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

[pogi]

30 minutes ago, Teancum said:

No it is not. It is a barrier to finding truth for intelligent beings.

"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/

 

Edited December 18, 2020 by pogi

[LDS Watchman]

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Nowhere were the changes as comprehensive as very early in Genesis and nowhere else did Joseph add whole stories to the Bible like he did with the Enoch portions.

What's your point?

Btw, Joseph Smith did add an entire vision that Joseph in Egypt had to the end of Genesis.

[Ahab]

3 minutes ago, 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 in something.  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.

Who said anything about trying to find truth and knowing when you have found it without relying on faith in something?  That's not the right way to do it.  To find it and know you have found it you need to use faith to find it and know you have found it.

Those who do it the right way know how to do it correctly.

[The Nehor]

10 minutes ago, LDS Watchman said:

What's your point?

Btw, Joseph Smith did add an entire vision that Joseph in Egypt had to the end of Genesis.

Yeah, but it was copied from the Book of Mormon. It wasn't new to members.

[The Nehor]

13 minutes ago, Ahab said:

If only Joseph had not been MURDERED IN COLD BLOOD !!!,,,

As it is we only have what he did write, without other details he could have shared with us if he had not been MURDERED IN COLD BLOOD !!!

So are you pro-murder or anti-murder? Hard to tell here.

[Ahab]

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

So are you pro-murder or anti-murder? Hard to tell here.

I generally disapprove of it, frankly.

[pogi]

15 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Who said anything about trying to find truth and knowing when you have found it without relying on faith in something?  That's not the right way to do it.  To find it and know you have found it you need to use faith to find it and know you have found it.

Those who do it the right way know how to do it correctly.

I am preaching Alma 32.  Before knowledge, comes hope and faith.  Perfect knowledge cannot coexist with faith.  If you have faith, you don't have perfect knowledge of that thing. 

[MiserereNobis]

33 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I was a full blown active participating believing LDS person for most of my life. So don't presume I don't know about how religion teaches about faith, etc. 

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.

[Ahab]

Just now, pogi said:

I am preaching Alma 32.  Before knowledge, comes hope and faith.  Perfect knowledge cannot coexist with faith.  If you have faith, you don't have perfect knowledge of that thing. 

No, no, no, you're not correctly understanding what Alma meant.  To have faith is to be sure about something, but not necessarily 100% sure, because when you are 100% sure you can say you actually know something.

Think about a sliding scale, from 1 to 10 for example.  First you get an idea and then if you don't totally discard the idea as a true idea you can begin to hold out for the possibility that the idea might be true.  That's when hope enters the picture.

And then while you are holding on to some hope that the idea might be true, if the idea still seems like it might be a good idea, you can then feel kind of sure that maybe the idea could actually be a good idea.  Going from just hoping to feeling kind of sure.

And then over more time if you still hold on to the hope and are still feeling kind of sure, that level of surety might grow from kind of sure to pretty sure and then maybe even really sure until at last maybe you are really pretty dog gone sure it is true.

And then you might even say you know it is good, because of all of the good feelings you have about that idea and how good it feels to you.

Knowledge is basically all about what you feel really really sure about, and until you get to that level you're either just hoping or feeling a lesser level of sureness about it.

[MiserereNobis]

32 minutes ago, 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/

 

@mfbukowskiMark! Mark! Quick, we need the Rorty video!! It might be good for LDS Watchman to see, too. We'll make it part of the board's initiation for new posters.

[LDS Watchman]

7 hours ago, Ahab said:

I think you are probably from somewhere in the southern states of the U.S. even though I am a bit perplexed about why you said "you all" instead of the more usual "y'all".

And I also think the flood in Noah's days actually happened even though I am not 100% sure about what actually happened in regard to the extent of the flood.  

Do you think you know how much water it would take to drown everybody then living on this planet?  Or where everybody on this planet was living?

'm not sure but I doubt that there were people living everywhere on the planet back then.  I think all the people back then were living on only a small area on this planet, even though all the land was massed together into only one continent.

So how high would the waters need to go to get to everybody then living back then?  I'm pretty sure there were various elevations, some at sea level and some other areas at higher elevations, so how much water would it take to drown everybody except for those who were on that ark?

I am proof that someone can believe the flood happened without understanding exactly what happened back then, and since all of those details don't really matter in my own life I am fairly comfortable with not knowing all of what actually happened.

Lots of good questions. 

The reality is that we know very little about what life was like prior to the flood. We don't know how big the single land mass was. We don't know how many people there were. We don't know were they lived, how they lived, or much about them at all really.

We know there some good and righteous people upon the earth who were a very small minority, while most people loved Satan more than God and were very wicked, necessitating a world wide flood to wipe them off of the face of the earth.

[katherine the great]

4 minutes ago, LDS Watchman said:

We don't know how big the single land mass was. We don't know how many people there were.

There were no people on the single landmass. At least not if you are referring to Pangaea. Pangaea started breaking up 225 million years ago. The continents have been  basically in the same positions that they are today since humans have been on the earth. Didn’t you ever take a science class in school?

[LDS Watchman]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

A few years back, yes.

They don't.

Faith based on lies is incredibly dangerous even if the important stuff is true. Some people refuse to stop and sort when they find part of their faith is based on a lie. I was going to say "many people" but I realized I no longer believe that.

They are contributing to the mockery by playing the buffoon.

You know what. I am feeling stupid. I will go to the website and catch up:

Read an article on the "we are living in a computer simulation" thing. Their counterargument is that can't be true because we have a soul as the Bible says. Then they claim evolution has religious elements.

Oh, this looks promising. An article on dinosaurs and the flood. Okay, first they mock science for changing their theory a little to account for changing evidence. Par for the course here. Dinosaurs existed from the late Triassic to the end of the Cretaceous but scientists are not entirely sure what caused the extinction. Bam! It must have been the flood. Oh, this is a nice twist. Noah took two of each dinosaur onto the ark too but they died out later. Two adult T-Rexes on that ark. That is VERY impressive. I have got an idea for a Jurassic Park spinoff now. They can't even describe the process of a flood right. So now all they have to do is prove that Noah's ark sailed at the end of the Cretaceous period so about 65 million years ago. Wait? They stopped there?!?!? So many questions unanswered!

Gloating about science not having every missing link yet so they are wrong. Yada yada. 

People being able to read proving divine design.

Not understanding glaciers.

All scientific dating mechanisms are fundamentally flawed.

A velociraptor ate Cain.

So, all fundamentally wrong and designed to create a worldview of science and religion based on a sandpit of bad information. We should build a house on that sand. What could go wrong?

It's pretty clear to me that you really don't know the first thing about what ICR is doing. 

They believe in a young earth and creationism, which is what the scriptures teach, and also what I believe (and what Joseph Smith and his successors taught and believed btw).

The evidence they present is from the perspective of creationism and a young earth. So their dating is going to be different and seem quite foolish compared to what is taught in a typical science book or down at the museum. 

I disagree with some of their conclusions. For example they believe that the earth was made out of nothing in 6,000 years (6 days of creation), but I can let that slide because they don't have the JST and Book of Abraham to tell them that the 6 days of creation were the spiritual creation and not the physical one. 

They also make some really good points. I'll have to go back and find some specific things they point out. I haven't read through their stuff in a couple of years.

If you want to laugh them off for trying to show that true science supports the scriptures, that's cool.

You do you.  

And I'll do me, by holding fast to all evidence I can find to support what I know to be true.

 

 

[LDS Watchman]

15 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

There were no people on the single landmass. At least not if you are referring to Pangaea. Pangaea started breaking up 225 million years ago. The continents have been  basically in the same positions that they are today since humans have been on the earth. Didn’t you ever take a science class in school?

Yup sure did. What I was taught in science class is incompatible with what the word of God in the scriptures says. I ignored that for a long time, but eventually I came to a point were I decided to get to the bottom of what the truth of the matter is. 

For a number of reasons I choose the word of God over the theories of secular science. 

I believe in creationism and a young earth as taught in the scriptures and original teachings of Mormonism and I'm firmly convinced that true science supports a young earth and creationism. 

[MrShorty]

1 hour ago, LDS Watchman said:

I think Elder Widstoe did the church a disservice with this comment.

I'm actually not really a fan of his for a number of reasons. 

I'm firmly in Joseph Fielding Smith's camp on issues such as the flood and evolution

I recall browsing the local library one day and ended up in the LDS section and saw a copy of one of Elder/Pres. Smith's works and thought, "he (meaning Elder Smith) did such a disservice to the Church preaching and publishing some of his creationsist/literalist interpretations of scripture. It's too bad the views of Elder Widtsoe and Elder Talmage (and Elder Roberts and some of those in that camp) didn't get more airtime in the latter 20th century to balance Elder Smith and Elder McConkie's views."

I have oft noted in other places that these kinds of questions around our cosmology can be among the most contentious and divisive in the Church. What should we do with such a strong division within the body of Christ?

[katherine the great]

7 minutes ago, LDS Watchman said:

and I'm firmly convinced that true science supports a young earth and creationism. 

You have been deceived. 

[The Nehor]

8 minutes ago, LDS Watchman said:

It's pretty clear to me that you really don't know the first thing about what ICR is doing. 

Embarrassing themselves and the rest of Christianity with pseudoscientific rubbish?

8 minutes ago, LDS Watchman said:

They believe in a young earth and creationism, which is what the scriptures teach, and also what I believe (and what Joseph Smith and his successors taught and believed btw).

Believe whatever you want but don't use ridiculously twisted and perverted science to support it.

9 minutes ago, LDS Watchman said:

The evidence they present is from the perspective of creationism and a young earth. So their dating is going to be different and seem quite foolish compared to what is taught in a typical science book or down at the museum. 

It doesn't seem foolish because it is different. It seems foolish because it is foolish. It is snake-oil science, preaching what people want to hear when the facts don't support it.

11 minutes ago, LDS Watchman said:

I disagree with some of their conclusions. For example they believe that the earth was made out of nothing in 6,000 years (6 days of creation), but I can let that slide because they don't have the JST and Book of Abraham to tell them that the 6 days of creation were the spiritual creation and not the physical one. 

That is not my point of contention with them. It is not about their beliefs. Their beliefs may be (and are) scientifically unsupported but that is not why I think they are evil. They are using science to back up claims when the science doesn't. They are either so ignorant that they should not speak on any scientific matter ever or they are lying. I suspect the latter. They think they are lying for a good cause but they are still lying and lying is a sin.

14 minutes ago, LDS Watchman said:

They also make some really good points. I'll have to go back and find some specific things they point out. I haven't read through their stuff in a couple of years.

No, they don't.

15 minutes ago, LDS Watchman said:

If you want to laugh them off for trying to show that true science supports the scriptures, that's cool.

If they were just trying to make science and their radical interpretation of scripture fit together I would have a sensible chuckle and move on. They aren't just trying. They are claiming they have when they have not. That is not cool. It is deception and it is bad.

17 minutes ago, LDS Watchman said:

And I'll do me, by holding fast to all evidence I can find to support what I know to be true.

If the evidence isn't credible then that stance is not admirable.

[LDS Watchman]

2 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

these kinds of questions around our cosmology can be among the most contentious and divisive in the Church. What should we do with such a strong division within the body of Christ?

In my opinion the answer is to stick to the scriptures and throw out any teaching or opinion of man which cannot be reconciled with them.

In my opinion this is the only safe course. 

Having said that, I'm a firm believer that we should allow people to exercise their free agency and believe as they wish while still loving them unconditionally.

 

[The Nehor]

10 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I recall browsing the local library one day and ended up in the LDS section and saw a copy of one of Elder/Pres. Smith's works and thought, "he (meaning Elder Smith) did such a disservice to the Church preaching and publishing some of his creationsist/literalist interpretations of scripture. It's too bad the views of Elder Widtsoe and Elder Talmage (and Elder Roberts and some of those in that camp) didn't get more airtime in the latter 20th century to balance Elder Smith and Elder McConkie's views."

I have oft noted in other places that these kinds of questions around our cosmology can be among the most contentious and divisive in the Church. What should we do with such a strong division within the body of Christ?

Not worry about it. Joseph Smith probably wouldn't have.

Now if someone was conning saints by selling them pseudoscientific explanations that fit their worldview I think Joseph would disapprove. Good thing that never happened.

Most
Elephants
Like the
Drowning
Rain
Ubiquitous to the
Moors


 

[LDS Watchman]

5 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

You have been deceived. 

The word of God in the scriptures says otherwise.

What do the scriptures say about the age of the earth and how long life has been upon it?

What do the scriptures say about how man and other life forms came to be upon this earth?

I'm not the one who is deceived. My trust is in God and his word, not the theories of godless scientists.

The scriptures say that Satan deceives the whole world. That's what we're seeing today. He's pulling the wool over everyone's eyes in order to destroy their faith in God and his word.

[LDS Watchman]

6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

If the evidence isn't credible then that stance is not admirable.

The evidence is credible, but you believe as you wish. 

[InCognitus]

14 hours ago, LDS Watchman said:

19 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.

My point was that you are using a very broad brush to paint all the scriptures into one type of interpretation, which is:   Literally as seen from a 19th century Protestant viewpoint.  But as you have acknowledged here, scripture contains multiple genres that require different ways to understanding each type of writing.  And in this case I think you are not seeing the scriptures the way that the people who wrote the scriptures understood them.

I am not arguing against a historical flood.  I believe there really was such a flood exactly as described in scripture.  But to understand it correctly we need to view it from the same point of view as the people at the time and place of the writing, and not from some 19th century Protestant mindset.  

smac97 has posted the quote from John A. Widtsoe at least twice now.  And I haven't seen your thoughts on it yet (maybe I missed it, if you have commented on this please let me know).  But I will post it again here:

Quote

THE GREAT FLOOD. The Old Testament records a flood that was just over fifteen cubits (sometimes assumed to be about twenty-six feet) deep and covered the entire landscape: "And all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered" (Gen. 7:19). Scientifically this account leaves many questions unanswered, especially how a measurable depth could cover mountains. Elder John A. Widtsoe, writing in 1943, offered this perspective: The fact remains that the exact nature of the flood is not known. We set up assumptions, based upon our best knowledge, but can go no further. We should remember that when inspired writers deal with historical incidents they relate that which they have seen or that which may have been told them, unless indeed the past is opened to them by revelation.

The details in the story of the flood are undoubtedly drawn from the experiences of the writer. Under a downpour of rain, likened to the opening of the heavens, a destructive torrent twenty-six feet deep or deeper would easily be formed. The writer of Genesis made a faithful report of the facts known to him concerning the flood. In other localities the depth of the water might have been more or less. In fact, the details of the flood are not known to us {Widtsoe, p. 127}.
...
Widtsoe, John A. Evidences and Reconciliations. Salt Lake City, 1987.

This is how I view those accounts in scripture, and I am open to whatever God will reveal about those events.  In the meantime, I'm not going to judge what others choose to believe about those events, and I'm not going to be taking a doctrinal stand on the topic that is so firm that I may regret it later on.  Because the truth is that all the details have not been made known to us.

[MiserereNobis]

1 minute ago, InCognitus said:

Literally as seen from a 19th century Protestant viewpoint. 

Thanks. I was about to post that he's being very protestant. We've had discussions before on this board about how protestantism influenced the early LDS church views on some things (especially regarding Catholicism).

From my point-of-view, which aligns with the Catholic Church (not just because I'm Catholic), someone can believe in a global flood or a local flood -- it actually doesn't really matter. But that shouldn't be some litmus test for faithfulness or devotion to Christ, which LDS Watchman seems to want to make it.

And the anti-science anti-reason tenor of his points offends both my intellect and my Catholic sensibilities.

Science and Christianity do not have to be at war with each other. Only fundamentalists in both camps create that conflict.

[LDS Watchman]

6 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

smac97 has posted the quote from John A. Widtsoe at least twice now.  And I haven't seen your thoughts on it yet (maybe I missed it, if you have commented on this please let me know).

I have commented on it. 

I think he did the church a huge disservice with this statement. 

I'm actually not much of a fan of John A. Widstoe. I disagree with his views on science and religion as well as his white washing of the teachings of Brigham Young. 

[LDS Watchman]

1 minute ago, MiserereNobis said:

someone can believe in a global flood or a local flood -- it actually doesn't really matter. But that shouldn't be some litmus test for faithfulness or devotion to Christ, which LDS Watchman seems to want to make it.

That's not what I'm trying to do at all. I'm saying that doubting that the stories in the scriptures actually happened as described in the scriptures can lead to a loss of faith, because once we start questioning the truthfulness of the scriptures our faith can easily begin to unravel.

4 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Science and Christianity do not have to be at war with each other. Only fundamentalists in both camps create that conflict.

I agree with you here.

I think the key is that "true science" and the word of God are on the same side.

The story of the creation and origin of man as found in the bible is simply incompatible with the big bang theory and macro evolution. They are in direct conflict with each other. Like it or not that's a serious conflict between "Science" and "Christianity."

People deal with this issue in different ways. I choose to believe the scriptures over these scientific theories. Others choose science over the scriptures. Many others try to walk a path in between the two.