Noah's Flood

[Lost Boy]

1 hour ago, askandanswer said:

The myths are the evidence. The similarities between the myths, in so many diverse places, I think, is a form of evidence, suggesting that there is some kernal of truth to the myths.

I suspect that there were large floods. My point is there is no evidence of a global flood. I can wrap my head around a flood that made its inhabitants believe the whole world was under water. 

Of course people back then didn't know that the earth is round. 

[Lost Boy]

1 hour ago, askandanswer said:

From one of the footnotes to the Wikipedia article. I suspect if you examined more of the footnotes you would find more evidence

http://discovermagazine.com/2012/jul-aug/06-biblical-type-floods-real-absolutely-enormous

Evidence of local flooding. 

[Rob Osborn]

3 hours ago, Lost Boy said:

So there aren't any good Christian geologists out there that are willing to put their necks out there and share the evidence? Not even byu geologists give any evidence of a global flood. 

If it happened 7000 years ago, there should be evidence all over the world. There isn't. 

Oh there are good geologists out there but very few. Not very many because it's hard to go against the secular world and it's agenda.

There is evidence all over the world but one has to take off the secular blindfold and open their eyes to see.

[Guest]

4 hours ago, MarginOfError said:

You know that thing about how a year has 365 days. Except that it doesnt, but everyone treats it like it does because we like to work in whole numbers..... it's kind of like that.

No, it isn't.  It is a 365 day calendar year with a single day adjustment at specified intervals for correction due to rounding.  You're off over a single day every single month.

Why do you have difficulty admitting that you didn't really know?

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Lost Boy said:

I do find that source credible. However, you must not have read the article. It had nothing to do with a global flood. 

Really?

Quote

The scientific version of Noah’s flood actually starts long before that, back during the last great glaciation some 20,000 years ago.
...

You must not have read the article.

[Lost Boy]

17 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Really?

You must not have read the article.

I did and it still doesn't mention a global flood. 

[Lost Boy]

20 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

No, it isn't.  It is a 365 day calendar year with a single day adjustment at specified intervals for correction due to rounding.  You're off over a single day every single month.

Why do you have difficulty admitting that you didn't really know?

Secular glasses have nothing to do with it. If you have evidence, I would be happy to review it. I personally have a hard time believing most conspiracy theories. 

There is zero reason to try and cover up a great flood. Therefore, I don't buy it. 

[Sunday21]

On 5/3/2018 at 10:07 PM, Union_Pipe_Layer_1337 said:

The flood absolutely covered the entire world as we know it, I once had a surreal dream where I witnessed all of the animals hop on the Ark with Noah himself. I felt the spirit was speaking to me through my dreams. 

Hello! Nice to have you here!

[person0]

5 hours ago, MarginOfError said:

Ah, so we're skirting biblical inerrancy by claiming the bible dictionary is inerrant. Cool.

I'm not claiming any form of inerrancy.  I am claiming that I choose to believe the teachings of the Church.  There are other General Authorities and resources that teach this principle.  Here are some links where a similar statement is made or re-quoted to indicate that Adam adhered to the Sabbath:
(The Lord’s Day - James E. Faust)
(Sabbath Day Observance - Youth Resources)
(The Sabbath—A Delight - Spencer W. Kimball)
(Why do we observe the Sabbath on Sunday. . .)
(Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Spencer W. Kimball - Ch. 16)
(Keeping the Sabbath Day Holy - Earl C. Tingey)

Each of these Church sources include the teaching that Adam was aware of and kept the Sabbath day.  Could they be wrong?  Possibly, however, two of the resources cite the same statement from Spencer W. Kimball while he was acting in the role of a prophet.  It is clear from these resources that the Church is intentionally perpetuating this teaching.  Therefore, I will maintain this belief unless further light and knowledge is revealed on the subject that indicates otherwise.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Lost Boy said:

Secular glasses have nothing to do with it. If you have evidence, I would be happy to review it. I personally have a hard time believing most conspiracy theories. 

There is zero reason to try and cover up a great flood. Therefore, I don't buy it. 

I think you may have misquoted.  Were you addressing someone else?  Because I said nothing about secular glasses or conspiracy theories.

For the record, I have no position either way on whether there was a global flood.  I simply chalk it up to -- don't know don't care.

Edited May 6, 2018 by Guest

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Lost Boy said:

I did and it still doesn't mention a global flood. 

I didn't say it did. It may seem like I did.  But pay special attention to the words of the article and you may get what I was pointing out.

Edited May 6, 2018 by Guest

[Lost Boy]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

I think you may have misquoted.  Were you addressing someone else?  Because I said nothing about secular glasses or conspiracy theories.

For the record, I have no position either way on whether there was a global flood.  I simply chalk it up to -- don't know don't care.

That's weird.  How did that happen? 

[Anddenex]

On 5/4/2018 at 5:29 AM, Midwest LDS said:

I believe the flood covered the whole Earth. I don't have a problem with scientific evidence that may show it couldn't happen because God can do many things that shouldn't happen (stopping the movement of the Earth with Joshua, the Brother of Jared removing the Mountain Zerin, Christ commanding the storm to stop, Christ causing a 4 day old corpse to stand back up and become alive again etc.) God understands laws that we have no comprehension of, and personally I am satisfied that if he could do all those other miracles, he could cover the Earth in a flood. However, I don't think our salvation hangs on this doctrine, so I don't mind my friends who struggle with it, as I have things I struggle with to☺.

The natural man, and faith, is an intriguing topic to study and to ponder. Let's review what there is absolutely no scientific evidence for, and yet they are truths -- things which really did occur (things as they really are, were, and will always be):

1) Jesus walked on water, 2) Mountain Zerin was removed by a command, 3) The earth was created by God's word - he commanded - the elements obeyed, 4) On two occasions people were fed by a simple prayer (loaves and fishes), 5) Water to wine, 6) Paralyzed to walking because of faith, 7) The storm stopped by simple command, 8 ) 3 Nephi, in a matters of days the whole landscaped changed (mountains became valleys and valleys became mountains), cities sunk into the depths of waters, 9) A donkey talking seeing an angel, 10) The Red Sea parting, 11) Lazarus being raised from the dead after 4 days being dead, 12) Forgiveness of sins, 13) No death or sickness during the millennium (traditional death we are aware of now), and many, many more which the arm of flesh, accepted scientific journals, would say are literally impossible and there is no evidence to back this happen -- ergo -- it never happened!

I find it intriguing what some will fully accept by faith (i.e. resurrection, healings, Eternal Life for that matter (absolutely no scientific, arm of the flesh, data for this), etc...), while having a hard time believing in a global flood (water covering the earth) as currently taught.

The earth received its baptism, the earth will receive its cleansing by fire (the whole earth, not just a portion of land).  As @Fether's pointed out, "“There is a... group of people—those who accept the literal message of the Bibleregarding 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.”

I have no problem with belonging to a group that some consider "naive". The insult of being "naive" when presented with spiritual truth isn't new, and this insult will continue from Atheists and others who want to lift themselves up. It was "naive" that Nephi could build a ship, but he did. It was "naive" that a city could be destroyed in one day -- it was. It is "naive" to believe in a resurrection. It was "naive" that the earth would rain for forty days and forty nights, and that a flood would come until they were drowning. Nothing new from the natural man's perspective.

Edited May 6, 2018 by Anddenex

[Lost Boy]

2 hours ago, Anddenex said:

The natural man, and faith, is an intriguing topic to study and to ponder. Let's review what there is absolutely no scientific evidence for, and yet they are truths -- things which really did occur (things as they really are, were, and will always be):

1) Jesus walked on water, 2) Mountain Zerin was removed by a command, 3) The earth was created by God's word - he commanded - the elements obeyed, 4) On two occasions people were fed by a simple prayer (loaves and fishes), 5) Water to wine, 6) Paralyzed to walking because of faith, 7) The storm stopped by simple command, 8 ) 3 Nephi, in a matters of days the whole landscaped changed (mountains became valleys and valleys became mountains), cities sunk into the depths of waters, 9) A donkey talking seeing an angel, 10) The Red Sea parting, 11) Lazarus being raised from the dead after 4 days being dead, 12) Forgiveness of sins, 13) No death or sickness during the millennium (traditional death we are aware of now), and many, many more which the arm of flesh, accepted scientific journals, would say are literally impossible and there is no evidence to back this happen -- ergo -- it never happened!

I find it intriguing what some will fully accept by faith (i.e. resurrection, healings, Eternal Life for that matter (absolutely no scientific, arm of the flesh, data for this), etc...), while having a hard time believing in a global flood (water covering the earth) as currently taught.

The earth received its baptism, the earth will receive its cleansing by fire (the whole earth, not just a portion of land).  As @Fether's pointed out, "“There is a... group of people—those who accept the literal message of the Bibleregarding 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.”

I have no problem with belonging to a group that some consider "naive". The insult of being "naive" when presented with spiritual truth isn't new, and this insult will continue from Atheists and others who want to lift themselves up. It was "naive" that Nephi could build a ship, but he did. It was "naive" that a city could be destroyed in one day -- it was. It is "naive" to believe in a resurrection. It was "naive" that the earth would rain for forty days and forty nights, and that a flood would come until they were drowning. Nothing new from the natural man's perspective.

In all of your examples above there is no evidence that suggests those things didn't occur. 

Take the parting of the red sea. Doing this would leave little evidence behind to be found.

No evidence of Jesus not walking on water. 

Many in your list can be explained away. 

With the flood, there is much evidence against it. There is evidence of local flooding. 

 

[Anddenex]

8 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

In all of your examples above there is no evidence that suggests those things didn't occur. 

Take the parting of the red sea. Doing this would leave little evidence behind to be found.

No evidence of Jesus not walking on water. 

Many in your list can be explained away. 

With the flood, there is much evidence against it. There is evidence of local flooding. 

 

There is no evidence against the flood either, it is what you are choosing to accept as evidence against it from accepted scientific journals according to a limited knowledge of man's understandings regarding this earth. There is no evidence that suggests the flood didn't occur. There is no evidence that suggests the flood did occur. The argument becomes moot. Right now, you are choosing man's limited knowledge as evidence against it, this isn't evidence, this is simply what you are willing to accept.

The reality of what these truths is that they are accepted by "faith." Either we have faith to accept the current teachings (which can not be negated/proven by evidence), or we don't.

 

[BJ64]

If the earth was literally covered with flood waters, and I’m not saying it wasn’t, where did that much water come from and where did it retreat to after the flood?

In a modern flood the water would come from rain, melting snow or storm surge and then eventually drain into the ocean. 

If the water level of the entire earth was raised enough to cover all of the land mass where would it drain to? The oceans would all be above the level of the land. 

[Grunt]

7 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

If the earth was literally covered with flood waters, and I’m not saying it wasn’t, where did that much water come from and where did it retreat to after the flood?

In a modern flood the water would come from rain, melting snow or storm surge and then eventually drain into the ocean. 

If the water level of the entire earth was raised enough to cover all of the land mass where would it drain to? The oceans would all be above the level of the land. 

How was the earth created?  How was the Son of God resurrected and returned to Heaven?  How did God return to Earth to minister to Joseph?  The list of things that can't be explained by science is very long.  Why focus on this one? 

[Lost Boy]

1 hour ago, Anddenex said:

There is no evidence against the flood either, it is what you are choosing to accept as evidence against it from accepted scientific journals according to a limited knowledge of man's understandings regarding this earth. There is no evidence that suggests the flood didn't occur. There is no evidence that suggests the flood did occur. The argument becomes moot. Right now, you are choosing man's limited knowledge as evidence against it, this isn't evidence, this is simply what you are willing to accept.

The reality of what these truths is that they are accepted by "faith." Either we have faith to accept the current teachings (which can not be negated/proven by evidence), or we don't.

 

There is tons of evidence against it. Just take soil cores of the past 10k years. You have evidence of local flooding, but nothing of global flooding.  Look at the grand canyon. It took 5 million years to form. It is something that didn't form in a few days. 

I have faith that God has the power to do a flood, but I don't see him doing it. It doesn't fit with miracles of the past. 

[Lost Boy]

8 minutes ago, Grunt said:

How was the earth created?  How was the Son of God resurrected and returned to Heaven?  How did God return to Earth to minister to Joseph?  The list of things that can't be explained by science is very long.  Why focus on this one? 

That list doesn't have any evidence against it. The flood has much evidence against it. 

[Grunt]

5 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

That list doesn't have any evidence against it. The flood has much evidence against it. 

Lack of evidence for isn't evidence against.

[CV75]

dup

Edited May 6, 2018 by CV75

[BJ64]

13 minutes ago, Grunt said:

How was the earth created?  How was the Son of God resurrected and returned to Heaven?  How did God return to Earth to minister to Joseph?  The list of things that can't be explained by science is very long.  Why focus on this one? 

I said earlier that I know that God is all powerful and I presume could make a flood happen by His own means rather than observable scientific means, but scientifically I don’t see how it could have happened. The above statement is an example of questions you would have to answer if you were to account for the flood using scientific means. 

[CV75]

On 5/5/2018 at 11:21 AM, Rob Osborn said:

I realize I live amongst the deaf and the blind.

Good: repent of your blindness and deafness! 

[Grunt]

7 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

I said earlier that I know that God is all powerful and I presume could make a flood happen by His own means rather than observable scientific means, but scientifically I don’t see how it could have happened. The above statement is an example of questions you would have to answer if you were to account for the flood using scientific means. 

Scientifically, I don't know how a man can rise from the dead and ascend into heaven.  Again, it's odd to pick and choose things that don't fit with science.

[Anddenex]

2 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

There is tons of evidence against it. Just take soil cores of the past 10k years. You have evidence of local flooding, but nothing of global flooding.  Look at the grand canyon. It took 5 million years to form. It is something that didn't form in a few days. 

I have faith that God has the power to do a flood, but I don't see him doing it. It doesn't fit with miracles of the past. 

The Lord has already said he flooded the earth, "During Noah’s time the earth was completely covered with water. This was the baptism of the earth and symbolized a cleansing (1 Pet. 3:20–21)." (source) The Pearl of Great Price also gives witness to the flood God sent.  If you don't believe what he has already been done by God, and we have witness of waters covering the earth in both old and latter-day revelation, that is a personal choice.

What miracles of the past are you referring to? The flood fits perfectly fine within the experiences of the Bible.  How would you distinguish between a local or global flooding. Obviously, there would be local floods within a global flood. The flood didn't all of sudden pop up everywhere. It would have been local and spread just like we see with floods in our own areas where it only rains for three days. Imagine forty days and forty nights of complete rain (non-stop).

There isn't any evidence against the flood. It is simply what you are choosing to accept as evidence against it. You are accepting man's limited knowledge, and that is fine and your choice, but it isn't evidence against it. It is suppositions according to what we now have understanding of, not what actually occurred.