Noah's Ark & The Global Flood

[_bcspace]

Go ahead and amaze us all with the successful counter-argument to the idea that a half-man/half God person, who actually created the Earth, couldn't tell the difference between a global flood and a local one.

Seems to me that it was man himself that didn't understand ala the "purple-monkey-dishwasher" principle.

[Anonymous]

Homes, cars, furniture and life was damaged and destroyed. Everything I knew as the world was destroyed.

-----------------------------------------------

There, do you all see the perspective of the ancients now?

Yes, I see the perspective of the ancient near Eastern sheepherders. I've seen it for a while now, actually. What I don't "see" is how the perspective of modern-day Prophets, Seers, and Revelators can be so consistently wrong about this. Where's God in all of this?

[_bcspace]

Sure. What's wrong with that? It then becomes clear that a catastrophic event occured which was intepreted by later generations to be world-wide or greater than it was.

No it didn't. It became clear that the story was a mere legend, based on the experience of ordinary floods, but wildly exaggerated into a divinely motivated destruction of all living things by a universal deluge.

Sounds like you're just restating what I said.

[_bcspace]

Obviously I have no problem with people not believing in a global flood. But I think it is dishonest to pretend that they are not lobotomizing an official doctrine (found in the scriptures, consistently and currently interpreted and clarified by apostles and prophets in a uniform manner).

Haven't you seen me post on both boards that I don't accept 100% of LDS doctrine and policy as stated?

[_GoodK]

You have to remember folks, to Christians, the Bible only means what it says when it is convenient.

Only on issues that don't make any sense, like "The Flood" do you see statements like this:

Because, Chap, you read it from the perspective of those who were allegedly involved in it.

Tell me, what you think the concept of the earth was in ancient days? Did those telling the story know that California existed? Did they know that ANYTHING existed outside the ground covered by their tribal wanderings?

How do you justify doing so?

How unwise it is for someone to interpret "And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die" to mean anything other than a local flood.

Of course, on other issues important to Christianity that are not so falsifiable you never hear this sort of argument.

[_Moniker]

How did all the vegetation survive? Did Noah take seeds of each plant variety with him, as well? Who reseeded the earth? That would be time consuming, eh?

Yes, in order to accept the story of Noah as involving a flood of global proportions and killing virtually everything on earth (except sea life, I suppose but even that would likely have been in jeopardy) you'd have to factor in seeds or cuttings of some sort. So far as reseeding the earth goes, I would assume that would have been accomplished via natural (wind) and human (cultivation) means.

Good question!

Well, I think Noah would have needed a greenhouse as well as a pretty massive aquarium on board the ark seeing that sea pressure would have shifted dramatically and this would have killed off massive numbers of sea life. Then of course, there's all the bugs too...

[_Moniker]

I don't understand why looking at things from the perspective of "ancients" somehow would be a defense of the Bible? That would seem to undermine the Bible and the stories therein, no? I can understand how mythology was created from their perspective -- yet, this is precisely why I can reject it as not being literal truth.

[_Jersey Girl]

I don't understand why looking at things from the perspective of "ancients" somehow would be a defense of the Bible?

It wouldn't be a "defense" of the Bible, Moniker, it would help one understand the literature. Historical/cultural context and all of that. For example, (not wanting to drive this off topic but anyway) we regularly see modern day Christians use Leviticus or the writings of Paul as a blanket condemnation against homosexual behavior. Do you think it would be wise for those particular persons to research the culture to learn exactly what practices those scriptures were referring to before condeming homosexual behavior outright?

That would seem to undermine the Bible and the stories therein, no?

Tell me how you think putting the writings in cultural and historical context would undermine the Bible and stories therein? You are aware that the Bible isn't entirely made up of "stories", right?

I can understand how mythology was created from their perspective -- yet, this is precisely why I can reject it as not being literal truth.

You reject mythology as not being literal truth because mythology isn't literal truth. I agree that's a sound perspective.

[_Jersey Girl]

You have to remember folks, to Christians, the Bible only means what it says when it is convenient.

Only on issues that don't make any sense, like "The Flood" do you see statements like this:

Because, Chap, you read it from the perspective of those who were allegedly involved in it.

Tell me, what you think the concept of the earth was in ancient days? Did those telling the story know that California existed? Did they know that ANYTHING existed outside the ground covered by their tribal wanderings?

How do you justify doing so?

**How unwise it is for someone to interpret "And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die" to mean anything other than a local flood.**

Of course, on other issues important to Christianity that are not so falsifiable you never hear this sort of argument.

GoodK, the part I starred...could you rephrase that? I don't quite understand what you're saying there.

And that last:

Of course, on other issues important to Christianity that are not so falsifiable you never hear this sort of argument.

What sort of argument? That you should read the scriptures in historical/cultural context from the perspective of the people who wrote it? Why wouldn't anyone do that in all cases regarding the Bible?

[_Moniker]

I don't understand why looking at things from the perspective of "ancients" somehow would be a defense of the Bible?

It wouldn't be a "defense" of the Bible, Moniker, it would help one understand the literature. Historical/cultural context and all of that. For example, (not wanting to drive this off topic but anyway) we regularly see modern day Christians use Leviticus or the writings of Paul as a blanket condemnation against homosexual behavior. Do you think it would be wise for those particular persons to research the culture to learn exactly what practices those scriptures were referring to before condeming homosexual behavior outright?

The Bible is seen as the word of God for those that believe in it, right? When you look at the historical and cultural context the only conclusion I can draw is that it was written by men, for men, and that God was not a factor in it at all.

I also recognize that there was a water God that was seen as responsible for flooding in early Mesopotamian Culture and there were other various gods seen as responsible for other acts of nature:



I think it would be wise for those that are Christians, that look at the Bible for any sort of literal truths, actually become more in tune to where these myths derive and recognize that the God of Christianity and the Great Flood was a part of ancient mythology and dismiss all of it.

Do you believe a great flood occurred, Jersey Girl? Do you think God sent down a flood and Noah built an ark and put various animal species on it? What is the point of this story for those that believe? Recognize that God is all powerful? That Noah was a prophet? What is it precisely?

That would seem to undermine the Bible and the stories therein, no?

Tell me how you think putting the writings in cultural and historical context would undermine the Bible and stories therein? You are aware that the Bible isn't entirely made up of "stories", right?

Well, it undermines the God of the Bible, Jersey Girl. If the Bible says God did this and Noah did this and the story is false then it absolutely undermines the credibility of the Bible. If God is to be known on earth by the Bible and the Bible is nothing more than a bunch of myths with a bit of historical relevance thrown in then it points to no God at all. If we put it into historical perspective then we understand how men often took events in nature and looked to a supernatural explanation -- this points to all mythology created by men at different times and different cultures to explain natural occurrences in the world. This explains how men understand natural phenomenon, yet, does not point to anything supernatural, at all -- and the Bible is supporting the case of a supernatural Christian God.

I can understand how mythology was created from their perspective -- yet, this is precisely why I can reject it as not being literal truth.

You reject mythology as not being literal truth because mythology isn't literal truth. I agree that's a sound perspective.

Wow! Thanks for your smart ass reply. If you ask us to look at it from their perspective it is quite easy to dismiss God and the Bible entirely except as some cobbled myths thrown together with a bit of cultural and historical relevancy. If I understand that mythology was created in religious texts then I can reject the ENTIRE Bible as being false in regards to God. And I do.

If it's agreed that it is written by men from their perspective then why in the world would anyone say God had any part in it, at all?