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

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

From a secular point of view, Jesus' historicity is probably all due to Josephus.  

And people like Celsus (whom Nehor referred to). I'm fascinated by Josephus, but I know that there are a lot of historical snarls in his Antiquities series(es). He may have sought to puff up his importance, and he was regarded as a traitor from the hold-out Jews (I mean, he took on the name of his Roman patron, Flavius). 

It's interesting. If Josephus is the best historical source, then (from a secular standpoint), why not reject his historicity the same way that they comfortably reject Moses' and Abraham's? I think it actually boils down to how influential Christianity is now, vis a vis how influential Judaism is.

[Ahab]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

From a secular point of view, Jesus' historicity is probably all due to Josephus.  

I think it's strange when people don't consider other people to be secular, too.  As if apostles and prophets aren't men in a secular sense as well as in a religious sense, too.

[pogi]

12 hours ago, LDS Watchman said:

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

Enlightenment.

2 of every kind of animal on planet earth fit on that tiny thing?  Not to mention other creepy crawlies.  There are more than 10,000 different species of ants alone.  Over 50,000 arachnids...eek!.  Up to 300,000 different species of parasitic helminths/worms ...(dry heaving sounds)!  Around 1.2 million species of animals alone.  Not to mention food...and perhaps the larger nuisance...waste products!  That wouldn't be a big enough toilet let alone living space for 150 days!

Edited December 17, 2020 by pogi

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, rongo said:

And people like Celsus (whom Nehor referred to). I'm fascinated by Josephus, but I know that there are a lot of historical snarls in his Antiquities series(es). He may have sought to puff up his importance, and he was regarded as a traitor from the hold-out Jews (I mean, he took on the name of his Roman patron, Flavius). 

It's interesting. If Josephus is the best historical source, then (from a secular standpoint), why not reject his historicity the same way that they comfortably reject Moses' and Abraham's? I think it actually boils down to how influential Christianity is now, vis a vis how influential Judaism is.

The age of the sources is probably one issue. 

Abraham and Moses, and therefore any contemporary sources that could speak of them, are ancient.  Each over a thousand years (with abraham almost 2000 years) before Christ.  And that means that the sources we do have of them are all secondary sources.  There are primary sources that speak of Jesus and those sources are much newer and have provenances that can be traced, so they are viewed as more trustworthy.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, LDS Watchman said:

I completely disagree. In my opinion rejecting the flood is akin to rejecting the truth.

What's next? Did the people of the Book of Mormon never exist? Did Jesus Christ ever exist? 

If I have to believe in a literal flood to believe in Christ, then you would have a point.  But I do not have to believe in a literal flood in order to have a testimony of Jesus Christ.  That testimony comes from the Spirit and NOT from Bible stories.  

[rongo]

12 minutes ago, pogi said:

Enlightenment.

2 of every kind of animal on planet earth fit on that tiny thing?  Not to mention other creepy crawlies.  There are more than 10,000 different species of ants alone.  Over 50,000 arachnids...eek!.  Up to 300,000 different species of parasitic helminths/worms ...(dry heaving sounds)!  Not to mention food...and perhaps the larger nuisance...waste products!  That wouldn't be a big enough toilet let alone living space for 150 days!

Insect diversity, as you point out, is a bigger difficulty than animals.

With evolution moving faster than we think it works, you wouldn't need every species --- only two of each "prototype" (e.g., wolf/dog ancestor, etc.). Just make sure you have a pink one, and a blue one.  And, they wouldn't have to be adults --- babies would have done better for space. And for predator/prey issues. And feed/manure issues. 

ETA: the relative sizes in your graphic also assume a certain length for the Genesis cubit. That could be a lowball estimate. The ship could have been much larger. 

 

Edited December 17, 2020 by rongo

[Ahab]

3 minutes ago, pogi said:

Enlightenment.

2 of every kind of animal on planet earth fit on that tiny thing?  Not to mention other creepy crawlies.  There are more than 10,000 different species of ants alone.  Over 50,000 arachnids...eek!.  Up to 300,000 different species of parasitic helminths/worms ...(dry heaving sounds)!  Not to mention food...and perhaps the larger nuisance...waste products!  That wouldn't be a big enough toilet let alone living space for 150 days!

 

A kind of being doesn't necessarily equate to a species, or at least not to every species of that type of creature.  The domain or kingdom of ants consists of all ants, for example.

https://www.britannica.com/science/species-taxon

 

[Ahab]

3 minutes ago, rongo said:

Insect diversity, as you point out, is a bigger difficulty than animals.

With evolution moving faster than we think it works, you wouldn't need every species --- only two of each "prototype" (e.g., wolf/dog ancestor, etc.). Just make sure you have a pink one, and a blue one.  And, they wouldn't have to be adults --- babies would have done better for space. And for predator/prey issues. And feed/manure issues. 

 

I like that idea.  Puppies and kittens and tiny little bears and birds!  Oh my!

[rongo]

15 minutes ago, california boy said:

If I have to believe in a literal flood to believe in Christ, then you would have a point.  But I do not have to believe in a literal flood in order to have a testimony of Jesus Christ.  That testimony comes from the Spirit and NOT from Bible stories.  

I don't think anyone is saying you can't believe in Christ if you don't believe in the flood. I think the concern is that once one starts giving the "deutero-trito Isaiah treatment" to scripture stories ("this one definitely never happened, this one? Maybe, if you don't get too crazy about the literal. This one? Not on your life!"), the thread unravels and threatens things like resurrected angels (because the people never really existed) that are indispensable to Mormonism's truth claims (that require laying on of hands by resurrected angels). 

We have a pretty big tent as it is. When I was a member of FAIR, I was surprised to learn that some scholars, whom I respect, don't really believe that D&C 110 literally happened, because of these very issues. Everyone has to make it work for himself, but for me, if Elijah, Moses, etc. didn't exist, then everything else unravels as far as Mormonism is concerned. 

A member of a former ward once sat next to a Baptist minister on a plane. They got to talking, and the minister asked him if he would believe in Jesus if he could, hypothetically, disprove the Book of Mormon. This member said it would absolutely demolish his faith in Christ. I thought about it, and told him that if the Book of Mormon could hypothetically be disproved, such that I couldn't deny that it had, I would still believe in Christ. I have felt the atonement in my life, and it is real --- so real, that it is not wishful thinking, auto-suggestion, etc. (which I have also experienced). I would not lose my belief in Christ, but I would be unspeakably sad and devastated in other ways. 

Brigham Young said in DHC volume 6, at a church conference (near the martyrdom), "This work is my life and my all, and if it sinks, God knows I don't want to swim." That is exactly how I feel, but I would still have faith in Christ and in the Father. I know that they are real, independent of the Book of Mormon, but I also know that the Book of Mormon is true. And a large part of my testimony of the Bible and the Book of Mormon stems from my belief (and the power in that belief) that they literally happened.  

Edited December 17, 2020 by rongo

[california boy]

7 minutes ago, rongo said:

Insect diversity, as you point out, is a bigger difficulty than animals.

With evolution moving faster than we think it works, you wouldn't need every species --- only two of each "prototype" (e.g., wolf/dog ancestor, etc.). Just make sure you have a pink one, and a blue one.  And, they wouldn't have to be adults --- babies would have done better for space. And for predator/prey issues. And feed/manure issues. 

ETA: the relative sizes in your graphic also assume a certain length for the Genesis cubit. That could be a lowball estimate. The ship could have been much larger. 

 

Can you explain to me how Noah got a platypus from Australia on the ark and then back to Australia?

[rongo]

1 minute ago, california boy said:

Can you explain to me how Noah got a platypus from Australia on the ark and then back to Australia?

That? That was just leftover parts from ducks, beavers, etc., stitched together. 💣

The land wasn't divided yet, so distances and oceans weren't yet the geographic issue that it is today. Maybe easier to submerge everything when the land was in one mass.  

[california boy]

1 minute ago, rongo said:

I don't think anyone is saying you can't believe in Christ if you don't believe in the flood. I think the concern is that once one starts giving the "deutero-trito Isaiah treatment" to scripture stories, the thread unravels and threatens things like resurrected angels (because the people never really existed) that are indispensable to Mormonism's truth claims (that require laying on of hands by resurrected angels). 

We have a pretty big tent as it is. When I was a member of FAIR, I was surprised to learn that some scholars, whom I respect, don't really believe that D&C 110 literally happened, because of these very issues. Everyone has to make it work for himself, but for me, if Elijah, Moses, etc. didn't exist, then everything else unravels as far as Mormonism is concerned. 

A member of a former ward once sat next to a Baptist minister on a plane. They got to talking, and the minister asked him if he would believe in Jesus if he could, hypothetically, disprove the Book of Mormon. This member said it would absolutely demolish his faith in Christ. I thought about it, and told him that if the Book of Mormon could hypothetically be disproved, such that I couldn't deny that it had, I would still believe in Christ. I have felt the atonement in my life, and it is real --- so real, that it is not wishful thinking, auto-suggestion, etc. (which I have also experienced). I would not lose my belief in Christ, but I would be unspeakably sad and devastated in other ways. 

Brigham Young said in DHC volume 6, at a church conference (near the martyrdom), "This work is my life and my all, and if it sinks, God knows I don't want to swim." That is exactly how I feel, but I would still have faith in Christ and in the Father. I know that they are real, independent of the Book of Mormon, but I also know that the Book of Mormon is true. And a large part of my testimony of the Bible and the Book of Mormon stems from my belief (and the power in that belief) that they literally happened.  

I quite agree with you, but Watchmen was making the claim that if you didn't believe in the literal flood then the next logical step would be to not believe in the Book of Mormon or Christ.  His logic is just not true as you also point out.  

And quite honestly, the thing that disturbs me the most is this idea of what you have to believe or not believe in order to be a follower of Christ.  All of that is irrelevant.  The only litmus test for someone who truly believes in Christ is how they try to live his teachings, the core of which is to love God and to love others.  As our understanding of what that means grows, so does our understanding of the divinity of Christ and His atonement.

[Teancum]

58 minutes ago, rongo said:

I already know about the Black Sea flood (it's the go-to explanation for local flood LDS). Thanks for linking to the article, though. It was succinct. The Smithsonian article doesn't address what evidence of a global flood would look like, and I'm unaware of anyone treating that in-depth. Sediment cores, etc. in the Black Sea area with glacial melt, sure --- that's part and parcel of the local flood theory (as well as the river floodings around the world that are sometimes held out as the Urquellen for the ubiquitous flood stories). 

But, what would the global evidence for a global flood be? That's my question.

Again, it's like how critics refuse to define what evidence of Book of Mormon peoples would look like. They refuse, because they know that it would look a lot like the evidence we already have, but we would have no way of distinguishing between Bom/non-Bom. Similarly, non-literalists don't want to define what global flood evidence would look like, because it would be relatively easy for literalists to find case studies and examples. 

It is not the critics job to define what evidence would look like though for a global flood that happened 4000 or 5000 years ago I imagine a geologist could.  But it is the job of the one who makes the  claim to provide positive evidence for the claim.  Especially fantastical claims.

[california boy]

1 minute ago, rongo said:

That? That was just leftover parts from ducks, beavers, etc., stitched together. 💣

The land wasn't divided yet, so distances and oceans weren't yet the geographic issue that it is today. Maybe easier to submerge everything when the land was in one mass.  

Exactly.  The whole idea that Noah could gather all the animals then existing on the earth and keep them alive for 40 days and 40 nights on a boat smaller than a modern cruise ship is impossible to defend seriously.  

[Teancum]

5 minutes ago, rongo said:

That? That was just leftover parts from ducks, beavers, etc., stitched together. 💣

The land wasn't divided yet, so distances and oceans weren't yet the geographic issue that it is today. Maybe easier to submerge everything when the land was in one mass.  

4000 year ago. The land was not divided? Another massive fail.  Evidence please?

[rongo]

2 minutes ago, Teancum said:

4000 year ago. The land was not divided? Another massive fail.  Evidence please?

That one is faith for me. I don't think the rates of plate/tectonic movement are constant through history, though. Joseph Smith said that they will come back together, too, but for that to be discernible, it would have to exceed the 1 cm per year rate at some point. 

[Ahab]

6 minutes ago, Teancum said:

4000 year ago. The land was not divided? Another massive fail.  Evidence please?

https://answersingenesis.org/bible-history/in-the-days-of-peleg/

[pogi]

28 minutes ago, rongo said:

With evolution moving faster than we think it works, you wouldn't need every species --- only two of each "prototype"

Evolution? Heretic!!!!

Is it safe to assume that evolution happens faster than we think it works simply to make the ark story more easy to swallow?

Also, dog breeding is not an example of natural selection/evolution. 

42 minutes ago, rongo said:

 And, they wouldn't have to be adults --- babies would have done better for space. And for predator/prey issues. And feed/manure issues. 

That might work for size, but not for survival.  Most animals can't survive on their own as babies for long without mothers milk/feeding, care, and education and teaching how to hunt/survive in the wild.  Animals that are raised by human's have a very difficult surviving in the wild. 

33 minutes ago, rongo said:

ETA: the relative sizes in your graphic also assume a certain length for the Genesis cubit. That could be a lowball estimate. The ship could have been much larger. 

Should we assume that it was that much different from the exodus cubit?

[rongo]

9 minutes ago, Teancum said:

It is not the critics job to define what evidence would look like though for a global flood that happened 4000 or 5000 years ago I imagine a geologist could.  But it is the job of the one who makes the  claim to provide positive evidence for the claim.  Especially fantastical claims.

I think it is when the focus is on lack of evidence (same applies to Book of Mormon as well). If critics are unwilling to define what they would accept as evidence, then of course any evidence offered is going to fall short. By design.

I don't have the answers to that, but I'm all ears if anyone can say what things would look like if there had been a global flood, and how that would be different than what we have now. Especially if, as Elder Widtsoe (a scientist) pointed out, you don't even necessarily need mountain tops submerged if the deluge of water from above and beneath was such that everything was covered by water at once. It's interesting that he even saw a doctrinal need for complete submersion (earth baptism). I know that you no longer believe, but I think for LDS, both the doctrinal and literal imperative are important (or, are at least important to most. Some here are active but mock the earth baptism doctrine). 

[pogi]

44 minutes ago, Ahab said:

A kind of being doesn't necessarily equate to a species, or at least not to every species of that type of creature.  The domain or kingdom of ants consists of all ants, for example.

https://www.britannica.com/science/species-taxon

Species differentiation is important with the ark because different species can't reproduce with each other.  Different kinds of ants can't reproduce.  So, either there had to be 2 of every kind of species on the ark, or evolution is on way faster than we think. 

[AtlanticMike]

11 minutes ago, Teancum said:

4000 year ago. The land was not divided? Another massive fail.  Evidence please?

A promised land by Jeffrey R Holland, 1976. He seems pretty smart to me

 

[rongo]

11 minutes ago, pogi said:

Evolution? Heretic!!!!

Is it safe to assume that evolution happens faster than we think it works simply to make the ark story more easy to swallow?

Also, dog breeding is not an example of natural selection/evolution. 

That might work for size, but not for survival.  Most animals can't survive on their own as babies for long without mothers milk/feeding, care, and education and teaching how to hunt/survive in the wild.  Animals that are raised by human's have a very difficult surviving in the wild. 

Should we assume that it was that much different from the exodus cubit?

1) I believe (and have taught) evolution to an extent in science classes. I can pass any test on evolution, Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, genetic drift, you name it. But, I believe, as my stake president in Chicago told me (he was a particle physicist at Fermilab): "You don't get birds from frogs, no matter how much time you have." My students tend to be on the conservative end, and when they were upset about learning about evolution, I told them they had nothing at all to be afraid of. It would help them understand the ideas and theories, where these ideas come from and why (the evidence). It would not harm their beliefs in the slightest, and will help them know where people are coming from.

2) Sure, dog breeding is an example of natural selection. Or, artificial selection  , when it comes to designed breeding. Still a dog, but the range from Chihuahua to Irish Wolfhound. 

The macroevolutionists just say that absolutely everything developed in response to survival factors from uni-cellular to complex organisms over extremely long lengths of time. But the change that can be observed through breeding is the same idea. 

3) With God, all things are possible. My faith does not exclude the possibility that God helped Noah and his family and the animals to overcome what we see as the norm today in terms of instinct, nurturing, dietary requirements, etc. Any way you slice it, it was an extreme situation that required extreme divine help.

4) I don't know. When my wife and I taught senior primary as newlyweds in Provo, we figured as a class that the ark was roughly the size of Cougar Stadium (in terms of length, width, and height). With multiple "floors," and with the animal sizes I laid out, and with the requirements of extraordinary fast evolution compared to the pace we observe now, I don't know that a different cubit is needed other than the Exodus cubit. But, Noah pre-dated Moses by quite a lot, so maybe that was different, too. For the primary class, we used the upper end of the cubit estimate in the Bible dictionary. 

Edited December 17, 2020 by rongo

[Ahab]

24 minutes ago, pogi said:

Species differentiation is important with the ark because different species can't reproduce with each other.  Different kinds of ants can't reproduce.  So, either there had to be 2 of every kind of species on the ark, or evolution is on way faster than we think. 

Please clarify your understanding a little more for me so that I may better understand you.  And please begin on the day of creation when God created each kind of being.  And please start with people instead of an animal.

So, how do you think it all started here on this planet?  Only one man and one woman reproducing which as of today has resulted in every color and size and weight class that people can possibly come in, or one of each color and size and weight class of people to reproduce other people of that same color and size and weight class?

Edited December 17, 2020 by Ahab

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

I already know about the Black Sea flood (it's the go-to explanation for local flood LDS). Thanks for linking to the article, though. It was succinct. The Smithsonian article doesn't address what evidence of a global flood would look like, and I'm unaware of anyone treating that in-depth. Sediment cores, etc. in the Black Sea area with glacial melt, sure --- that's part and parcel of the local flood theory (as well as the river floodings around the world that are sometimes held out as the Urquellen for the ubiquitous flood stories). 

But, what would the global evidence for a global flood be? That's my question.

Again, it's like how critics refuse to define what evidence of Book of Mormon peoples would look like. They refuse, because they know that it would look a lot like the evidence we already have, but we would have no way of distinguishing between Bom/non-Bom. Similarly, non-literalists don't want to define what global flood evidence would look like, because it would be relatively easy for literalists to find case studies and examples. 

A massive species dieoff in the fossil record, unexplainable methamorphic rock layers from being on the seafloor, an era of several centuries with little to no plant life in parts of the world, a geological era of mass erosion, remnants of very recent saltwater species on the highest peaks in the world, a ton of unexplainable salt in one specific geological era in the "rock record", a lot of sedmentary rock structures that have existed for millenia should have been worn down to nothing or crushed into different forms. Off the top of my head Rainbow Bridge at Lake Powell wouldn't have survived. Remember that we are talking about four to five MILES of water covering most of the earth's surface. That kind of pressure has consequences. A much "tighter" genetic history of virtually every species.

I am not an expert but those are a few of the things I would expect to see. Remember that we have enough information to determine with a high degree of probability extinction level events ranging from 445 million years ago to 66 million years ago. Most experts are convinced we are at the beginning of another one now. That we missed one 4,000 some odd years ago that would have been much much more complete in the scale of devastation than any of the others strains all credulity.

Edited December 17, 2020 by The Nehor

[katherine the great]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

A kind of being doesn't necessarily equate to a species, or at least not to every species of that type of creature.  The domain or kingdom of ants consists of all ants, for example.

https://www.britannica.com/science/species-taxon

 

Huh? There is no kingdom of ants. They are part of the Animal kingdom, Phylum: arthropod, Class: Insecta, Family: Formicidea.