Noah's Flood


Lost Boy
 Share

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Grunt said:

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.

If Jesus resurrected, what physical evidence would be left behind? (Answer: None that I can think of.)

If Noah's flood really did cover the entire planet for a year -- a modern inference, not something explicitly stated in scripture -- what physical evidence would be left behind? (Answer: Plenty, and unmistakable at that.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 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. 

While I would not consider myself a new earth creationist here is how John Taylor explained the creation of the mountains and such. However, when I look at the Wasatch front I have to tell myself “that wasn’t formed in a day”. 

 

John Taylor

Let us ask what the nations of the earth have accomplished for the last six or seven thousand years. What great work have they achieved? 

. . . after the flood, in the days of Peleg, the earth was divided.—See Genesis 10:25,—a short history, to be sure, of so great an event; but still it will account for the mighty revolution, which rolled the sea from its own place in the north, and brought it to interpose between different portions of the earth, which were thus parted asunder, and moved into something near their present form.

And when I cast mine eyes over our own land, and see . . . rocks having been rent, and torn asunder, from centre to circumference; I exclaim, Whence all this?

“When I read the Book of Mormon, it informs me, that while Christ was crucified among the Jews, this whole American continent was shaken to its foundation, that many cities were sunk, and waters came up in their places; that the rocks were all rent in twain; that mountains were thrown up to an exceeding height; and other mountain became vallies: the level roads spoiled; and the whole face of the land changed.—I then exclaim, These things are no longer a mystery; I have now learned to account for the many wonders, which I everywhere behold, throughout our whole country; when I am passing a ledge of rocks, and see they have all been rent and torn asunder, while some huge fragments are found deeply imbedded in the earth, some rods from whence they were torn, I exclaim, with astonishment, These were the groans! the convulsive throes of agonizing nature! while the Son of God suffered upon the cross! 23

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

Sure, but there is much evidence against it. 

Such as what?

 

2 minutes ago, Vort said:

If Jesus resurrected, what physical evidence would be left behind? (Answer: None that I can think of.)

If Noah's flood really did cover the entire planet for a year -- a modern inference, not something explicitly stated in scripture -- what physical evidence would be left behind? (Answer: Plenty, and unmistakable at that.)

Maybe.  Maybe not.  One would expect to see evidence, but lack of that evidence doesn't establish the event never existed, it just establishes that evidence hasn't been found.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Grunt said:

Maybe.  Maybe not.  One would expect to see evidence, but lack of that evidence doesn't establish the event never existed, it just establishes that evidence hasn't been found.

In general, I'm in sympathy with the idea that lack of evidence is not, itself, evidence of lack. But this case is more like a guy going to the cops and claiming that a roving gang had just beaten the stuffing out of him and robbed him of all his money -- only there is not a mark on the guy and his pockets are loaded with cash. True, lack of evidence is not normally evidence of lack. But when you're making an extraordinary claim from which extraordinary consequences can reasonably be inferred, and when those extraordinary consequences are totally lacking, then it's reasonable to question the initial extraordinary assertion.

Edited by Vort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Vort said:

In general, I'm in sympathy with the idea that lack of evidence is not, itself, evidence of lack. But this case is more like a guy going to the cops and claiming that a roving gang had just beaten the stuffing out of him and robbed him of all his money -- only there is not a mark on the guy and his pockets are loaded with cash. True, lack of evidence is not normally evidence of lack. But when you're making an extraordinary claim from which extraordinary consequences can reasonably be inferred, and when those extraordinary consequences are totally lacking, then it's reasonable to question the initial extraordinary assertion.

I'm not making any claim at all.  The scripture is.  It is either true or it isn't.  If it isn't, I'll be over here getting caught up on 6 months of back coffee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Grunt said:

I'm not making any claim at all.  The scripture is.  It is either true or it isn't.  If it isn't, I'll be over here getting caught up on 6 months of back coffee.

I don't agree. The scriptures do not say the entire planet was covered with water. The scriptures don't recognize planetary ideas or that the earth is spherical. That is a modern idea grafted into ancient prose, like the idea that Peleg's "division of the earth" refers to continental drift. It's the imposition of modern attitudes onto ancient writing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Vort said:

I don't agree. The scriptures do not say the entire planet was covered with water. The scriptures don't recognize planetary ideas or that the earth is spherical. That is a modern idea grafted into ancient prose, like the idea that Peleg's "division of the earth" refers to continental drift. It's the imposition of modern attitudes onto ancient writing.

Perhaps.  It's also important to note that the Church refers to the flood as a baptism of the earth.  

 

Quote

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).

1

Baptism is total immersion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to change the topic but the Bible clearly states that the division of the land in the days of Peleg was the land being divided up among groups of people, not divided by water. 

Genesis 10:25 And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother’s name was Joktan.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

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.

The scriptures have plenty of errors/contradictions.  Our own leaders have been wrong in the past. 

Does it take more faith to accept that there are errors and still believe in God, or does it take more faith to believe in what is more likely a myth? 

I figure there probably wasn't a flood, but it doesn't affect my faith in God and his power. 

Let's take the blacks and holding the priesthood. Where is the revelation saying that they couldn't hold it? How much bad doctrine came from that policy? How much racism came from it?  Our leaders aren't always right. 

It isn't wrong to question things in the scriptures. We are told to study these things out. 

When I study the atonement, I get a strong witness of its truth. I never have with the flood. Of course there are those that have had a witness of the flood.  Who is right?  Does it really matter? 

So to cover the entire earth, the water level would have needed to be 30k feet higher than now. To do this in 40 days would need to take a rain fall of 30 ft. /hour. Where did this rain come from? Where did it go? How did Noah get all of the millions of different animals on the ark? The list goes on and on with incongruities. 

It just doesn't fit with miracles of the past. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Grunt said:

Perhaps.  It's also important to note that the Church refers to the flood as a baptism of the earth.  

 

Baptism is total immersion.

I agree with you. It is beyond argument that more than a few Church leaders, including apostles, have accepted the "global flood" idea. If it makes me faithless to disbelieve that idea despite its implicit endorsement, I suppose I will just have to accept the label. (But for the record, I don't think I'm faithless.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

Let's take the blacks and holding the priesthood. Where is the revelation saying that they couldn't hold it? How much bad doctrine came from that policy? How much racism came from it?  Our leaders aren't always right. 

Please don't equate the two. They are very different. We have never been told why President Young instituted the Priesthood ban, but we can be sure that it required a revelation to lift the ban. All other speculation is counterproductive. I, for one, disbelieve that the ignorance and/or racism of our Church leaders underlay the Priesthood ban.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
55 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

Sure, but there is much evidence against it. 

A large portion of people only believe evidence if it already fits their originally held views. Confirmation bias is a HUGE problem in our culture. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Vort said:

I agree with you. It is beyond argument that more than a few Church leaders, including apostles, have accepted the "global flood" idea. If it makes me faithless to disbelieve that idea despite its implicit endorsement, I suppose I will just have to accept the label. (But for the record, I don't think I'm faithless.)

Meh.  There are things I question or don't have a testimony of.  Lots of them.  I'm not saying there was or wasn't a flood.  I'm certainly not ready to make stand that there was.  Nor am I ready to say that just because we don't have evidence of it, it never happened.

As I stated in my initial comment, I don't particularly care as it's pretty irrelevant to my beliefs and/or the point made by that scripture.   I just always question the reasoning of people who dwell on things like this.  I just don't see how it matters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Grunt said:

Such as what?

 

Maybe.  Maybe not.  One would expect to see evidence, but lack of that evidence doesn't establish the event never existed, it just establishes that evidence hasn't been found.

 

What evidence is against it? The whole science of geology. 

And yes, lack of evidence requires one to have faith in that thing. In most cases there is not evidence saying something didn't happen. In the case of the flood, there is much evidence saying it didn't happen. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

What evidence is against it? The whole science of geology. 

And yes, lack of evidence requires one to have faith in that thing. In most cases there is not evidence saying something didn't happen. In the case of the flood, there is much evidence saying it didn't happen. 

Untrue.  Again, you're equating lack of evidence of the former to be evidence of the latter.

Edited by Grunt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Vort said:

Please don't equate the two. They are very different. We have never been told why President Young instituted the Priesthood ban, but we can be sure that it required a revelation to lift the ban. All other speculation is counterproductive. I, for one, disbelieve that the ignorance and/or racism of our Church leaders underlay the Priesthood ban.

Of course it took a revelation to lift it. 

I wouldn't call it ignorance, nor racism of church leaders. I would equate it more to fear of disrupting the status quo. I remember being taught that Black's couldn't hold the Priesthood for the curse of Cain. That never set right with me. We are not punished for Adam's transgression. Why would blacks be punished for what Cain did?  

There was lots of racism in church members during that time. It completely went against the teachings of Christ. And I am sure church leaders were aware of racism in the church.  How would member's react to a change? It is close to admitting that you were wrong and the church is never wrong. 

How would the church now be able to come out and play down the flood? It would be an admission of being wrong.  The only choice is to double down. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

The scriptures have plenty of errors/contradictions.  Our own leaders have been wrong in the past. 

Does it take more faith to accept that there are errors and still believe in God, or does it take more faith to believe in what is more likely a myth? 

I figure there probably wasn't a flood, but it doesn't affect my faith in God and his power. 

Let's take the blacks and holding the priesthood. Where is the revelation saying that they couldn't hold it? How much bad doctrine came from that policy? How much racism came from it?  Our leaders aren't always right. 

It isn't wrong to question things in the scriptures. We are told to study these things out. 

When I study the atonement, I get a strong witness of its truth. I never have with the flood. Of course there are those that have had a witness of the flood.  Who is right?  Does it really matter? 

So to cover the entire earth, the water level would have needed to be 30k feet higher than now. To do this in 40 days would need to take a rain fall of 30 ft. /hour. Where did this rain come from? Where did it go? How did Noah get all of the millions of different animals on the ark? The list goes on and on with incongruities. 

It just doesn't fit with miracles of the past. 

The scriptures have plenty of errors/contradictions.  Our own leaders have been wrong in the past. Let's take the blacks and holding the priesthood. Where is the revelation saying that they couldn't hold it? How much bad doctrine came from that policy? How much racism came from it?  Our leaders aren't always right. 

This is irrelevant to the discussion of the flood, waters covering the whole earth. Would you be able to provide one scripture where the people rejected the words of the prophets, their witness, and it turned out good for the people? This is just me, nothing against you, I find this type of reasoning weak. Was Noah right that a flood came? Yes. If you want to choose "weakness" as a reason to reject, that is a personal choice. The Book of Mormon is clear on how the Lord feels about his prophets weaknesses when doing his work.

The lack of a written revelation doesn't mean a revelation did not occur. It simply wasn't written. We have evidence in the Book of Mormon regarding words that were not written that should have been written, and weren't written until many years later. No bad doctrine came from the policy regarding blacks. If you think so, you have a clear misunderstanding of doctrine.

Does it take more faith to accept that there are errors and still believe in God, or does it take more faith to believe in what is more likely a myth? 

It takes the same amount of faith to accept errors and to accept myths. What the real questions are, are we accepting truth? Are we calling truth error, or truth as myths? If we are, no matter what evidence we present, we are wrong, and our faith in such is vain and counterfeit.

I figure there probably wasn't a flood, but it doesn't affect my faith in God and his power. 

That's fine, I accept your "error" ;) in light of scriptures and modern witness there was.

I am glad it isn't affecting your faith.

It isn't wrong to question things in the scriptures. We are told to study these things out. 

We do not receive revelation without questions. We want to ask the Lord questions, and we definitely want to study things out. How we question is the most important. There are questions that are built in trust in God. There are questions that don't care for answers, because people already know of themselves.

When I study the atonement, I get a strong witness of its truth. I never have with the flood. Of course there are those that have had a witness of the flood.  Who is right?  Does it really matter? 

There are women, despite scriptures truths, who do not and will not accept polygamy. They have never witnessed the spirit of this truth. This doesn't negate the truth that polygamy is practice as given by God. People can claim error, weakness, or that leaders have been wrong in the past. It isn't going to change what is true. Who is right? The woman negating truth as in scripture, or the scriptures and multiple witnesses, modern and old, that it was given by God? Truth is always right. If we align ourselves with truth, we will be right.

We want to ask questions, we want to learn. What I find though from your words is that you don't accept because of man's wisdom in scientific method. God isn't going to witness something to you, the majority of the time, that you aren't willing to accept. Reminds me of a prayer I once heard, "God I already know Joseph Smith isn't a prophet of God. But is he?"

Do you experience cognitive dissonance when someone says I have prayed and know the Book of Mormon is not true? Who is right? How you want to phrase your argument changes things. I know the Book of Mormon is true. I have received witness. Others who have not received witness doesn't negate the truth of the Book of Mormon.

So to cover the entire earth, the water level would have needed to be 30k feet higher than now. To do this in 40 days would need to take a rain fall of 30 ft. /hour. Where did this rain come from? Where did it go? How did Noah get all of the millions of different animals on the ark? The list goes on and on with incongruities. It just doesn't fit with miracles of the past. 

Your initial assumption is where you error. Water can cover the earth with multiple different depths the flood is covering. I have been in floods in Texas on my mission. Some parts of the flood were deeper than others. Water still covered the earth though. As long as you begin with an incorrect assumption according to the limited knowledge of the studies you have read, you will be wrong, especially if you are basing what you accept on the arm of flesh that is ever changing with new evidence and new knowledge discovered.

Rain happens then the same way it happens now. Water recedes the same way then as it does now. A God that created the universe and all existing planets we know of, through his Son, and yet we have trouble thinking God can create a flood and then have the water evaporate? This really isn't hard to see how easily God could do something on such a minute scale when he has created the universe.

You keep saying the flood doesn't fit with any miracles but haven't answer what miracles you are referring to? The miracle of "fire" cleansing before the second coming doesn't fit with modern miracles either, so are we to assume it isn't going to happen because it doesn't fit within the limited scope of faith and knowledge we currently have?

 

Edited by Anddenex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

The scriptures have plenty of errors/contradictions.  Our own leaders have been wrong in the past. Let's take the blacks and holding the priesthood. Where is the revelation saying that they couldn't hold it? How much bad doctrine came from that policy? How much racism came from it?  Our leaders aren't always right. 

This is irrelevant to the discussion of the flood, waters covering the whole earth. Would you be able to provide one scripture where the people rejected the words of the prophets, their witness, and it turned out good for the people? This is just me, nothing against you, I find this type of reasoning weak. Was Noah right that a flood came? Yes. If you want to choose "weakness" as a reason to reject, that is a personal choice. The Book of Mormon is clear on how the Lord feels about his prophets weaknesses when doing his work.

The lack of a written revelation doesn't mean a revelation did not occur. It simply wasn't written. We have evidence in the Book of Mormon regarding words that were not written that should have been written, and weren't written until many years later. No bad doctrine came from the policy regarding blacks. If you think so, you have a clear misunderstanding of doctrine.

Does it take more faith to accept that there are errors and still believe in God, or does it take more faith to believe in what is more likely a myth? 

It takes the same amount of faith to accept errors and to accept myths. What the real questions are, are we accepting truth? Are we calling truth error, or truth as myths? If we are, no matter what evidence we present, we are wrong, and our faith in such is vain and counterfeit.

I figure there probably wasn't a flood, but it doesn't affect my faith in God and his power. 

That's fine, I accept your "error" ;) in light of scriptures and modern witness there was.

I am glad it isn't affecting your faith.

It isn't wrong to question things in the scriptures. We are told to study these things out. 

We do not receive revelation without questions. We want to ask the Lord questions, and we definitely want to study things out. How we question is the most important. There are questions that are built in trust in God. There are questions that don't care for answers, because people already know of themselves.

When I study the atonement, I get a strong witness of its truth. I never have with the flood. Of course there are those that have had a witness of the flood.  Who is right?  Does it really matter? 

There are women, despite scriptures truths, who do not and will not accept polygamy. They have never witnessed the spirit of this truth. This doesn't negate the truth that polygamy is practice as given by God. People can claim error, weakness, or that leaders have been wrong in the past. It isn't going to change what is true. Who is right? The woman negating truth as in scripture, or the scriptures and multiple witnesses, modern and old, that it was given by God? Truth is always right. If we align ourselves with truth, we will be right.

We want to ask questions, we want to learn. What I find though from your words is that you don't accept because of man's wisdom in scientific method. God isn't going to witness something to you, the majority of the time, that you are willing to accept. Reminds me of a prayer I once heard, "God I already know Joseph Smith isn't a prophet of God. But is he?"

Do you experience cognitive dissonance when someone says I have prayed and know the Book of Mormon is not true? Who is right? How you want to phrase your argument changes things. I know the Book of Mormon is true. I have received witness. Others who have not received witness doesn't negate the truth of the Book of Mormon.

So to cover the entire earth, the water level would have needed to be 30k feet higher than now. To do this in 40 days would need to take a rain fall of 30 ft. /hour. Where did this rain come from? Where did it go? How did Noah get all of the millions of different animals on the ark? The list goes on and on with incongruities. It just doesn't fit with miracles of the past. 

Your initial assumption is where you error. Water can cover the earth with multiple different depths the flood is covering. I have been in floods in Texas on my mission. Some parts of the flood were deeper than others. Water still covered the earth though. As long as you begin with an incorrect assumption according to the limited knowledge of the studies you have read, you will be wrong, especially if you are basing what you accept on the arm of flesh that is ever changing with new evidence and new knowledge discovered.

Rain happens then the same way it happens now. Water recedes the same way then as it does now. A God that created the universe and all existing planets we know of, through his Son, and yet we have trouble thinking God can create a flood and then have the water evaporate? This really isn't hard to see how easily God could do something on such a minute scale when he has created the universe.

You keep saying the flood doesn't fit with any miracles but haven't answer what miracles you are referring to? The miracle of "fire" cleansing before the second coming doesn't fit with modern miracles either, so are we to assume it isn't going to happen because it doesn't fit within the limited scope of faith and knowledge we currently have?

 

I don't have trouble believing God has the power, but it does not fit. 

You never saw a flood in Texas that covered everything. You saw it cover some local things. On top of that, Texas is mostly flat. 

We have been taught that the matter of the universe already existed and God formed it to his liking. Following that where did the extra water come from to cover the earth? Where did it go? Why even bring into play evaporation.  Evaporation would indicate that the water is still here. Clearly it is not.  So there is no point to try to explain it scientifically. If it happened it had nothing to do with science and a whole lot of evidence had to vanish. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

I don't have trouble believing God has the power, but it does not fit. 

You never saw a flood in Texas that covered everything. You saw it cover some local things. On top of that, Texas is mostly flat. 

We have been taught that the matter of the universe already existed and God formed it to his liking. Following that where did the extra water come from to cover the earth? Where did it go? Why even bring into play evaporation.  Evaporation would indicate that the water is still here. Clearly it is not.  So there is no point to try to explain it scientifically. If it happened it had nothing to do with science and a whole lot of evidence had to vanish. 

We agree regarding the first part of the first sentence. As to what you mean by it doesn't fit, isn't clear. What makes something fit? It appears your belief in science journals has convinced you it doesn't fit, but why it doesn't fit if God has the ability to do so isn't clear.  That's fine though. Anything God is capable of is a possibility and fits.

I never saw it rain forty days and forty night in Texas either, but still doesn't change I am able to take something small and apply it to something bigger that are applying the same principles and elements.

True, matter exists and can not be created. The concept of "extra" water is an assumption. If God heated the earth with the current existing water we have on our planet, which covers about 2/3rds of the earths surface. This leaves us with 1/3 of land. Do you really think 2/3rds of water on the surface, not including the clouds in the air, could not cover the earth and then recede back into their proper course (i.e. rivers, lakes, streams, oceans) over time, like we see with small localized floods now? If we begin with the wrong conclusion, the wrong questions, the wrong theory the chances are slim we will come up with the right answer.

Do you think the Sahara Desert has always been a desert since Adam? If not, where did all the water go?

The Nephites experienced a famine, where did all the water go? The land was receiving water, but during a famine the land was dry and crops did not produce their grain. What happened to all the water? God has the ability to distribute water as he sees fit. He commands the elements and they obey. Its not hard to see how he could easily cause water to cover the whole earth at his command.

The flood can fit perfectly, if we begin with the right premise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing secular science can't explain is why we have such vast and deep sedimentary layers over hundreds of thousands of square miles if there was no catastrophic flood. There really isn't a source large enough to draw upon for deposit material to layer down such thick and relatively uniform layers. If you think about it, some of the layers are hundreds of feet thick of the same or similar deposit that stretch over thousands of square miles. A river carrying sediment out to the sea just isn't capable of that extent and depth of layering. Secular science pretends that oceans can advance and reyreatandthrough slow uplift and erosion create this. But the truth is that type of sedimentary deposits are relatively very thin, not widespread and definitely not uniform over thousands of square miles.

When one really starts to analyze the real evidence using logic then accepted geologic theory really breaks down and falls apart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam unfeatured this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share