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
Posted (edited)
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
Posted (edited)

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

 

1 hour ago, Fether said:

A story doesn’t need to be literal for us to pull meaning from it.

I agree, but if the savior of the world refers to him as a literal person how exactly are we to view Noah as a fictional character?

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

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.

  • Similar Content

    • By Metis_LDS
      I am not a conspiracy kind of person.  I had a thought the other day that if you really believe the Book of Mormon you cannot state the following:                    All conspiracy theories are false.
    • By Fair Dinkum
      Believers often pose the question, if not from God then how?  How could an uneducated farm boy produce this book on his own without God's hand?  This new book provides an answer to that question.
      Quoted liberally from his Amazon reviews: In a fascinating new book Dr. William L. Davis draws on performance studies, religious studies, literary culture and the history of early American education, Davis analyzes Smith's process of oral composition. Davis provides a plausible alternative explanation for the coming forth of the Book of Mormon from the official narrative.  He explains how Smith was able to produce a history spanning a period of a 1,000 years, filled with hundreds of distinct characters and episodes, all cohesively tied together in an overarching narrative.
      Eyewitnesses claimed that Smith never looked at notes, manuscripts or books, that he simply spoke words of this American religious epic into existence by looking at a Seer Stone.  Davis shows how this long held assumption is not true, that Smith had abundant time between looking at his seer stone to produce his story line and to think through his plot and narrative.
      If you approach this book without a preconceived axe to grind, you will find solid research explaining how the oral sermon culture of the 19th century either crept into the Book of Mormon as Joseph Smith translated it (from a believer's perspective) or explains how Joseph could have constructed the narrative himself (from a skeptic's). Davis does not take sides and leaves room for both believing and skeptical perspectives.
      Judging the truth of the books claims is not Davis's interest. Rather, he reveals a kaleidoscope of practices and styles that converged around Smith's creation with an emphasis on the evangelical preaching styles popularized by renowned preachers George Whitefield and John Wesley. He allows for the believer to maintain a faithful view of the book.
      In Visions in a Seer Stone, Davis adroitly restores for the modern reader aspects of the now-forgotten sermon culture of Joseph Smith’s 19th-century, burnt over district, world and the well-established rhetorical performance techniques of its preachers. Davis then demonstrates that this oratorical praxis—in which Joseph Smith himself was a participant—illuminates not only Smith’s production of the Book of Mormon as a dictated performance bearing the indicia of these sermon preparation and delivery techniques, but it also illuminates the very text of this LDS scripture itself, both its narrative events and sermon contents.

      Davis details how numerous Book of Mormon narrative features—headings, outlines or summaries, some visible in italics and many others less visible in the text—are not mere textual devices for the reader, but were effective 19th-century sermon performance tools Smith could use to keep track of and produce the narrative as he dictated it. Davis produces an exhaustive list of ministers who wrote about sermon delivery techniques using such headings or outlines—“laying down heads”— with all of them substantially in agreement, having borrowed from each other and from bible dictionaries, such as Adam Clarke's bible commentaries and other sermon manuals, as well as from “Heathen Moralists” such as Plato, Aristotle and other philosophers, rhetoricians and writers from antiquity (see in particular on pp. 42 and 71 as to Bishop John Wilkins and the sources he used as well as his primary techniques to assist the preacher to speak from memory and which enable the congregation to understand “with greater ease and profit, when they are before-hand acquainted with the general heads of matters that are discoursed of”.) Smith incorporated these same rhetorical techniques into his Book of Mormon

      Davis shows that The Book of Mormon narrative contains many examples of its characters also using these oratorical techniques, the most visible formulation of which is found in Jacob 1:4 in which Nephi gives Jacob very explicit instructions on preaching that (other than his references to “plates”) could easily have been inserted into the pages of a 19th-century sermon composition manual: “if there were preaching which was sacred, or revelation which was great, or prophesying, that I [Jacob] should engraven the heads of them upon these plates, and touch upon them as much as it were possible” (see p. 91). The term Heads while not a familiar to the modern reader would have been quickly recognized by an early 19th century reader as familiar terminology used by the religious orator as topical notes highlighting important points to touch upon in the sermon.

      Although not an active Latter-day Saint himself, Davis writes generously for those still in the fold, providing room for Latter-day Saints to retain their faith in this book of LDS scripture while incorporating Davis’s new findings into a still orthodox understanding of inspired translation as described in LDS scripture, in Doctrine & Covenants 9:7-10. However, as shown by Avid Reader’s Amazon review of this book, apparently not all apologists will be satisfied with this option.

      One reviewer complained that— headings, outlines and summaries have been used for centuries by historians and other ancient writers, including Josephus and Aristotle, and that they would have been available somehow to the Book of Mormon’s ancient authors—is interesting since it actually supports Davis’s thesis. Take the preachers who wrote about the oratorical techniques described by Davis. They themselves, in formulating and promoting these 19th-century techniques, had access to and were informed by these very authors noted a reviewer. (see the note about Bishop Wilkins above, not to mention the pseudo-archaic book genre in 19th-century America that borrowed them as well)! Yet these ancient authors noted by siad reader (both living in Greco-Roman times) are not ancient enough to have informed the Book of Mormon’s purported ancient authors who themselves left Israel before the Babylonian exile, a time when outlines, headings and summaries are not known among ancient scribes and authors (and even LDS apologists now recognize that ancient scribal colophons are not the same thing—see Davis, p. 126).

       
      Davis has identified tell-tale signs within the Book of Mormon that give hints of Smith processes.  He also offers historical reference to Smith's becoming a trained Methodist orator.
      This sounds like a very interesting book and I'm wondering if anyone here has read it and would share your thoughts.
      <-------- Not King Benjamin

    • By bdouglas
      Two months ago someone from my extended family, Richard (not his real name), left the church.
      “I believe Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon,” he said.
      I spent an hour or so pushing back on this point. I brought up the complex geography of the BOM (“Fiction writers very rarely invent geography, and when they do it’s a very simple geography”); the language (“Who invents something like Reformed Egyptian? If you’re inventing a story about Jews from 600 BC you have them speaking Hebrew”); the various plates (“Someone could write a whole book on the various plates in the BOM alone, the abridgments, the abridgments of abridgments, the large plates, the small plates, what happened to these plates over the course of a thousand years”); the messiness yet internal consistency of the narrative (“Fiction is not messy, it is tidy, organized. But the BOM is untidy, messy, and there are loose ends everywhere. Why? Because it is not fiction"); etc., etc.
      But it was all to no effect. Richard has never been a reader, and most of what I said––well, it just didn’t register with him.
      But what I said next, did.
      “The Book of Mormon was originally rendered in a language Joseph Smith didn’t know.”
      “What?”
      “The Book of Mormon, the original text that Joseph Smith dictated, was not written in the English of that day. It was not the King James English of the Bible, nor was it the English of Joseph’s day. It was written in Early Modern English, a language which had been out of use for 200 years by 1827. This was a language Joseph Smith did not know and could not have known.”
      Long pause. I’d finally hit on something that Richard could grasp.
      "The presence of Early Modern English in the Book of Mormon is proof that Joseph Smith did not produce the book himself," I said.
      Maybe it would be more accurate to say that it is a different kind of proof, one that is easily grasped by someone like Richard, who is not going to respond to other proofs.
      Not that Richard is suddenly going to return to the church. I doubt that he will.
      But the presence of EModE in the BOM, when taken with all of the other proofs, makes it extremely unlikely, really impossible, that JS wrote the BOM.
      P.S. - Tried to edit headline but can't.
    • By Robert F. Smith
      A symposium on "EGYPT AND THE OLD TESTAMENT" will be held at the Staatliches Museum Ägyptischer Kunst, Gabelsbergerstr. 35, Munich/München, Germany, on 6-7 Dec 2019.
      The proceedings will be published as ÄAT (AEGYPTEN UND ALTES TESTAMENT) volume 100.
      More on the symposium can be found at https://www.freunde-abrahams.de/aegypten-und-altes-testament/  .
      ÄAT's spectrum covers the philological, art historical, and archaeological branches of Egyptology, as well as Old Testament exegesis, the archaeology, glyptics and epigraphy of Israel/Palestine and neighboring regions such as Sinai and Transjordan, literature and history of religions, from the Bronze Ages up to Greco-Roman and early Christian periods, as well as relevant aspects of research history.
       
    • By Bernard Gui
      At the end of Alma 37, Alma gives his final instructions to his faithful young son Helaman. After encouraging him always to be obedient to God’s commandments and to pray to God continually, Alma uses the Liahona as an object lesson to teach Helaman how to obtain eternal life through following the words of Christ. Using analogy, Alma compares the Liahona, the temporal compass provided by God to Lehi, with the words of Christ, the spiritual guide provided to all by God. In this remarkable passage, Alma, like all good teachers, repeats this image three times, and like a good Nephite teacher, he uses a parallelism to increase the impact.
      Alma employs the alternate parallel form, one of the most common and effective forms of poetic parallelism in the Book of Mormon. It appears hundreds of times. An alternate consists of two or more lines that are repeated in parallel order. The simple alternate form is outlined ABAB. Extended alternates are outlined ABCABC, etc. 
       Alma uses three extended alternates in rapid sequence to instruct his son. 
       A   For behold, it is as easy to give heed to the word of Christ, 
          B   which will point to you 
              C   a straight course to eternal bliss, 
      A   as it was for our fathers to give heed to this compass, 
           B   which would point unto them 
               C   a straight course to the promised land.
      The A phrase compares the ease of heeding the words of Christ with the ease of looking at the Liahona. The B phrase describes the purpose of A which is to point the course. The C phrase declares the final destination of those who follow A, salvation and arrival at the promised land.
       A   For just as surely as this director did bring our fathers, 
         B   by following its course, 
             C   to the promised land, 
      A   shall the words of Christ, 
         B   if we follow their course,
             C  carry us beyond this vale of sorrow into a far better land of promise.
      The A phrase again compares the words of Christ with the Liahona, but in reversed order. The B phrase indicates what we should do with A – follow their directions, and the C phrase gives the destination of those who do B – the promised land and a far better place, eternal life. 
       A   for so was it with our fathers; 
         B    for so was it prepared for them,
            C   that if they would look they might live; 
      A   even so it is with us.
         B   The way is prepared, 
            C   and if we will look we may live forever.
      In this last alternate, Alma personalizes the analogies of the first two. The A phrase compares the Nephite fathers (Lehi and Nephi) with Alma and his son Helaman. The B phrase indicates that God prepared the ways of direction for all of them. The C phrase compares the physical salvation of the Nephite fathers by following the Liahona with the spiritual salvation promised to all of us who will look upon Christ.
      Alma concludes his instructions with another impassioned fatherly plea that his son rise to the greatness of his calling.
      This passage indicates deliberate logical planning on the part of Alma in giving crucial instructions to his son prior to his death. This is what Alma thought would be of most worth to his son - look to Christ. It gives us insight into the Nephite mind, especially that of a powerful and gifted leader. I am so grateful for the Book of Mormon and the beautiful intricacies that await in its pages for us to discover. (Thanks to Donald Parry for his marvelous edition of the Book of Mormon. Poetic Parallelism in the Book of Mormon: The Complete Text Reformatted. Maxwell Institute, 2007).
       Your comments are welcomed. 
       Here is the passage in context.
       
×
×
  • Create New...