Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

51 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

“There has been a great difficulty in getting anything into the heads of this generation. It has been like splitting hemlock knots with a corn-dodger [a piece of corn bread] for a wedge, and a pumpkin for a beetle [a wooden mallet]. Even the Saints are slow to understand.

I have tried for a number of years to get the minds of the Saints prepared to receive the things of God; but we frequently see some of them, after suffering all they have for the work of God, will fly to pieces like glass as soon as anything comes that is contrary to their traditions: they cannot stand the fire at all. How many will be able to abide a celestial law, and go through and receive their exaltation, I am unable to say, as many are called, but few are chosen [see D&C 121:40].”7

(Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith - Chapter 45, see also History, 1838–1856, volume E-1 [1 July 1843–30 April 1844])

Based on the teachings of Joseph, which William Law and other dissenters "flew apart like glass" over, Joseph Smith was referring to the Saints being unwilling to accept Celestial Plural Marriage, Adam-God, the plurality of the Gods, man's potential to become a God, and the endowment. 

All of these teachings flew in the face of the false traditions of apostate Christianity.

Joseph Smith also said that Christ was murdered over teaching these same things and that the modern apostate Christians would murder Christ if they knew what he really taught. He also said that the modern prophets (i.e. Joseph and Hyrum) would be murdered for teaching these things.

Joseph  Smith also gave us the Book of Moses and the Book of Abraham, in which it is clearly spelled out that Adam was literally the first flesh upon the earth (before the plants and animals). The false tradition he crushed in regards to the creation was that that man wasn't created last, but actually first (which is even more problematic for macro evolutionists).

Right after giving the account of the 6 days of creation and the 7th day of rest, God said the following:

4 And now, behold, I say unto you, that these are the generations of the heaven and of the earth, when they were created, in the day that I, the Lord God, made the heaven and the earth,
5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew. For I, the Lord God, created all things, of which I have spoken, spiritually, before they were naturally upon the face of the earth. For I, the Lord God, had not caused it to rain upon the face of the earth. And I, the Lord God, had created all the children of men; and not yet a man to till the ground; for in heaven created I them; and there was not yet flesh upon the earth, neither in the water, neither in the air;
6 But I, the Lord God, spake, and there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
7 And I, the Lord God, formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul, the first flesh upon the earth, the first man also; nevertheless, all things were before created; but spiritually were they created and made according to my word.

(Moses 3)

It is impossible for Adam to be "the first flesh upon the earth and the first man also" and for life on earth to have developed through macro evolution over millions of years. 

Joseph Smith also received a revelation that the earth's temporal existance is 7 thousand years.

6 Q. What are we to understand by the book which John saw, which was sealed on the back with seven seals?

A. We are to understand that it contains the revealed will, mysteries, and the works of God; the hidden things of his economy concerning this earth during the seven thousand years of its continuance, or its temporal existence.

(D&C 77)

Link to post
1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

But I never mentioned macro evolution.  That was the whole point!  Your reply was against macro evolution but I never said anything about macro evolution so I asked for a CFR about where I had mentioned it.   You were not responding against my point.  YOU

So your defense was either about macro evolution being science - which I never said- AND you were not rebutting my position.

I never said you specifically mentioned macro evolution. So your call for a CFR never made any sense to begin with.

You had quoted a snippet of my words which were part of a comment I had made about macro evolution and tried to rebuff my argument about how true science (observable and testable science) shows that nothing is ever created with out an intelligent being creating it.

I responded to your comment about "questioning" by reminding you that questioning is part of the scientific method. Then I added a few comments about how macro evolutionists have not followed the scientific method and yet claim their completely unverified theories as fact and indoctrinate our naive children with them, which is shameful.

Edited by LDS Watchman
Link to post
2 hours ago, LDS Watchman said:

I never said you specifically mentioned macro evolution. So your call for a CFR never made any sense to begin with.

You had quoted a snippet of my words which were part of a comment I had made about macro evolution and tried to rebuff my argument about how true science (observable and testable science) shows that nothing is ever created with out an intelligent being creating it.

I responded to your comment about "questioning" by reminding you that questioning is part of the scientific method. Then I added a few comments about how macro evolutionists have not followed the scientific method and yet claim their completely unverified theories as fact and indoctrinate our naive children with them, which is shameful.

Please re-read my reply until you understand it.

I already answered this- you are simply repeating yourself.  I will not answer you any more on this if anything.  Obviously we are not communicating, bro.

Link to post
3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Please re-read my reply until you understand it.

I already answered this- you are simply repeating yourself.  I will not answer you any more on this if anything.  Obviously we are not communicating, bro.

I have no idea what point you were originally trying to make, if it wasn't to undermine my position that macro evolution is a bogus unproven scientific theory and that there is actual observable scientific evidence to support creationism and a young earth.

Link to post
19 hours ago, LDS Watchman said:

Easy, they all these civilizations originated from Noah as the scriptures say. 

 Source please?

The DNA issue doesn't bother me one bit. First, our understanding of DNA is in its infancy. Secondly, we don't have verifiable DNA from an Israelite from 600 BC to compare the DNA of a 600 BC Lehite. Thirdly, God changed the skin color of the Lamanites, which would have changed their DNA. 

 

No, he isn't.

Satan is deceitful and convinces people to put their trust in the arm of flesh instead of in God, thereby carefully leading them down to hell.

History of Egypt

1165966822_ScreenShot2020-12-19at6_31_12AM.png.c06caff64d8e99cc8853e80fa7d58ca6.png

Screen Shot 2020-12-19 at 6.33.27 AM.png

Edited by california boy
Link to post
29 minutes ago, california boy said:

This is not what I was asking for. 

You had claimed that "we have a continuous written history of a civilization like the Egyptian civilization that starts before the time you are claiming the flood happened to well after that flood was suppose to take place."

This chart doesn't show a "continuous written history" from before the flood.

Link to post
On 12/17/2020 at 11:20 PM, JAHS said:

I have been involved in free and critical thinking as I spent years earning a PhD in biochemistry. I didn't know if I could get through all that schooling but I had faith that I could do it. And since faith without works is dead I worked hard at it. My faith in myself to do it helped strengthen my positive mental attitude greatly. My faith in God gives me hope that I will some day be able to see my wife and child again. It works for me so I will stick with it. If I die and there is nothing after this life I won't know it anyway because I will no longer exist.

The first part of your post is a different type of faith than the second part.  I am sure you know the difference.

Link to post
On 12/17/2020 at 8:27 PM, MiserereNobis said:

Well, you have experience from the LDS church, but then you generalize it out to religion. That's a pretty big leap (are you sure you are critically thinking here?). "Full blown active participating believing LDS person" probably has very little experience with what the Catholic Church teaches about the relationship between reason and faith.

Also, I'd like to point out that some of the greatest minds of western civilization were believers, so saying "believing = no critical thinking" is a bit disingenuous. 

I'm not attacking your lack of faith, just to be clear. I'm just defending against your claims that you understand all faith and that faith and critical thinking are incompatible.

I am certainly not an expert on how other religions approach faith but I have explored other religious traditions. Likely I am more familiar with conservative Christian sects like the LDS Church or conservative evangelical Christian sects.  What some of the greatest minds of western civilization believed regarding religion, God ,etc really is not relevant. I used to think that because let's say a really smart person may know all the problems of the LDS truth claims and founding narrative still believed that I must be wrong to conclude that the claims are likely false. I have since come to understand the human mind can do wonder in compartmentalizing things. So a great critical thinker still may struggle with applying the principles in some areas such as whether there is a God.  Of course I know many great thinkers have wrangled with such issues and concluded differently than I have.  But faith in the religious sense

e can be a thought stopper for most humans.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
On 12/17/2020 at 7:58 PM, pogi said:

"Truth"?  Is that a thing which we can find?

Please enlighten us all as to what truth really is and how you can know it without relying on faith (hope, trust, and action) in something/someone.  Faith is what causes us to do what we do every. singe. day. because of hope, trust, and previous experience.  We repeat and seek after that which is edifying and delicious to the taste.  It is the core principle of action in all of pragmatism.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2010/nov/11/faith-atheism-pragmatism-william-james

http://markambrose.org/why-life-without-faith-is-impossible/

 

Just read Paul's definition of faith.  I am speaking of faith in things that lack evidence and cannot be tested to find evidence. I am also speaking faith in things in spite of evidence.  

Link to post
On 12/17/2020 at 7:56 PM, LDS Watchman said:

I would also like to point out here that secular science requires a certain degree of blind faith from it's believers.

For example, the big bang theory and macro evolution as the origin of earth and the life upon it has more holes in it than swiss cheese, yet those who put secular science above what the word of God says cling to those bogus theories because that's what the almighty science textbook tells them. 

No it does not. Science test, looks at evidence, makes the best conclusion and continues to explore and test and change based on what is learned. It does not simply say something is true because it is written in an alleged holy book and because be rejecting say a worldwide flood that you open the food to rejecting other alleged by lacking evidence supernatural claims from alleged holy books. Your comments seem to lack understanding of science. Take evolution for example. I used to say the same things you did till I started reading and studying about it. There is such an abundance of evidence to support the theory of evolution that is is pretty much a foregone conclusion that it is fact. Read up on it. Two good books:  Your Inner Fish and Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne. You also may want to try his Book Faith Vs, Fact.

Link to post
On 12/17/2020 at 7:44 PM, LDS Watchman said:

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. You don't know what I have and haven't questioned or studied out. Just because you found belief to be irrational, doesn't mean that those of us who do believe are a bunch of blind sheep who have our heads in a hole.

I have a testimony given to me of the Holy Ghost that the scriptures and original teachings of Mormonism are true. I also have lots of tangible evidence for why I believe what I believe. 

A testimony by the Holy Ghost is a subjective non verifiable metaphysical personal experience.  What do you do when someone else claims a similar testimony of a religious faith that contradicts yours. Both cannot be true.  What happens then?

 

By the way I did not say you were a blind sheep. I understand where you are coming from. I used to be there as well.

 

Link to post
On 12/17/2020 at 7:47 PM, LDS Watchman said:

Well it appears that you forgot how faith works or never really learned it to begin with, because your description of it is dead wrong.

Yes this is what the true believer says to disparage the former believer.  It keeps you safe to say I never knew  how faith works or I never had a testimony or yada yada.  It is a discussion stopper as well as a barrier for you personally to learn and grow. But I would dare guess that for most of my life as an active true believing Mormon I understand the ideas of faith in action, prayer, pondering, witness of the spirit and so on as well as you or anyone else on this board.

Link to post
18 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Just read Paul's definition of faith.  I am speaking of faith in things that lack evidence and cannot be tested to find evidence. I am also speaking faith in things in spite of evidence.  

Tell Roger Bannister that kind of faith is useless.  Everyone said a 4 minute mile is impossible - that the human body physically was not capable of it.  No one believed.  There was little evidence to support that it could be done.  It had been tested over and over again for years and years and years.  No one could do it.  That didn’t stop Roger banister from a hope and vision which led him to action.  That faith made him the first man to run a 4 minute mile.  He visualized it every day and had faith that he would do it.  As soon as that threshold was crossed, wouldn’t you know it, everyone else started crossing the threshold too.  Faith/belief is real and it is powerful. It is responsible for progression in all fields, including science.  It is not useless.

Faith is not without evidence or assurances, according to Paul.  The fruit I have experienced is real.  

Edited by pogi
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
3 minutes ago, Teancum said:

There is such an abundance of evidence to support the theory of evolution that is is pretty much a foregone conclusion that it is fact. Read up on it.

I have read up on the supposed "abundance of evidence" for macro evolution. It's actually extremely flimsy and requires great leaps of "faith."

The problem these macro evolutionists have is that they take evidence for micro evolution, or adaptation within "kinds," which is scientific fact, and then use that evidence to support macro evolution, which is scientific fiction.

And make no mistake about it, the theory of macro evolution is part of the scientific Holy book, which no scientist may question while maintaining their credibility in the scientific community. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Just now, pogi said:

Tell Roger Bannister that kind of faith is useless.  Everyone said a 4 minute mile is impossible - that the human body physically was not capable of it.  No one believed.  There was little evidence to support that it could be done.  It had been tested over and over again for years and years and years.  No one could do it.  That didn’t stop Roger banister from a hope and vision which led him to action.  That faith made him the first man to run a 4 minute mile.  He visualized it every and accepted it as his truth that it would be done.   As soon as that threshold was crossed, wouldn’t you know it, everyone else started crossing the threshold too.  Faith/belief is real and it is powerful. It is responsible for progression in all fields, including science.  It is not useless.

Faith is not without evidence or assurances, according to Paul.  The fruit I have experienced is real.  

Still not the same. Roger could run, test, try, experience, see evidence, etc. I understand that type of faith is useful. I cycle. Avidly. There was a time when I wondered if I could ever do a 100 mile bike ride.  But through faith in my own discipline to follow a training program, practicing what I learned, eating well and losing weight, etc I have now completed dozens of 100 mile plus bike rides and other cycling achievements as well.

 Let's bring it back to the simple premise of the original post on this thread. Was there world wide flood? Strong evidence suggests that there was not. Do you still believe it in spite of evidence because of faith in what is written in the Bible?  How about evolution, etc.

Link to post
2 minutes ago, LDS Watchman said:

I have read up on the supposed "abundance of evidence" for macro evolution. It's actually extremely flimsy and requires great leaps of "faith."

The problem these macro evolutionists have is that they take evidence for micro evolution, or adaptation within "kinds," which is scientific fact, and then use that evidence to support macro evolution, which is scientific fiction.

And make no mistake about it, the theory of macro evolution is part of the scientific Holy book, which no scientist may question while maintaining their credibility in the scientific community. 

Yes you are wrong.  Not worth debating about at this point. Read the two books I recommended.

Link to post
16 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I would dare guess that for most of my life as an active true believing Mormon I understand the ideas of faith in action, prayer, pondering, witness of the spirit and so on as well as you or anyone else on this board

Can you quickly explain these concepts, because the way you have described faith so far is incorrect.

Which means you either forgot how it works or never understood it to begin with.

Link to post
42 minutes ago, LDS Watchman said:

Can you quickly explain these concepts, because the way you have described faith so far is incorrect.

Which means you either forgot how it works or never understood it to begin with.

Alma 32.  James 1:5. Grant Von Harrison's book Drawing on the Powers of Heaven.

Link to post
39 minutes ago, LDS Watchman said:

If you are so sure that I'm wrong, then it shouldn't be that hard to prove it. 

You haven't even attempted to debate the arguments I've made.

Tell me first other than anti evolution apologetic web sites what credible books have you read on this.  And I really have not seen your arguments to debate. Maybe I missed them.

Link to post
13 hours ago, LDS Watchman said:

In regards to what Elder Widtsoe said about the flood, etc., I believe that the quote by Joseph Smith about a "prophet only being a prophet when he is acting as such," applies. 

I believe that what Joseph Fielding Smith said was correct when he said,

"It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man’s doctrine." 

What Elder Widtsoe said is not "in conflict with what the Lord has revealed."

Again, the scope of the flood is not an essential doctrine or belief.

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
1 hour ago, LDS Watchman said:

This is not what I was asking for. 

You had claimed that "we have a continuous written history of a civilization like the Egyptian civilization that starts before the time you are claiming the flood happened to well after that flood was suppose to take place."

This chart doesn't show a "continuous written history" from before the flood.

An old LDS Institute Manual gives the date of the flood as 2344BC(E).  That would put the flood during the Egyptian 6th dynasty, probably in the reign of Teti.  If you would like to read translations of Egyptian records dating to before, during and immediately after the time of the flood I suggest you look at Breasted's Ancient Records of Egypt, vol. 1 (there are more recent translations of these texts, but this work is available here for download: https://archive.org/details/BreastedJ.H.AncientRecordsEgyptAll5Vols1906/page/n161/mode/2up).  If you mean a continuous, narrative history, then no, no such work exists.  But there are historical records spanning the supposed date of the biblical flood. There's an account of at least one official who served kings whose rule spanned the period before and after the flood (see p. 131 in vol. 1 of Ancient Records). FWIW, ancient Egypt had no tradition of a flood myth such as that found in ancient Israel and Mesopotamia.  When the gods grew angry at mankind and resolved to destroy them they chose the heat of the sun, not a flood, as their means of destruction.  For the Egyptians, the inundation was a much needed and highly anticipated yearly event; a year with a "low Nile" was a catastrophe.  

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
10 hours ago, LDS Watchman said:

Based on the teachings of Joseph, which William Law and other dissenters "flew apart like glass" over, Joseph Smith was referring to the Saints being unwilling to accept Celestial Plural Marriage, Adam-God, the plurality of the Gods, man's potential to become a God, and the endowment. 

I think Joseph was also referring to other teachings / beliefs / traditions that the Saints inherited, but which were erroneous in some respects, perhaps including stuff like the creation consisting of six literally 24-hour days, the literal creation of Eve from Adam's rib, and . . . a worldwide flood.

10 hours ago, LDS Watchman said:

All of these teachings flew in the face of the false traditions of apostate Christianity.

And some teachings stemmed from "false traditions."  The Saints did not join the Church as blank slates.  They brought traditions and notions with them.  They absorb traditions and notions from the broader society around them.  This continues today.  We work against it, both previously and now.

10 hours ago, LDS Watchman said:

Joseph  Smith also gave us the Book of Moses and the Book of Abraham, in which it is clearly spelled out that Adam was literally the first flesh upon the earth (before the plants and animals).

Well, no.

10 hours ago, LDS Watchman said:

It is impossible for Adam to be "the first flesh upon the earth and the first man also" and for life on earth to have developed through macro evolution over millions of years. 

Well, I dunno...

10 hours ago, LDS Watchman said:

Joseph Smith also received a revelation that the earth's temporal existance is 7 thousand years.

6 Q. What are we to understand by the book which John saw, which was sealed on the back with seven seals?

A. We are to understand that it contains the revealed will, mysteries, and the works of God; the hidden things of his economy concerning this earth during the seven thousand years of its continuance, or its temporal existence.

(D&C 77)

Prooftexting and eisegesis doesn't really work here.

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
4 hours ago, LDS Watchman said:

I have no idea what point you were originally trying to make, if it wasn't to undermine my position that macro evolution is a bogus unproven scientific theory and that there is actual observable scientific evidence to support creationism and a young earth.

I know

  • Haha 1
Link to post
8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think Joseph was also referring to other teachings / beliefs / traditions that the Saints inherited, but which were erroneous in some respects, perhaps including stuff like the creation consisting of six literally 24-hour days, the literal creation of Eve from Adam's rib, and . . . a worldwide flood.

Why do you think Joseph Smith also had a worldwide flood in mind? The Book of Moses (especially chapters 7 and 8 ) and the mention of the flood in Ether indicate to me that he believed a global flood. 

I think Brigham Young got a lot of his ideas from Joseph, so I tend to agree about Adam and Eve (i.e., I think Joseph also believed that they were born of parents and brought here), but I see no evidence at all that Joseph was nuanced a la modern non-literalists with respect to the Flood. Or the Tower of Babel. Or the other things some have held up for "updating" in this thread (sun standing still for Joshua, parting of the Red Sea, etc.). 

Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...