Global flood literalism rides again!

[rongo]

I couldn't help but notice as I read this month's magazine, that the Liahona neè Ensign continued the streak of never including any local flood "nuance" --- only global flood literalism.

https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2022/02/noahs-ark?lang=eng

It is interesting that everything published by the Church (so far) only supports literalist stances. When (if ever) do you think that the "breakthroughs" into non-literalist approaches will come? 

[CV75]

2 minutes ago, rongo said:

I couldn't help but notice as I read this month's magazine, that the Liahona neè Ensign continued the streak of never including any local flood "nuance" --- only global flood literalism.

https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2022/02/noahs-ark?lang=eng

It is interesting that everything published by the Church (so far) only supports literalist stances. When (if ever) do you think that the "breakthroughs" into non-literalist approaches will come? 

How do you see only global flood literalism in this graphic? It pretty much just summarizes the canon. The purpose is to discus, "In what ways does living the gospel of Jesus Christ protect our families during times of corruption and violence—just as the ark protected Noah and his family?"

[Fether]

27 minutes ago, rongo said:

I couldn't help but notice as I read this month's magazine, that the Liahona neè Ensign continued the streak of never including any local flood "nuance" --- only global flood literalism.

https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2022/02/noahs-ark?lang=eng

It is interesting that everything published by the Church (so far) only supports literalist stances. When (if ever) do you think that the "breakthroughs" into non-literalist approaches will come? 

Why does a literal / figurative approach matter?

[carbon dioxide]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

I couldn't help but notice as I read this month's magazine, that the Liahona neè Ensign continued the streak of never including any local flood "nuance" --- only global flood literalism.

https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2022/02/noahs-ark?lang=eng

It is interesting that everything published by the Church (so far) only supports literalist stances. When (if ever) do you think that the "breakthroughs" into non-literalist approaches will come? 

Define a local flood?   If the flood was just local, why not just go for a long walk before the flood instead of building an ark?

[rongo]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

How do you see only global flood literalism in this graphic? It pretty much just summarizes the canon. The purpose is to discus, "In what ways does living the gospel of Jesus Christ protect our families during times of corruption and violence—just as the ark protected Noah and his family?"

You're correct, but along with that stated purpose, the editorial staff included a lot of things that local flood proponents wish wouldn't be used, and wish would go away:

---the dimensions at face value

---size comparisons

---the interesting decision to bracket in "only" ("Despite 'the longsuffering of God … in the days of Noah, … [only] eight souls were saved' (1 Peter 3:20).")

--- "water covered the earth for 150 days"

1 hour ago, Fether said:

Why does a literal / figurative approach matter?

It matters to many (either way). To others, it makes no difference at all whether something literally happened or not. 

It's very interesting to me how Church publications remain very conservative regarding interpretation, despite many who are embarrassed by this or feel that it makes it harder for the gospel to gain acceptance among enlightened people. 

[ttribe]

Here's a question for the global flood folks, just for fun - After the flood subsided, and the animals were allowed to leave the ark, what did the carnivores eat while their prey multiplied enough to create a sustainable ecosystem?

Bonus question - What did the herbivores eat after all of the edible plant life was destroyed by the flood?

Edited January 18, 2022 by ttribe

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Here's a question for the global flood folks, just for fun - After the flood subsided, and the animals were allowed to leave the ark, what did the carnivores eat while their prey multiplied enough to create a sustainable ecosystem?

The herbivores wouldn't have had much to eat either.  Plant life would have died after being underwater that long.

[ttribe]

Just now, bluebell said:

The herbivores wouldn't have had much to eat either.  Plant life would have died after being underwater that long.

Just added that one!

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, Fether said:

Why does a literal / figurative approach matter?

I figuratively have no idea.

 

[Amulek]

15 minutes ago, ttribe said:

After the flood subsided, and the animals were allowed to leave the ark, what did the carnivores eat while their prey multiplied enough to create a sustainable ecosystem?

Easy. Dinosaurs.

[ttribe]

19 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Easy. Dinosaurs.

Minus the problem of dinosaurs and humans being only 65 million years apart...

[Fether]

58 minutes ago, rongo said:

It's very interesting to me how Church publications remain very conservative regarding interpretation, despite many who are embarrassed by this or feel that it makes it harder for the gospel to gain acceptance among enlightened people. 

Outside of this vary only forum… I have not met a single person who was concerned about whether this was literal or figurative 

[rpn]

So Rongo, write your article and submit it.   Obviously it won't come up for another four years (and they plan 18 months out) but that still gives you a couple of years to do it.   Maybe they've just not had anyone make provide a faith encouraging perspective that touches that?  (Though I'm not sure whether there is any more evidence for it being local than it being earth everywhere, and there is a fair amount of official teaching of global and scriptures too  (I am going to read what might be on that topic in Jehovah of the World of the Old Testament which updates secular scholarship.)

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, rongo said:

I couldn't help but notice as I read this month's magazine, that the Liahona neè Ensign continued the streak of never including any local flood "nuance" --- only global flood literalism.

https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2022/02/noahs-ark?lang=eng

It is interesting that everything published by the Church (so far) only supports literalist stances. When (if ever) do you think that the "breakthroughs" into non-literalist approaches will come? 

I agree that this supports the KJV of events.

I do think it's interesting that it doesn't really address the issue of the flood being literal.  It  implies it but doesn't say it directly.  This is true for the Come Follow Me lessons for Noah and the flood, where the idea of a Global or local flood isn't addressed at all.  This is a noteworthy change if we believe that the church is at all invested in making sure that the members believe in a global flood.

In earlier decades we have Ensign articles outlining exactly why we need to believe that the flood was global but the church seems to have moved away from that.  It teaches what the scriptures say about the flood, but it doesn't make any demands on how we should interpret it.

 

 

Edited January 18, 2022 by bluebell

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

 

---the interesting decision to bracket in "only" ("Despite 'the longsuffering of God … in the days of Noah, … [only] eight souls were saved' (1 Peter 3:20).")

 

They bracketed in "only" because they were summarizing the phrase "wherein few, that is,".  Can you explain what you find interesting about that?  From my perspective they were just trying to make it easier for kids to understand what the verse was saying.

[pogi]

3 hours ago, rongo said:

I couldn't help but notice as I read this month's magazine, that the Liahona neè Ensign continued the streak of never including any local flood "nuance" --- only global flood literalism.

https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2022/02/noahs-ark?lang=eng

It is interesting that everything published by the Church (so far) only supports literalist stances. When (if ever) do you think that the "breakthroughs" into non-literalist approaches will come? 

I think the church is hesitant to divorce itself from generations and generations of teachings from church leadership that the flood was a literal immersion baptism of the earth, and that it will receive the baptism of fire in the second coming before receiving it's paradisiacal glory. 

[Fether]

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

Here's a question for the global flood folks, just for fun - After the flood subsided, and the animals were allowed to leave the ark, what did the carnivores eat while their prey multiplied enough to create a sustainable ecosystem?

Bonus question - What did the herbivores eat after all of the edible plant life was destroyed by the flood?

Mama from heaven!

[Fether]

2 minutes ago, pogi said:

I think the church is hesitant to divorce itself from generations and generations of teachings from church leadership that the flood was a literal immersion baptism of the earth, and that it will receive the baptism of fire in the second coming before receiving it's paradisiacal glory. 

A small valley was filled with water and that small valley was baptized by proxy for the earth

[JLHPROF]

Or maybe God really did flood the entire earth and ignored science to do it.

You know, like when he raised the dead, walked on water, turned water into wine, let Jonah live in the belly of a whale, let 3 hebrews not be consumed by fire, healed the blind with mud and saliva, collapsed a city by marching around it then blowing trumpets...

When it comes to the flood, I really don't know why we feel the urge to make it match science.
What part of miracle requires science to agree with it?

[JLHPROF]

9 minutes ago, pogi said:

I think the church is hesitant to divorce itself from generations and generations of teachings from church leadership that the flood was a literal immersion baptism of the earth, and that it will receive the baptism of fire in the second coming before receiving it's paradisiacal glory. 

That's what I believe.  Why shouldn't they keep teaching it?

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

Or maybe God really did flood the entire earth and ignored science to do it.

You know, like when he raised the dead, walked on water, turned water into wine, let Jonah live in the belly of a whale, let 3 hebrews not be consumed by fire, healed the blind with mud and saliva, collapsed a city by marching around it then blowing trumpets...

When it comes to the flood, I really don't know why we feel the urge to make it match science.
What part of miracle requires science to agree with it?

Because, unlike all the other things you listed, the 'miracle' of a global flood would leave behind a pretty significant geologic footprint and it just...doesn't.

[Fether]

4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Or maybe God really did flood the entire earth and ignored science to do it.

You know, like when he raised the dead, walked on water, turned water into wine, let Jonah live in the belly of a whale, let 3 hebrews not be consumed by fire, healed the blind with mud and saliva, collapsed a city by marching around it then blowing trumpets...

When it comes to the flood, I really don't know why we feel the urge to make it match science.
What part of miracle requires science to agree with it?

Why would God hide scientific evidence of his miracles?

[pogi]

12 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Or maybe God really did flood the entire earth and ignored science to do it.

I don’t think God ignores physics, but uses it to his advantage.

The

12 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

You know, like when he raised the dead, walked on water, turned water into wine, let Jonah live in the belly of a whale, let 3 hebrews not be consumed by fire, healed the blind with mud and saliva, collapsed a city by marching around it then blowing trumpets...

God feeding the thousands left behind physical evidence of fish bones and crumbs, the dead left empty tombs and burial clothing, the blind walked with sight...there was physical evidence for all of these miracles - at least for the ones that were not simply parables and myths.

[mfbukowski]

13 minutes ago, Fether said:

Why would God hide scientific evidence of his miracles?

Because they are irrelevant to his purposes in taking wicked people from the earth and protecting those trying to be righteous 

What IS the important lesson here is that God protects his people even if they are hopelessly outnumbered.

You think maybe that might be important today?

God does miracles

WHY he does them is more important than how he does or does not do them.

We must not miss the forest's beauty by worrying about how it got there 

Edited January 19, 2022 by mfbukowski

[JLHPROF]

14 minutes ago, Fether said:

Why would God hide scientific evidence of his miracles?

To require faith.