Why does jesus confirm the universal flood myth?

[Calm]

And now for something somewhat different...

Was wandering around looking for comparisons of DNA between organisms because of comments about shared DNA and came across this fun fact about what animal holds the current record for most genes (genes vary in how much DNA they contain):

 

https://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=118530
 

Quote

Scientists have discovered that the animal with the most genes--about 31,000--is the near-microscopic freshwater crustacean Daphnia pulex, or water flea.

By comparison, humans have about 23,000 genes. Daphnia is the first crustacean to have its genome sequenced.

The water flea's genome is described in a Science paper published this week by members of the Daphnia Genomics Consortium, an international network of scientists led by the Center for Genomics and Bioinformatics (CGB) at Indiana University (IU) Bloomington and the U.S. Department of Energy's Joint Genome Institute.

"Daphnia's high gene number is largely because its genes are multiplying, creating copies at a higher rate than other species," said project leader and CGB genomics director John Colbourne.

"We estimate a rate that is three times greater than those of other invertebrates and 30 percent greater than that of humans."

 

Humans have 6 feet of DNA per cell, organism with largest is over 300 ft (see below).

https://www.kqed.org/quest/1219/a-long-and-winding-dna

I think this is what I was looking for (the idea was just because something is seen as simpler, less advanced doesn’t necessarily mean it doesn’t also possess lots of DNA, thus allowing for lots of shared DNA between simpler and more ‘advanced’—in the popular sense that generally has humans as top of the pyramid—organisms); maybe those more grounded in biology can confirm for me:

http://www.genomesize.com/statistics.php?stats=entire#stats_top

Also animal with largest genome (which I think tells us how many DNA base pairs it has):

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2265127-australian-lungfish-has-largest-genome-of-any-animal-sequenced-so-far/

 

Quote

Siegfried Schloissnig at the Research Institute of Molecular Pathology in Austria and his colleagues have found that the lungfish’s genome is 43 billion base pairs long, which is around 14 times larger than the human genome.

Its genome is 30 per cent larger than that of the previous record holder: the axolotl, a Mexican amphibian that the team sequenced in 2018.

The researchers used high-powered computer sequencers to piece together the lungfish genome.

To account for inherent errors that the sequencers introduce, they used multiple copies of the genome, each fragmented into small pieces of DNA. After all the fragments were sequenced, the team used algorithms to reassemble the pieces into a complete genome.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_japonica

Quote

Paris japonica has the largest genome of any plant yet assayed, about 150 billion base pairs long. An octoploidand suspected allopolyploid hybrid of four species, it has 40 chromosomes. With 150 billion base pairs of DNA per cell (50 times larger than that of a human haploid genome), Paris japonica may possess the largest known genome of any living organism; the DNA from a single cell stretched out end-to-end would be longer than 300 feet (91 m).[2]

The flower has 19 billion more base pairs than the previous record holder, the marbled lungfish, whose 130 billion base pairs weigh in at 132.83 picograms per cell.[2] Since then, other organisms have been assayed and reported to have larger genomes; Polychaos dubium may be the current record holder, but the authors of one study suggest treating that measurement with caution because it was taken before the advent of modern genomic methods

 

Edited June 24, 2021 by Calm

[2BizE]

A few possible reasons for the flood myth being in the BoM:

1) Christ uses anachronisms in the BoM to test our faith.

2) Christ knew it was a myth, but liked it to share a story.

3) Joseph Smith, author and proprietor of the BoM, was not aware it was a myth when he wrote the 19th century work.

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

It's a slippery slope between reality and fiction, a sliding scale if you like, but how far can one slide the scale along the bar before a truth claim become a comforting fiction?

The LDS Church has been considered by some scholars as a modern mystery religion.  That is, it is even more sacramental than the Roman Catholic Church (has a greater variety of sacraments).  Such full blown systems of symbolic ordinances were quite common in the ancient world, and the participants did not understand that symbolic action as fact or fiction, but rather as ritual reenactments of cultic oaths, covenants, and key events in religious lore.  The participants know very well the difference between reality and fiction, just as easily as they understand a simple, legal marriage before a county clerk, or the formal closing on a house (with all parties present and signing the contracts), or testimony under oath in a court of law.  Those are all rituals, Fair Dinkum, and the world of ancient Rome, Greece, and Egypt had many of them on a daily basis.  They continue to be normal in Hinduism to this day.

Even little children understand the difference between reality and their pretend play, and there is no fear of some "slippery slope" between play acting and actual madness.  Normal human experience tells us that.  You, on the other hand, remind me of the guy who insists that a Jesus parable is about real people and real events, rather than a being a generic lesson in morals and ethics.

Anglican Bishop Tom Wright explains this to us:

 

Edited June 24, 2021 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Great Straw man BTW but I've never suggested that LDS theology is solely dependent on scripture alone, it is equally also dependent on the pronouncements of its prophets, seers and revelators, but then not exactly on them either since so many of their pronouncements have been found wanting that even those can be over turned by subsequent generations of prophets.  Seems you can't rely on anything anymore. Even pronouncements confirmed by the spirit are subject to change or disavowment.

Nihilism seems to be your only refuge, Fair Dinkum.  Actual logical discourse cannot possibly have meaning for you.

6 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

You're on a straw man roll Robert.  Yet again you've constructed an argument I never advanced just so you could knock it down and do a victory dance. 🕺💃

Remind me again where the Buck Stops?

BOOM!!! Glad you said it so I wouldn't have to.  Then why should we hold anything any of them declares as being true or authoritative?  Seems they often over state and miss the mark and often make truth claims that cough cough end up being, well not true.

And you again carefully ignore McConkie announcing publicly in 1978 that he and the Brethren were so wrong on race and Black priesthood (whereas I knew he was wrong from the get go).  You could have frankly stated the remarkable nature of self-denunciation on that score.  I have repeated it here many times as an example of the Brethren realizing just how wrong they could be.  Brother Brigham even insisted that we not believe anything he says without getting confirmation on it from the Holy Spirit.  Of course, since you do not accept that proviso (rejecting both the existence of the Holy Spirit, and the possibility of getting an actual confirmation, etc.), and since you do not recognize harsh disagreements among the prophets (Paul versus Peter, and Brigham versus Orson Pratt), historical reality plays no part in your evaluation.

You demand infallibility so strongly, yet complain so loudly that it does not exist.  You are rejecting the human condition and human nature.  And, of course, anything I say just has to be a "straw man."  That way you need not confront your own confusion of fantasy and reality.

[Tweed1944]

6 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

 You really want to know?

Also

Were there dinasaurs in the garden. ?  2:20  Adam gave names  to the animals... I wonder if the kangaroo and koala bear were there?

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

It was meant to be funny.  My meme ability must not be at Nehor level yet.

[ksfisher]

8 hours ago, Tweed1944 said:

Were there dinasaurs in the garden. ?  2:20  Adam gave names  to the animals... I wonder if the kangaroo and koala bear were there?

Are you just trolling or do you actually want to know?

[katherine the great]

17 hours ago, ksfisher said:

And calling homo sapien DNA ape DNA seems like an oversimplification. 

It really isn’t an oversimplification. If we look at the traits that taxonomists use to separate groups, there is no scientifically valid reason for humans to be placed in a group apart from the great apes family (Hominidae). That’s what it means for humans to have “ape” DNA. For instance, orangutans, gorillas and chimpanzees are all part of that family (great apes or Hominidae). And yet Chimpanzee DNA is clearly more closely related to human DNA than to gorilla DNA.  Therefore if chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans are great apes, then humans must be too.

Edited June 24, 2021 by katherine the great

[ksfisher]

6 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

It really isn’t an oversimplification. If we look at the traits that taxonomists use to separate groups, there is no scientifically valid reason for humans to be placed in a group apart from the great apes family (Hominidae). That’s what it means for humans to have “ape” DNA. For instance, orangutans, gorillas and chimpanzees are all part of that family (great apes or Hominidae). And yet Chimpanzee DNA is clearly more closely related to human DNA than to gorilla DNA.  Therefore if chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans are great apes, then humans must be too.

How about this then "calling homo sapien DNA ape DNA seem like an oversimplification" when said flippantly and without demonstrating you know what that means

If you were to say that I wouldn't call it an oversimplification, because you've more than demonstrated your knowledge in that area on this board.

[mfbukowski]

18 hours ago, Calm said:

Myths are not always fiction, but many use the term that way leading to misinterpretation and misunderstanding. Myths may take historical people or events and place them within a narrative that has a greater purpose than simple factual analysis of “what happened”.  The how, what, and why questions myths are supposed to answer are different than the how, what, and why questions the study of history is supposed to answer and therefore myth narratives attached to the historical events can end up being very different even if a myth’s foundation is a historical event (and confusion is added because history is not the only source for myths, a myth may have multiple sources including history).  As an example, think of all the myths that have been attached to the founding of the United States…or likely any country. 

It's like "playing telephone" throughout history and literally thousands of years, especially with  illiterate folks passing down the stories around a campfire.

They didn't have digital video of the flood.  Even today who knows if a fact is a fact?

[longview]

12 hours ago, Tweed1944 said:

Were there dinasaurs in the garden. ?  2:20  Adam gave names  to the animals... I wonder if the kangaroo and koala bear were there?

Essentially yes.  The OT refers to all land as having been one contiguous continent.  In the days of Peleg did that land mass separate.

[ksfisher]

28 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Even today who knows if a fact is a fact?

 

[cinepro]

On 6/22/2021 at 9:24 AM, Kevin Christensen said:

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

 

Well, you run into a problem right there when you appeal to the nuances of Hebrew.

The problem being this article by BYU Professor Donald Parry.

Parry is relevant based on these qualifications:

 

Quote

My scholarly research and publication schedule deals with the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Hebrew Bible, esp. 1 & 2 Samuel and Isaiah. In order to make judgments and characterizations of textual variants, my text-critical methodology deals with paleography, orthography, phonology, syntax, transcriptional texts, word-word correspondences, MT ketib-qere system, lexical/linguistic analysis, intertextual/contextual readings, textual character, and the four categories—accidental errors, intentional changes, synonymous readings, and scribal interventions/conventions.

So what does the good professor have to say about the scope and reality  of Noah's flood?

Quote

Not everyone throughout the modern world, however, accepts the story of Noah and the Flood. Many totally disbelieve the story, seeing it as a simple myth or fiction. Typical of some modern scholars, one author recently discounted the events of the Flood by using such terms as “implausible,” “unacceptable,” and “impossible”; he stated that believers who would hope to provide geologic or other evidence regarding the historicity of the Flood “can be given no assurance that their effort, however sustained, will be successful.”¹ Another author titled his book The Noah’s Ark Nonsense,² revealing his disbelief that the Flood actually took place.

Still other people accept parts of the Flood story, acknowledging that there may have been a local, charismatic preacher, such as Noah, and a localized flood that covered only a specific area of the world, such as the region of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers or perhaps even the whole of Mesopotamia. Yet these people do not believe in a worldwide or global flood. Both of these groups—those who totally deny the historicity of Noah and the Flood and those who accept parts of the story—are persuaded in their disbelief by the way they interpret modern science. They rely upon geological considerations and theories that postulate it would be impossible for a flood to cover earth’s highest mountains, that the geologic evidence (primarily in the fields of stratigraphy and sedimentation) does not indicate a worldwide flood occurred any time during the earth’s existence.

There is a third group of people—those who accept the literal message of the Bible regarding Noah, the ark, and the Deluge. Latter-day Saints belong to this group. In spite of the world’s arguments against the historicity of the Flood, and despite the supposed lack of geologic evidence, we Latter-day Saints believe that Noah was an actual man, a prophet of God, who preached repentance and raised a voice of warning, built an ark, gathered his family and a host of animals onto the ark, and floated safely away as waters covered the entire earth. We are assured that these events actually occurred by the multiple testimonies of God’s prophets.

Now, obviously Parry doesn't speak for every single individual in the Church. But when a Professor of Hebrew publishes that in the Ensign, it takes away a bit of the latitude for what can be said about what the Church teaches, and what a clear reading of Hebrew implies.
 

[Kevin Christensen]

The church is an assembly of people, and people come in all sorts. 

Some of those people have agreed with Brother Parry, and some have not, some notables such as Nibley and Talmage and Jeffery I have mentioned, and they have also been published via church owned publications.  My case regarding Parry's reading has never been that some LDS members and publications have made that case, but that enough have disagreed is that no member is required by current circumstances and evidence to treat the notion of a universal flood as the lynch-pin of faith, and one key notion upon which the existence of God, the Divinity of Christ, and the possibility of a Restoration must live or die.  Frankly, it's not that important, and not only was Parry not on the Ark, but even Noah could only have seen extent of his flood within the limits of his horizons.  An observer on the Planet Earth cannot see the whole planet.  Parry is entitled to his opinions, as were his editors at the Ensign, who do not need to pass every article through the Prophet and the 12 to get them published.  And it happens that the Noah story that we have does not begin, "I, Noah..."   We have an account that got passed along through the hands of editors and transmitters and interpreters, that has involved changes to language, understanding and culture.

A young Joseph Smith realized that "the different passages of scripture were understood so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible."   You want me and other LDS to put all confidence in Parry on that point?  Why?  Really?  When I look at Parry's work on things like Poetic Forms in the Book of Mormon, I can see and evaluate the evidence.  When he tells me what happened with Noah, I can see where he is coming from, but his not the only opinion and evidence I have available to consider.  So I linked Duane Jeffery, a BYU geology professor.  Do any BYU geology professors teach that story the same way Parry does?  And if not, why not?  Is it because they are ignorant of Hebrew and that is all that matters or that could possibly matter in resolving the issue, or because they know things about geology that Parry does consider?  Are BYU geology professors required to teach a global Noah flood, or not?   Is Parry unquestionably correct in reading a "plenary text" that is unquestionably complete, inerrant, and sufficient, as well as self-interpreting, forcing all readers to the same understanding?  Or, are opinions like Parry's a convenient rhetorical tool, even a weapon in a cultural skirmish, because they are so plainly questionable?  Do you believe him?  Or not?  And if you don't, why should I?

As Nibley pointed out, in "Before Adam" in the Deseret Book published CWHN v1, Noah sent out the birds to find out what was going on outside of his line of sight (notice neither his prophet-hood, nor God, made such inquiries unnecessary), and he could only surmise where the one that returned had been from the branch it brought back.  Personally, given what I know of geology, and of ancient history, and mythology, and scholarship, and how paradigms work, I cherish the fact that I have room to choose for myself, and to seek further light and knowlege.   For instance, several decades back, after reading Who Wrote the Bible? noting the way Friedman shows show two different flood sources have been spliced together in Genesis.  Pretty cool.  But I elsewhere learned that the whole account is chiastic. So I personally reformatted the whole thing and saw places where smaller units within the E and J accounts bridge the supposed division into E and J sources.  I still don't know how to fully account for that.  Friedman prefers not to mention it.  But whether I can account for that conflict between the splice theory and the artistic unity, I cannot ignore it.  It sits as a puzzle.

Expertise in Hebrew, however admirable and beneficial and worthwhile, is not the same thing as either eye-witness testimony, or pictures from a range of satellites.  All we have in Genesis, as a transmission, through unknown hands, over a considerable length of time, and various editors, and versions, and interpreters, and cultures, and assumptions, all made by fallible humans.  I personally think that if the account were a perfectly transmitted eye-witness account of a global phenomena, there would be global evidence in geology.   We do have evidence to consider of the Bosphorus flood, for example.  Should I take such lack of evidence for a global flood that Geology is a lie? (a charge that Brigham Young expressly disagreed with: he accepted the major principles as acceptable, pending ongoing study).  Or that a text like the Noah account might be misinterpreted due to a range of circumstances?  As LDS members, we get to choose.  We are not bound by Parry's opinions.  That that his opinions exist is a fact, but that they are binding is another opinion.  And a rather dubious one, in that it does not account for a great deal of significant evidence.

But even without Hebrew, LDS have access to Moses 1:29.

"And he beheld many lands, and each land was called earth, and there were inhabitants on the face thereof."

That blunt insight, is, I notice, consistent with the interchangeablity of the English meanings assigned to the Hebrew word.

Nibley also considers Moses 7:52.

"And he sent forth an unalterable decree that a remnant of his [Enoch's] seed should always be found among all nations, while the earth should stand."  The blessing that a remnant should be found among all nations is meaningless if Enoch's seed was the only source of all nations.   Indeed, it only makes sense of there are other nations around to be found among as a remnant.

So evidence of various kinds, whether other ancient flood stories, LDS scripture, LDS authorities, and other evidences, including the evidence of the Bosphorus flood, and all kinds of geologic and biological evidence, and artic ice cores and such, can be considered, or ignored, and we have room for LDS to believe as they please, something Joseph Smith particularly cherished, exists.

"I want to come up into the presence of God, and learn all things. But the creeds set up stakes and say, 'Hitherto thou shalt come, and no further," which I cannot subscribe to." TPJS, 327. 

To Parry in 1998 we should come, and no further?  I don't think so.

And among any group of people there are those who prefer to deal with complexity by appealing to authorities, and to use authority to shut down any further discussion, and there are those who continually seek further light and knowledge, even when such questions unsettle some authorities.  Such differences are human, rather than peculiarly LDS, as the Perry Scheme for Cognitive and Ethical Growth demonstrates.  And I have shown at length  (in "Sophic Box and Mantic Vista") that by precept and example, Joseph Smith pushed for us to seek further light and knowledge

And with respect to the Noah story:

Quote

The stories of the garden of Eden and the flood have always furnished unbelievers with their best ammunition against believers, because they are the easiest to visualize, popularize, and satirize of any Biblical accounts.  Everyone has seen a garden and been caught in the pouring rain.  It requires no effort of imagination for a six-year-old to convert concise and straight-forward Sunday school recitals into the vivid images that will stay with him for the rest of his life. These stories retain the form of the nursery tales they assume in the imaginations of small children, to be defended by grownups who refuse to distinguish between childlike faith and thinking as a child when it is time to "put away childish things." (1 Corinthian 13:11).  (Nibley, Before Adam, 63.)  

Amen.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited June 25, 2021 by Kevin Christensen
typo

[Kevin Christensen]

3 hours ago, longview said:

Essentially yes.  The OT refers to all land as having been one contiguous continent.  In the days of Peleg did that land mass separate.

"one contiguous continent" is not a quote.   BYU Professor Duane Jeffery is helpful on Peleg and Genesis 10:25 and Peleg.

Quote

Various other LDS writers have asserted that the Western and Eastern hemispheres were joined at the time of the Flood, so Noah did not need to be taken from the West to the East. This assertion exploits Genesis 10:25, the passage that one of Eber’s sons was named Peleg, “for in his days was the earth divided.” The general scientific consensus is that the continents were once joined across the present-day Atlantic, but scientists have adduced very strong evidence that the division took place over many millions of years. So any attempt to squeeze the data into a timeframe of, at maximum, 3900 years (from 2400 BC to Columbus around 1500 AD) seems insurmountable. Far more likely, the Peleg statement refers to political divisions of the land, not to a dividing of continents. Indeed the Book of Jubilees, a very early Jewish work (from the second millennium BC), details clearly that the Peleg division was a stewardship designation of the locally known land among Noah’s sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth (Jubilees 8). Jubilees carefully describes the boundaries of the various allotments for each son and his descendants, and this has nothing to do with continental rupture.34

https://sunstonemagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/134-27-45.pdf  (See page 36.)

Nibley mentioned this as well, in The World of the Jaredites:

Quote

Yet another important Biblical expression receives welcome elucidation from our text: though Ether says nothing about "the whole earth" being "of one language and one speech" (Gen. XI:1), he does give us an interesting hint as to how those words may be taken. Just as "son" and "descendant" are the same word in Hebrew and so may easily be confused by translators (who in fact have no way of knowing, save from the context, in which sense the word is to be understood), so "earth" and "land" are the same word, the well-known eretz. In view of the fact that the Book of Ether, speaking only of the Jaredites, notes that "there were none of the fair sons and daughters upon the face of the whole earth who repented of their sins" (XIII:17), it would seem that the common "whole earth" (kol haaretz) of the Old Testament need not always be taken to mean the entire globe. Certainly it is quite as legitimate to think of the days of Peleg as the time when, as the old Jewish writers describe it, "the children of Noah began to divide the earth among themselves," 36 as, without the least authority, to visualize the drifting of the continents or the rending apart of the terrestrial globe. A reader's first reaction to an ancient and fragmentary text usually becomes a lifelong credo, though research and revelation have combined in latter days to discredit this obvious and easy solution of the mysteries. The Book of Ether, like First Nephi, is, when we come to examine it, heavily weighted in the direction of sober and factual history and was never meant to be a springboard for the imagination; ...

From Jubilees 8.  Besides Nibley, I have heard Margaret Barker cite this passage as constraining the tendency to imagine continental drift, without regard to the people presumbly holding on for dear life, as the soluiton. 

Quote

1. And in the sixth year [1567 A.M.] thereof, she bare him son, and he called his name Peleg; for in the days when he was born the children of Noah began to divide the earth amongst themselves: for this reason he called his name Peleg.
2. And they divided (it) secretly amongst themselves, and told it to Noah.
3. And it came to pass in the beginning of the thirty-third jubilee [1569 A.M.] that they divided the earth into three parts, for Shem and Ham and Japheth, according to the inheritance of each, in the first year in the first week, when one of us who had been sent, was with them.
4. And he called his sons, and they drew nigh to him, they and their children, and he divided the earth into the lots, which his three sons were to take in possession, and they reached forth their hands, and took the writing out of the bosom of Noah, their father.

Misreading is often due to what Nibley calls "The gas law of learning.  Any amount of information will expand to fill any intellectual void, no matter how large."

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[Calm]

6 hours ago, longview said:

In the days of Peleg did that land mass separate.

CFR that is how people understood the verse in the Bible prior to the first hints of plate tectonics (I am assuming that the first maps that showed how the continents appear to fit together may have led to speculation the world was originally one land mass, but has been too long since I researched this to remember when the first such ideas were recorded).

If the earliest known interpretations of the Peleg verse, the ones who lived closer to the time of Peleg, interpreted the verse as referring to social divisions and the idea that it was land masses didn’t enter public awareness until the scientific concept of land mass movement, that implies imo land mass movement is an idea imposed on the Peleg verse by much later readers and not the original authors or readers. 
 

There are worldwide myths of a flood that destroyed humanity.  If the physical division of land occurred after the flood, surely there must be at least as many myths out there dealing with the massive cataclysms that caused this to happen, especially since many more people lived through it to share their experiences.  
 

added:  I see Kevin put up evidence for social division, excellent 

Edited June 24, 2021 by Calm

[InCognitus]

6 hours ago, longview said:

In the days of Peleg did that land mass separate.

To add to what Kevin and Calm said above, the verse in question appears in verse 25 of chapter 10 of Genesis, a chapter that scholars have called the "table of nations" (see Wiki article:  Generations of Noah).   The entire context of the chapter is about dividing up the lands for each group of people mentioned (Shem, Ham, and Japheth).  So even without all of the scholarly background and knowledge of ancient languages, an average reader should understand from the context of the chapter that the sentence, "And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided" is referring the areas of land given to the people groups in the chapter.   For example:

Gen 10:5  "By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations."

And the chapter ends with this:

Gen 10:32  "These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations, in their nations: and by these were the nations divided in the earth after the flood."

It seems obvious from the context what verse 25 is talking about.

[longview]

Thanks to @InCognitus @Calm @Kevin Christensen for their perspectives.  How can there be a need for CFR if everybody pretty much have their opinions?

Several years ago I watched a PBS show (maybe it was NOVA) where it was told that a certain scientist looked at a hillside next to a coast  in England and developed a theory that geological processes occurred at a steady gradual rate.  He called it Uniformitarianism.  Then decades later another scientist visited the same locale and saw evidences of major upheavals.  He called it Catastrophism.  Who was correct?

I am inclined to believe that God can easily cause the earth to undergo massive changes in a very short amount of time without too much violence in the shock waves.  Such as venting enormous reservoirs of water from deep underground for the purpose of baptizing the earth.  Nothing is impossible for God.  Not even skidding continents around.  See my signature block below.

[Maidservant]

On 6/23/2021 at 8:29 AM, Fair Dinkum said:

 Truth is consistent right?

No. The capacity to reconcile something (or all things) is not an indication of truth. (And truth is not meant to mean 'facts', either. But I guess this is not a truth thread.)

I think your answer or at least more clues is more simple than this whole round of discussion has made it. You are quoting Isaiah. Thus, Jesus actually didn't say that anyway. Isaiah's poetry is not Jesus speaking.

The question is why does Isaiah draw upon both the imagery of Noah and of a Redeemer (who is not named Jesus here).

Isaiah (or whoever the actual writer, I don't know my transmission scholarship here) is hundreds if not thousands of years away from a purported historical moment of Noah's flood. Isaiah knows as much about the flood (as history or geology) as the average person knows about Isaiah.

But the question that interests me is why these 'stories' or templates or symbolisms endured to be drawn upon in a variety of ways, for a variety of purposes, in a variety of ages including ours. Very compelling story. Isaiah does understand "the waters of Noah" symbolically and mythologically and that is what he is trying to get at. The archetype within that story that encapsulates the entire rest of the chapter which is what someone else mentioned, about mercy. (p.s. myth does not mean fiction)

P.S. The scriptures are a map for progression. The "waters of Noah" are keywords regarding our progression--not a reference to history or geology. Isaiah used that phrase very particularly.

Waters, both in the Noah template (and as referenced by Isaiah) and in the Jaredite template and the Moses template (and others), refer to our sojourn on the earthly plane. We are at this time covered in waters. We are in the deep.

Isaiah is Isaiah. He has a very special way with words and with spiritual clarion calls that have been hard to match throughout history. And he had a very specific message he was trying to get across in all of his utterances. He was so angry about how we were/are being human. And so visionary about what we have the capacity to be. To guess, I don't think he was up one whit on any night about whether it was a global flood because he might not have even known there was a globe. He spoke over and over again about the transformation from the lowest form of being human to the highest form of safety, peace, joy of being human. This chapter evokes the transformation.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, longview said:

How can there be a need for CFR if everybody pretty much have their opinions?

I asked to see documentation that show that people interpreted that verse as land movement before the scientific idea of continental drift popped up.  IOW, even if opinion or interpretations, I am asking evidence that those opinions existed.  Just as you could show evidence of what my, Kevin, and Incognitus’ opinions are.  I am not asking for evidence those opinions are right.

Evidence that opinions and interpretations that it was a social division have been posted.  You should be able to do the same, show that your version of biblical interpretation was shared by at least some of those living much, much closer to that time.

Quote

I am inclined to believe that God can easily cause the earth to undergo massive changes in a very short amount of time without too much violence in the shock waves.  Such as venting enormous reservoirs of water from deep underground for the purpose of baptizing the earth.  Nothing is impossible for God.  Not even skidding continents around.  See my signature block below.

Did he wipe all memory of the event from the minds of those who lived through it?  If not, do you not think it would have been passed on to their children and children’s children for centuries leading to numerous worldwide myths of catastrophic land movement just as happened I am guessing you believe with the stories of the Flood. There were a lot more witnesses left standing in Peleg’s time, after all. 
 

So let’s see some evidence people were talking about this miracle back in the same time periods they were talking about the flood. 

Edited June 25, 2021 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Maidservant said:

P.S. The scriptures are a map for progression. The "waters of Noah" are keywords regarding our progression--not a reference to history or geology. Isaiah used that phrase very particularly.

Waters, both in the Noah template (and as referenced by Isaiah) and in the Jaredite template and the Moses template (and others), refer to our sojourn on the earthly plane. We are at this time covered in waters. We are in the deep.

Isaiah is Isaiah. He has a very special way with words and with spiritual clarion calls that have been hard to match throughout history. And he had a very specific message he was trying to get across in all of his utterances. He was so angry about how we were/are being human. And so visionary about what we have the capacity to be. To guess, I don't think he was up one whit on any night about whether it was a global flood because he might not have even known there was a globe. He spoke over and over again about the transformation from the lowest form of being human to the highest form of safety, peace, joy of being human. This chapter evokes the transformation

Beautiful stuff. Thanks.

[Robert F. Smith]

17 hours ago, katherine the great said:

It really isn’t an oversimplification. If we look at the traits that taxonomists use to separate groups, there is no scientifically valid reason for humans to be placed in a group apart from the great apes family (Hominidae). That’s what it means for humans to have “ape” DNA. For instance, orangutans, gorillas and chimpanzees are all part of that family (great apes or Hominidae). And yet Chimpanzee DNA is clearly more closely related to human DNA than to gorilla DNA.  Therefore if chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans are great apes, then humans must be too.

Yep.  I can still recall my first course in the paleolithic included as a text Desmond Morris, The Naked Ape (1967).  Morris was a zoologist and his book drew obvious conclusions which have stood the test of time.  https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/sep/24/the-naked-ape-at-50-desmond-morris-four-experts-assess-impact

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Maidservant said:

No. The capacity to reconcile something (or all things) is not an indication of truth. (And truth is not meant to mean 'facts', either. But I guess this is not a truth thread.).....................

Yes.  People crave truth and proof, and are highly annoyed that they can't have it.  Making do with something else is just not an option for them.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

.............. the scientific idea of continental drift popped up.  .....................

And plate tectonics, and subsidence, etc.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Maidservant said:

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

But the question that interests me is why these 'stories' or templates or symbolisms endured to be drawn upon in a variety of ways, for a variety of purposes, in a variety of ages including ours. Very compelling story. Isaiah does understand "the waters of Noah" symbolically and mythologically and that is what he is trying to get at. The archetype within that story that encapsulates the entire rest of the chapter which is what someone else mentioned, about mercy. (p.s. myth does not mean fiction)

P.S. The scriptures are a map for progression. The "waters of Noah" are keywords regarding our progression--not a reference to history or geology. Isaiah used that phrase very particularly.

Waters, both in the Noah template (and as referenced by Isaiah) and in the Jaredite template and the Moses template (and others), refer to our sojourn on the earthly plane. We are at this time covered in waters. We are in the deep.

Isaiah is Isaiah. He has a very special way with words and with spiritual clarion calls that have been hard to match throughout history. And he had a very specific message he was trying to get across in all of his utterances. He was so angry about how we were/are being human. And so visionary about what we have the capacity to be. To guess, I don't think he was up one whit on any night about whether it was a global flood because he might not have even known there was a globe. He spoke over and over again about the transformation from the lowest form of being human to the highest form of safety, peace, joy of being human. This chapter evokes the transformation.

The best books available to understand the mythological heritage of humankind are by Joseph Campbell (The Power of Myth, which is also a PBS TV series; The Hero with a Thousand Faces; The Masks of God, etc.), and by Giorgio de Santillana & Hertha von Dechend, Hamlet's Mill: An Essay on Myth and the Frame of Time.