Jump to content

Why does jesus confirm the universal flood myth?


Recommended Posts

In 3 Nephi 22:9 we read of Jesus speaking to the surviving populations in the America's upon His appearance in America.  While most of his comments are merely a duplication of his ministry in the Holy Land one bizarre remark stands out in that it confirms the reality of the Universal Flood Myth.

Quote

9 For this, the waters of Noah unto me, for as I have sworn that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth, so have I sworn that I would not be wroth with thee.

Why does Jesus mislead His Nephite audience by propagating the flood myth? 

Edited by Fair Dinkum
Link to comment
10 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The Universal Flood myth or the Flood myth? You switched there. Jesus does not talk about the ‘whole earth’ or ‘all the land’. Just verifies there was a Noah who lived through a flood that God promised would not be repeated.

This is conjecture and diverges from what all of Judeo Christianity believed up until recent history. 

Link to comment
34 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The Universal Flood myth or the Flood myth? You switched there. Jesus does not talk about the ‘whole earth’ or ‘all the land’. Just verifies there was a Noah who lived through a flood that God promised would not be repeated.

Jesus does say------>"that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth" does He not?  He doesn't say over the land.  No one referring to a regional flood would say that the waters should no more go over the Earth.  Had He been referring to a regional flood he wouldn't have used the descriptor EARTH he would have used the term Land or Area or Region or Territory or Country or District or State or Zone.  But no one, especially Jesus, would describe a regional flood as no more over the EARTH.

And let's not forget that Jesus is speaking to the Nephite earthquake survivors, why would they be concerned about a regional flood anyway?

For further clarification, Jesus further says:

Quote

“I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is on the earth shall die” (JST, Gen. 8:22).

Nehor, there may be a perfectly logical answer to my question but yours is not it.

 

Edited by Fair Dinkum
Link to comment

Maybe He was just reminding them of OT scriptural stories they had?

The point of the story is that God will take care of us, it doesn't have to be literal.

Link to comment
28 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

In Hebrew there is one word that has been translated in English as land and earth.  

And for use in context, remember passages like these.

Clearly, in verse 15, "the face of the whole earth" refers to the parts of Egypt where the locusts were.   Would you argue that the locusts also topped Everest, the Antarctic, Australia, Tahiti and Hawaii?

No I would not, it is very clear that the author is referring to Egypt

28 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

And in the Book of Mormon:

The mention of "all the land" extends no further than those who could be gathered by the next day.  

Russell Ball's essay here includes a discussion of how both the Bible and the Book of Mormon use phases with localized context and meaning.  See pages 115-119.

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1021&context=jbms

So the real telling question is not "Why does Jesus confirm the universal flood myth?", but rather, "Why do you suppose that he did?"

In practice, as N. R. Hansen pointed out, "All data is theory-laden."  That is, Ian Barbour puts it "Theory influences observation with the result that all data are to some degree theory-laden."  Or as Jesus puts it, sometimes the problem is that you need a different bottle to hold new wine.  Or that with different soil, nurture, and time, the same words can yield very different harvests.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA  

 

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1021&context=jbms

 

Thanks for chiming in Kevin, I just find it bizarre for Jesus to be referencing a flood that "go over the earth"  But then the same problem is found in the Bible in the above referenced JST reference.  Jesus seem very convinced that the flood was universal.  Would there have been a reason for Jesus to want the inhabitants of the whole earth to believe that the entire earth was covered in a flood?

Link to comment

And I recognize that we here in this little corner of the internet can get all nuancie and intellectually correct but the church still promotes on its own web site as its core doctrine the myth of a Universal Flood and a Literal Tower of Babel.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1998/01/the-flood-and-the-tower-of-babel?lang=eng

So who do I trust?  Members of this board as being authoritative or the Church?

 

Edited by Fair Dinkum
Link to comment

@Fair Dinkum Ah, yes, Brother Parry's Ensign article. I think there's got to be a place to argue that Brother Parry is solely responsible for his opinions which may or may not reflect the actual beliefs or positions of "The Church" (whatever that really is). If you haven't seen some of his stuff in relation to Parry's article, you might check out Ben Spackman's views on the flood (and Parry's article in particular). This is as good a starting place as any: https://www.timesandseasons.org/harchive/2014/02/mormon-appropriation-of-fundamentalism-and-its-outcomes/

Edit to add: which isn't to say that our history does not have a strong "Biblical literalist" thread running through it that seems to want to constrain us to a belief in a global flood. I for one (and, from what I see elsewhere, others agree) reject the notion that one must choose between believing in a literal global flood or be an apostate atheist. It seems to me that there are plenty of good, believing Christians and Mormons who reject the notion of a literal global flood. I find it unfortunate that Br. Parry suggested such an opinion and that the Ensign published it, but I don't feel obligated to believe it.

Edited by MrShorty
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Fair Dinkum said:

And I recognize that we here in this little corner of the internet can get all nuancie and intellectually correct but the church still promotes on its own web site as its core doctrine the myth of a Universal Flood and a Literal Tower of Babel.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1998/01/the-flood-and-the-tower-of-babel?lang=eng

So who do I trust?  Members of this board as being authoritative or the Church?

 

An Ensign article from 1998 not written by a General Authority? Not going to take it as binding sorry.

I chalk it up as belonging in the same class with the 1930s article about Hitler following parts of the Word of Wisdom.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

..........................

So who do I trust?  Members of this board as being authoritative or the Church?

Once again you revel in the pathetic fallacy:  A Church does not have opinions, people do.  Moreover, you give no credence to the opinions of the Brethren, and certainly do not regard them as infallible, so what are you trying to say?  Why are you being coy?

Here you are playing the phony infallible game, instead of being straightforward.  As I have said many times to you:  The Brethren are not biblical scholars and do not read Hebrew or Greek.  None have training in theology.

Why would you expect them to be authoritative on these matters?  Isn't it true that you do not regard them as authoritative?

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Once again you revel in the pathetic fallacy:  A Church does not have opinions, people do.  Moreover, you give no credence to the opinions of the Brethren, and certainly do not regard them as infallible, so what are you trying to say?  Why are you being coy?

Here you are playing the phony infallible game, instead of being straightforward.  As I have said many times to you:  The Brethren are not biblical scholars and do not read Hebrew or Greek.  None have training in theology.

Why would you expect them to be authoritative on these matters?  Isn't it true that you do not regard them as authoritative?

Some really good thoughts.

If I can add on, what we should rely on the brethren for is their witness of the Savior and to teach us what we need to do today to prepare our own personal meeting with Christ.

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Who says it's a myth?

Notwithstanding modern apologetics, I am unaware of an apostle or prophet that has not treated the global flood as a literal event. Widstoe limited it to a heavy rain that covered the earth in a small amount of water, but still a global literal event. 
 

I do agree with others that a belief in a literal flood is not a core doctrine. 

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Who says it's a myth?

Wnat is NOT a myth?

Was anyone here, there?

It's only relevant if you think it is relevant.  Arguing about it will not change anything.

Link to comment
52 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think you are right and that the church does teach that the flood was global.  Many members and scholars disagree with that, probably some that are GAs or church leaders.  On this issue, I don't think you need to trust either one. 

Do your own research, decide what you feel is the best to believe (hopefully utilizing prayer as a resource as well) and then go forth. 

Whether you believe the flood was global or local doesn't really change anything about the gospel in your life so I don't personally see that either belief matters all that much, as long as we are open to being wrong about whatever we personally espouse, should that end up being the case.

No I don't believe there ever was a flood, I also view Noah as a fictional mythical charactor.  But seeing Christ refer to him as a real person was perplexing.

Link to comment
53 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Jesus is quoting Isaiah 54:9, and it is presented here in KJV English, not in the Hebrew format presented by Isaiah, nor in the Nephite language of Jesus' listeners.

Isaiah (or his successors in the Isaianic School) is presenting God Himself making a simile (in the midst of the Song of Assurance to Israel):

Neither Isaiah, God, nor Jesus are affirming that there was a Great Deluge which covered the entire Earth, including the highest mountains -- which is nonsense in any case -- but rather that the regional or local Flood of Noah would not be repeated, and that in like manner He would not be angry on this occasion.  What He is doing is providing an assurance to the Nephites, just as Isaiah did to Israel.

Some biblical scholars think that the Great Deluge story (which is found everywhere on planet Earth) was generated by the great Pluvial Rains which came at the end of the last Ice Age.  Indeed, the biblical story of Noah and the Flood is a fairly late account -- which can be found in earlier versions in Sumerian and Akkadian.  The Primeval stories in Genesis all have earlier precedent in other cultures, and must be read in that context.

I learned something new.  I didn't know this Thanks

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...