bcspace wrote: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.
If the story of Noah's ark was an absolute myth, would our modern Prophets and Apostles know? If so, how? And if so, would they tell us?
And for those who promote a "local flood" theory, can you please explain why Noah would need to build an ark instead of just temporarily migrating to high ground? And why would an ark be needed? Could a local flood be big enough to affect the sustainability of any plant or animal species? How many local animal and plant species would even need to be saved in that part of the world?
And how can a local flood be deep enough to cover a mountain range? If you currently live in an area with mountains around it (such as Utah or Southern California), walk outside and look at the mountains, and imagine what kind of flood it would take to cover the mountains. How would that work?
Keep in mind mount Ararat has a height of 17,000 ft. The highest peak of the Wasatch Range in Utah is 12,000 ft.
Tomorrow, if you reach a particularly boring stretch in F&T meeting, crack open your Bible and slowly read through Genesis 7 and Genesis 8. Ask yourself if those chapters make any sort of sense when applied to the idea of a local flood. The description of animal and plant destruction, human survival, water depth and rate of recession are all wildly inconsistent with a local flood. You would have to drastically alter the story (and its meaning) to such a degree that it becomes pointless.
