Noah's Ark & The Global Flood

[_Jersey Girl]

Delayed response...

I swear, Shades, can you guys not just discuss a topic instead of turning it into some examination of one's:

testimony
worthiness
Jack Mormon-ness
hypocrisy

An active LDS can hardly voice their personal opinion on a topic around here without one or more issues as listed above being raised.

[_Jersey Girl]

bcspace has already stated that, Shades, on this thread.

Right. The point of my post was to get YOU to understand what I was trying to say to bcspace.

Peachy. Now would you like to take a shot at getting others on the thread understand why this:

You believe that the Old Testament should be looked at from the perspective of those who wrote it--a proposition I fully agree with, by the way.

is important?

[_Sethbag]

Shades, this:

Bcspace has seen through their B.S.; all cinepro is trying to do is get him to admit that he does indeed disagree with the Lord's moutpieces and does indeed thereby obliquely admit that they are leading the church astray.

Sound so arrogant. The guy responded on a thread about Noah's Ark, offering that he speculates the Black Sea Flood (localized flood) makes more sense than a Global Flood and somehow the ex-Mo inquisition begins.

Isn't someone going to ask him for his SP's name and phone number?

Actually, the point of it is to show the absurdity. The church and its prophets teach absurd, factually disproven teachings, BCSpace knows this, and yet continues to utterly ignore the glaring hole in the prophetic credibility of the church. This kind of thing with Noah's Ark demonstrates the ineptitude and utter lack of prophetic credibility of the church leaders. It's huge. And the Black Sea local flood does absolutely nothing to change that. That's why it's completely irrelevent. The Black Sea probably did flood at one point. So what? It's not a Black Sea local flood that LDS Prophets, Seers, and Revelators teach! It's not what plausible theories BCSpace can invent for some local flood somewhere, it's why in the heck the LDS Prophets, Seers, and Revelators not only got this stuff so fantastically wrong, but still to this very day cannot or will not correct themselves on it. They're still teaching a global flood! It's so absurd, and it's so transparently obvious.

[Guest]

Let me throw out a coupla things to you so that you have some idea of where my thinking is at because I think we're largely talking past eachother. In the past, I've been engaged by a number of "good heads" who when they became aware that at that time I was a member of an SBC would regularly engage me on the topic of literalism without asking me if there were parts of of the SBC that I disagreed with, what I agreed with or what I believe the Bible is so here it is for you :-).

I think that the Bible is, in part, a record of "man's" perceived encounters with God. I say perceived, because there is so much ethnocentrism and obvious interest in political/geographical expansion that one has (this is my opinion) to see that it was written by men speaking for God and not God speaking for man.

The Bible that I read from is made up of 66 separate books. Some of that are ancient tribal stories, myths, allegory, law, poetry, historical matter (battles and such), words of wisdom (proverbs), prophecy, and so on and so forth.

No Christian believer can claim to adhere entirely to literalism if nothing else, on account of the Revelation which is obviously made up of rich symbolism. And contrary to what you yourself stated above: Law, poetry, words of wisdom cannot rightly fall into the category of "cobbled together myths". You can't place all 66 books and everything in them under the heading of "myths".

Well, I didn't say it was only "cobbled myths" --

cobbled myths thrown together with a bit of cultural and historical relevancy.

I agree that there are note worthy things to admire in the Bible. Some things I find quite lovely and am drawn to them -- I especially enjoy the idea of rebirth in the form of the resurrection. There are some passages that I find quite stirring, actually.

I was feeling quite nasty the last few days toward religion. :)

I think that the development of god belief leads me to the conclusion that at some point in ancient times (or at many points) floods did occur. I think that the ancients attributed floods and other powerful forces and occurrences in nature (thunder, rain, sun, stars, winds, etc.,) as more powerful than themselves. Somewhere in human development, I believe that human beings developed a process of self actualization and they thought in terms of the forces of nature as relating to themselves. In the case of Noah's Flood, the relating having to do with judgement.

I agree completely. Gods were an expression of natural forces and then gradually took on characteristics of men.

Do I think the whole entire planet was flooded? No. I think the ancients thought so from their own frame of reference.

I agree. I don't really think we're in dispute.

[_Dr. Shades]

Peachy. Now would you like to take a shot at getting others on the thread understand why this:

You believe that the Old Testament should be looked at from the perspective of those who wrote it--a proposition I fully agree with, by the way.

is important?

I already did. But to restate, it's important because THE LDS PROPHETS do THE EXACT OPPOSITE.

[_Jersey Girl]

Peachy. Now would you like to take a shot at getting others on the thread understand why this:

You believe that the Old Testament should be looked at from the perspective of those who wrote it--a proposition I fully agree with, by the way.

is important?

I already did. But to restate, it's important because THE LDS PROPHETS do THE EXACT OPPOSITE.

Oh good grief.

[_bcspace]

Bcspace has seen through their B.S.; all cinepro is trying to do is get him to admit that he does indeed disagree with the Lord's moutpieces and does indeed thereby obliquely admit that they are leading the church astray.

I don't think it's b.s. I think it merely a reiteration of standard doctrine that has no modern revelation to clarify. The Catholic Church had this problem in spades. The LDS Church will be alright because it accepts/leaves room for science to fill in the gaps where there is no clarifying revelation.

The church and its prophets teach absurd, factually disproven teachings, BCSpace knows this, and yet continues to utterly ignore the glaring hole in the prophetic credibility of the church.

This incorrectly assumes that the prophets' minds and mouths are controlled by God 24/7. With my evolution theory, I am not in conflict with any doctrine or scripture at all. With the a local flood, I admit I have no way around the baptism of the earth doctrine unless it's allegorical (I don't think it's presented that way) or a shared memory of a smaller event that got bigger with the retelling. The the flood is mentioned by other peoples in the presentation of other doctrines (such as 1 Peter 3:21) shows that the flood, local or global, must have been a historical event.

These are really minor nit picky (yet interesting) doctrines in the total scheme of things, yet that they might be wrong actually dovetails with the LDS understanding of continuing revelation, a much greater and more detailed concept.

[_Jersey Girl]

bc,

This is where I disagree with you, it's 1 Peter 3:20 by the way:

The the flood is mentioned by other peoples in the presentation of other doctrines (such as 1 Peter 3:21) shows that the flood, local or global, must have been a historical event.

The reference could easily be to a tribal story/myth/allegory.

[_bcspace]

it's 1 Peter 3:20 by the way

Thanks, yes it is. I should reference both verses because 21 is one of the other doctrines I was refrerring to.

This is where I disagree with you.....The reference could easily be to a tribal story/myth/allegory.

I understand. However, I do believe it must be a historical event, whatever the final details are. I think the way it's presented in the scriptures is akin to Joseph Smith stating that the Book of Mormon is a record of real peoples. Hence the Book of Mormon must also be historical.

[_Chap]

it's 1 Peter 3:20 by the way

Thanks, yes it is. I should reference both verses because 21 is one of the other doctrines I was refrerring to.

This is where I disagree with you.....The reference could easily be to a tribal story/myth/allegory.

I understand. However, I do believe it must be a historical event, whatever the final details are. I think the way it's presented in the scriptures is akin to Joseph Smith stating that the Book of Mormon is a record of real peoples. Hence the Book of Mormon must also be historical.

I revisit this thread with a sense that somehow the point is being missed - but with bcspace's post there is more to focus on.

Now - what is necessary in order to be able to claim that the story of a universal flood told in Genesis refers in some way to 'a historical event'? How about:

(a) The original narrative (oral? written?) was composed by people who had experienced or had folk memories of a catastrophic local flood event (or events) which destroyed human life on a large scale in their region. The stuff about a man called 'Noah' being given advance warning by a deity, and saving his family and lots of animals by building a gigantic boat is however embroidery, as is the claim that the flood was universal and intended by a deity to wipe out all living things.

(b) There really was a man called Noah who saved his family and some livestock from a bad local flood by getting advance warning from a deity, and building a big boat. The stuff about the flood being universal is however embroidery.

(c) There really was a man called Noah who saved his family and specimens of all land animals from a universal flood by getting advance warning from a deity, and building a gigantic boat.

OPTIONAL APPENDIX TO (a) and (b): The conventional interpretation of the Genesis text as implying a universal flood is a misunderstanding of what the writers of the narrative intended to convey. In fact, understood properly in terms of vocabulary and grammar, it only refers to a local event.

I wonder which of (a), (b) and (c) is preferred by bcspace and others? Does bcspace want to go for the optional appendix in combination with any of the above?