saving ordinances in this dispensation.

That God assigns people's skin color/race based on premortal valiance.

It sometimes seems to me as if truth exists at an unstable point on a slippery slope between Biblical literalism/Scriptural Inerrancy/Prophetic Infallibility on one end and atheistic rejection of everything eternal on the other end. Due to the pull of either extreme, it is often difficult to find the truth about some of these issues. Sometimes I think one of the Church's real challenges right now is how best to understand the tensions involved and how to teach and explore these ideas.