Jump to content

Why does jesus confirm the universal flood myth?


Recommended Posts

25 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Sorry I'm confused with what exactly you are asking me. Could you please elaborate.

You seem to want the global flood but not.

I think your approach is flawed. To use your puzzle analogy we don’t have all the pieces so saying a piece does not fit could mean it is surrounded by other pieces we do not have.

You won’t get the whole picture until death or the Millenium and maybe not even than. I suspect full comprehension will be much later.

It is frustrating. I know. I have been frustrated many times.

Link to comment
1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

You seem to want the global flood but not.

I think your approach is flawed. To use your puzzle analogy we don’t have all the pieces so saying a piece does not fit could mean it is surrounded by other pieces we do not have.

You won’t get the whole picture until death or the Millenium and maybe not even than. I suspect full comprehension will be much later.

It is frustrating. I know. I have been frustrated many times.

To be clear, I do NOT believe that a global flood ever took place. That said I was taught and raised during the Joseph Fielding Smith & Bruce R. McConkie era when all of the pieces did in fact connect perfectly.  Only problem was that they only connected in an alternative universe unsupported in reality.  I have had a difficult time making sense of Mormonism's truth claims since becoming more enlightened with the realities of our earthly existence as they come face to face with the realities of evolution, archaeology, linguistics and paleontology  to name just a few of the sciences that undermine the claims our former prophetic leaders.

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Thomas Kuhn pointed out that "Anomaly appears only against the background provided by the paradigm. The more precise and far-reaching that paradigm is, the more sensitive an indicator it provides of anomaly and hence of an occasion for paradigm change."  (Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd. ed. 65)

 FAIR Dinkum says:

And this:

In my own life experience in the LDS faith, I have noticed that whenever I ran across something I did not expect, something that ran contrary to my most provincial and common place LDS lessons, my own instinct and tendency has been ask "What should I expect?"  That is, before judging, I checked my own limitations, consulting my own eye for beams. 

For instance, what should I expect of LDS leaders?  Do they have constant and consistent access to the creator of the Universe?  Should I expect that all discourse from LDS authorities must constitute a practical and infallible Big Book of What to Think?  Or is inspiration for those leaders intermittent, subject to conditions and time, and ongoing, rather than final and complete?  

I have already quote D&C 1 on the topic.   For another instructive example, I once went through Alma and noted places where he qualified his knowledge.

Even Alma 32, in discussing the successful results of an experiment upon the word, says "Is your knowledge perfect?"  and answers, "No."  One overwhelming problem with the insistence on perfection is that it makes imperfection the only decisive information.   I could ask if Joseph Smith was perfect (not even considering whether I am positioned to judge perfectly), and quite another to consider whether there is Real evidence of inspiration in his life and work.  That sort of thing directs my attention in a very different way.  When I was a very small child, my Dad took us to the Cleveland Lloyd dinosaur quarry.  As a child I saw bones in the rocks.  They were real, despite the imperfection of my understanding, the nothing I have learned since, even through several profound changes in scientific understanding over the 60 plus years since a child saw bones in the rocks.

As Hugh Nibley observed "Things that appear unlikely, impossible, or paradoxical from one point of view often make perfectly good sense from another."  (From "Before Adam" in CWHN, v1, 65.)  Or as Ian Barbour explains concerning the notion of verification" "Future discoveries may conflict with present theory" and "Another theory may explain evidence equally well."    And as far as falsification goes, paradigms resist falsification because "a network of theories and observations is always tested together. Any particular hypothesis can be maintained by rejecting or adjusting other auxiliary hypotheses."  (Barbour in Myths, Models and Paradigms: A Comparative Study of Science and Religion, 99, one of my all time favorite books).   I believe this sort of thing is exactly why Jesus told the parable of the new wine and new bottles and of checking our own eye for beams.

The scriptures, ancient and modern, explicitly reject the underlying assumption that inspired men should always be inspired.  And there is always the unspoken assumption that the critic can infallibly detect decisive human defects in supposedly fallible prophets and communities.  Kuhn says paradigm choice always involves a decision as to which problems are more significant to have solved?  

And looking for evidence of real inspiration, I have found, is far more fruitful and promising and mind expanding and soul enlarging and delicious, than agonizing over the imperfections I see elsewhere.  Indeed, the process continually enlightens me as to the limits of my own understanding.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Which explains why God so often changes His mind or at least why his prophets seem to

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

To be clear, I do NOT believe that a global flood ever took place. That said I was taught and raised during the Joseph Fielding Smith & Bruce R. McConkie era when all of the pieces did in fact connect perfectly.  Only problem was that they only connected in an alternative universe unsupported in reality.  I have had a difficult time making sense of Mormonism's truth claims since becoming more enlightened with the realities of our earthly existence as they come face to face with the realities of evolution, archaeology, linguistics and paleontology  to name just a few of the sciences that undermine the claims our former prophetic leaders.

Then it is time to build a new paradigm. It is probably not the first time it has happened to you and probably not the last. In my experience it keeps happening. I suspect God does it on purpose.

They didn’t lie to you. They were trying to come up with a paradigm with the knowledge they had. I was in a meeting years ago where an apostle said that we should trust that the apostles will lead us to eternal life and trust them when it comes to what we should do. The explanations as to why the commandments exist and why this will lead to eternal life are more tentative. I assume the same goes for extrapolating neat timelines from scripture.

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

To be clear, I do NOT believe that a global flood ever took place. That said I was taught and raised during the Joseph Fielding Smith & Bruce R. McConkie era when all of the pieces did in fact connect perfectly.  Only problem was that they only connected in an alternative universe unsupported in reality.  I have had a difficult time making sense of Mormonism's truth claims since becoming more enlightened with the realities of our earthly existence as they come face to face with the realities of evolution, archaeology, linguistics and paleontology  to name just a few of the sciences that undermine the claims our former prophetic leaders.

Do you believe that because President Smith's or Elder McConkie's understanding of the flood story may have been flawed that their testimony of Christ was flawed as well?

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Why Jesus would speak of a mythical flood is beyond me in light of the conflicting evidence and yet he seemingly does so across multiple scriptural references. So I must assume that Jesus was either misinformed, being deceitful, or used the flood as purely a metaphor to teach us.  Of course concluding either of the first 2 options is out of the question if Jesus is God. So I must assume that Jesus was speaking in parable.  And yet we have other puzzle pieces that require Noah to be an actual historical figure.  So the puzzle pieces don't fit.

Maybe the flood isn't mythical?

Link to comment
53 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Maybe the flood isn't mythical?

If there was a flood the only flood narrative that makes any logical sense would be a small regional flood event and certainly not one that would require an ark holding two of each kind of animal species.  So if you start picking at one claim it starts to erode other claims withing the same truth claim and eventually that house of cards completely collapsed on its own weight. Which is what should happen with something that claims to be a true event but under scrutiny is exposed as not really being true.

Edited by Fair Dinkum
Link to comment
7 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

If there was a flood the only flood narrative that makes any logical sense would be a small regional flood event and certainly not one that would require an ark holding two of each kind of animal species.  So if you start picking at one claim it starts to erode other claims withing the same truth claim and eventually that house of cards completely collapsed on its own weight. Which is what should happen with something that claims to be a true event but under scrutiny is exposed as not really being true.

I don't agree.  There is certainly some symbolism in the flood account, but there is no reason to limit it to a regional event just because science can't explain a global one.
It's only a house of cards if you rely on science to prove it.  There are a lot of things God can do that science can't prove.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Fair enough, but it kind of throws the entire Adamic timeline out of wack doesn't it. But then I don't buy into an actual Adam or that time line anyway.  The Adam and Eve Story is fiction pure and simple

You are again making typical assumptions about the nature of Scripture which are unwarranted.  If the Creation story were a geology text, and the Garden story was an anthropology text, your critique might have merit, but neither suggestion is true -- even from a purely secular viewpoint.  Any literary expert who is an atheist would immediately know that he is dealing with poetic, liturgical texts which are purely figurative in nature.  Once again, you bring Sunday School to the discussion instead of scholarship.

When, for example, anthropologists read about adam and eve, they see archetypal titles (not personal names) of primeval humans.  Those titles mean "man" and "woman," and those of us who reenact the Creation and Garden stories in an LDS temple setting know that actual people perform that liturgy as a figurative, religious exercise.  An atheist scholar would see no reason to go through such ordinances, but he would well understand what the meaning is in a religious context.  If he knew that the very sort of stories in Assyrian and Babylonian texts were actually performed in Assyrian and Babylonian temples (annuallly), the LDS practice would make perfect sense to him.  He would never dismiss them as "fiction pure and simple."  Scholars tend to be more respectful than that.

Since you are familiar with neither geology nor ancient literature, you automatically reduce the issue to simplistic terms, rather than understanding the profound nature of the religious exercise.

Again, if you understood LDS history and the actual comments make by major LDS figures early on, you would realize that the simplistic timeline you put forward doesn't fit Scripture or geology.  Logically, since your assumptions are false, your conclusions are also false.

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

If there was a flood the only flood narrative that makes any logical sense would be a small regional flood event and certainly not one that would require an ark holding two of each kind of animal species.  So if you start picking at one claim it starts to erode other claims withing the same truth claim and eventually that house of cards completely collapsed on its own weight. Which is what should happen with something that claims to be a true event but under scrutiny is exposed as not really being true.

Looking at it like that, I can see why this would be a real struggle.  That's a perspective that will be really hard to hold on to and keep a belief in Christ (let alone a belief in any specific religion that worships Him).

My only advice would be to see if there are other perspectives that could also be reasonable that allow for less black and white thinking on these kinds of issues.

I agree that there is no simple way to make science and the bible narrative work together with the knowledge that we have at the moment.

Link to comment
56 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Not necessarily. It is actually possible to reconcile the existence of a literal Adam and Eve and the geologic and historical evidence we do have. The dominant paradigms presently at play in Western society do not allow for both to be true, but that doesn't mean that those paradigms are correct. Stepping outside them allows room for faith without denying evidence.

@The Nehor said, it is like allowing for the possibility that not all the pieces of the puzzle are included in the starter set. Maybe it is even possible to fit some of the pieces together in a way that completes a particular version of the puzzle. But those versions are ultimately incomplete or narrow versions of what is possible to assemble from the whole. I see secular materialism and religious fundamentalism as two prominent examples of worldviews that are content to reject the pieces that don't fit into their perspective and can therefore seem complete. However, both of those views require that we ignore many of the pieces we are presented with.  

Personally, I am most interested in allowing God to help me see what pieces I lack and to hold space in my puzzle for them when He sees fit to reveal them to me. In the meantime, I often have to point to a gap in the picture and say "then something goes here and connects these two sections." I usually try to imagine what those pieces might look like, even though all I have is a vague or fuzzy idea. Sometimes, I have no idea what sort of piece could possibly fit there. In some cases, I even create pieces (personal theories or explanations) of my own to fill the gaps temporarily. In those cases it is tricky to remember that those pieces are tentative and mine. Otherwise, when I get another batch of actual pieces, I run the risk of ignoring the new information because it conflicts with the picture I have created. 

And there is my tendency to get carried away with metaphors and analogies. I'll stop now while it seems to still be mostly applicable. 

I like your response and I agree that our knowledge is limited especially of events lost to history.  But some of our lack of knowledge of these  supposed historical claims lost to history can be either supported or dismissed as fiction by accessing other information that is available.  For example the Biblical claim of a first human being named Adam and his wife Eve.  The Bible claims this as a reality and a historical event and being that the Bible claims that only these two and their posterity would have any first hand knowledge of them requires that we accept the Biblical record as authoritative.  But do other areas of expertise support this notion of a first human?  The simple answer is no it does not.  In fact nothing in the historical record nor the biological record support the truth claim of a created man in fact just the opposite, we are evolved beings coming into existence over millions of years of evolution.  Because all of the provable and testable evidence supports evolution we can without any doubt declare that the Adam and Eve story, at least as it is presented in the Bible, is a myth.

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

When, for example, anthropologists read about adam and eve, they see archetypal titles (not personal names) of primeval humans.  Those titles mean "man" and "woman,"

And what of the upcoming council at Adam-Ondi-Ahman and D&C 116?  Or D&C 107:53-57?  And who did Joseph see in D&C 137:5 or Joseph F. Smith see in D&C 138:38?

I don't believe Adam is only an archetype at all but an actual person.

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I don't agree.  There is certainly some symbolism in the flood account, but there is no reason to limit it to a regional event just because science can't explain a global one.
It's only a house of cards if you rely on science to prove it.  There are a lot of things God can do that science can't prove.

You didn't read the link I sent you did you.  For a universal flood to have existed you will first need to answer the questions and problems as well as explain the evidence against a universal flood first. Otherwise you are just making hollow, unsupported assertions.

Link to comment
Just now, JLHPROF said:

And what of the upcoming council at Adam-Ondi-Ahman and D&C 116?  Or D&C 107:53-57?  And who did Joseph see in D&C 137:5 or Joseph F. Smith see in D&C 138:38?

I don't believe Adam is only an archetype at all but an actual person.

I agree ...its a problem that begs for a solution.  It's a house of cards.

Link to comment
22 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Have you heard of parables?

Were you aware that Jesus used them all the time- in fact virtually ALL his teachings are found in parables.

For a reason.

They give show us universal experiences instead of restricting the lesson to one individual.

You are talking about one person- as a parable, the story has universal application.   Parables are therefore superior to historic evidence when teaching religous principles.

No the flood was never presented as a parable.  See this is the problem with LDS apologists. The goal posts are constantly being moved.  And again based on this any story can teach anything. Does not really matter now does it. 

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

 Because all of the provable and testable evidence supports evolution we can without any doubt declare that the Adam and Eve story, at least as it is presented in the Bible, is a myth.

You can. Don't speak for everyone else.

Link to comment
20 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

That's never bothered me before.
I happen to believe the earth was baptized by water and will be baptized by fire, just like us.  That's my religious doctrinal belief.

Just because science can't show it happened or even could have happened doesn't mean anything.  They haven't figured out how Christ was resurrected yet either.

Likely because Jesus was not resurrected.

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

You didn't read the link I sent you did you.  For a universal flood to have existed you will first need to answer the questions and problems as well as explain the evidence against a universal flood first. Otherwise you are just making hollow, unsupported assertions.

I didn't read the entire treatise because I have no interest in attempting to prove/disprove something that cannot be proved/disproved.  You seem content to accept science's word.  I am content to accept Christ's word.
I have a feeling that science will eventually come to agree with Christ, not the other way around.

5 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I agree ...its a problem that begs for a solution.  It's a house of cards.

It's only a house of cards if you start from the point of disbelief.  (IE, science says Adam can't exist).  Well he does.  So now how does science work to explain that?
They don't bother to try.  They've already dismissed that as a possibility.

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Likely because Jesus was not resurrected.

That's news for those who have met him and felt the prints of the nails in his hands and feet.
Thank goodness you have the inside track to correct them.

Link to comment
16 hours ago, smac97 said:

Luke 2:1

Do you believe Caesar was taxing the inhabitants of South America?  The Japanese Archipelago?  The aborigines in what is today Australia?

Is "all the world" necessarily to be literally and unequivocally construed?

Thanks,

Smac

More conjecture and equivocation....

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I find it ironic that on the one hand you point to my supposed ignorance of Mormon Scripture when I refer to "prophets with direct links to God" and then quote from LDS scriptures wherein prophets have such perfect direct links with God that they can quote Him word for word.  Hmmm

At the superficial level, yes, most evangelicals and Mormons might take those quotations at face value.  Yet the quotations themselves negate that silly understanding.  This is part of the solipsistic and childish notion of sola scriptura, which is infinitely regressive and unproductive.  Once one gets into that fever swamp (as you have), he can never get out.

You are objectifying an English translation of Scripture which is centuries old, and you have no idea what underlies it, while at the same time making human reports on God infallible.   :beatdeadhorse:

To take merely one example, the Hebrew phrase translated "all the Earth," can also be translated "all the land."  Same words in Hebrew.  They are translated by context, so that ancient Egypt or Canaan might be termed "all the land," while planet Earth "all the Earth."  The difference is crucial, and yet it goes right past you.  To you the Flood is over "all the Earth," while for me it is a local/regional "all the land."

Quote

I agree I am not the one that made the silly claim of an earth baptized by immersion, those statements were made by prophets of God

I was well aware of that when I replied.  What you are unaware of is that one of those prophets of God has suggested that merely being rained on may have baptized the highest mountains, and not surprisingly he was a scientist (John Widtsoe).  Again, as I have said repeatedly, if you were aware of the full range of statements made by the various Brethren on such subjects, you would be far more humble and perhaps even contrite about the outlandish nonsense you have been purveying.

Quote

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].  https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/64247-symbolism-of-the-flood-of-noah/

 

Quote

I don't completely disagree with you here, I don't claim to be a scriptorian but to assert my complete unfamiliarity would be unfair as well.

If you were reasonably familiar, I would not have to quote anything to you.  Why do you ignore important exceptions to your silly claims?  By the way, Bruce R. McConkie took the same ignorant approach to Scripture.  Scriptorians are not scholars.

Edited by Robert F. Smith
Link to comment
21 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

And what of the upcoming council at Adam-Ondi-Ahman and D&C 116?  Or D&C 107:53-57?  And who did Joseph see in D&C 137:5 or Joseph F. Smith see in D&C 138:38?

I don't believe Adam is only an archetype at all but an actual person.

Was his name Adam, or was he a "man" (adam) named something else?  Was he a familiar archangel?  And what of you and me?  When we participate in such ordinances in the temple, what names do we go by?  After all, we are real people, just as those archetypal figures were real, and each of us is an archetypal figure also.  The Brethren emphasize the figurative nature of it, including the figurative "rib" from which "woman" is formed, and the figurative "fruit" that she eats.  All the action is liturgical and representational.

I hope you understand and accept the normal nature of the emblems taken in our Sacrament of the Lord's Supper.  The bread represents the torn and broken body of Jesus, while the water (or wine) represents his blood shed for us.  If you can understand that they are not His actual body and blood, then it should be easy to understand the temple.

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