The Calamities post brought up the topic of the flood of Noah.
I’ve always thought that the current LDS belief was that this event was a localized disaster and not to be taken literally as read in the Bible.
Am I wrong here? Are there still members who believe that the entire Earth was once under 26 feet of water? Or that there were literally two of every species stuffed into a boat?
If that is indeed the case, colour me surprised.
Here’s how it could have been a universal flood:
The mountains weren’t as high back then, and the oceans weren’t as deep.
After the rains, but while the floodwaters still covered the earth, the earth was wrought upon somehow, the tectonic plates moved, and mountains were pushed up, and the ocean depths were made deeper. Now the water had somewhere to go, so that is how the waters receeded off the dry land.
How did all the species that didn’t (and couldn’t have) fit on the ark survive?
They didn’t. They perished like the Bible says. But what the Bible doesn’t say (and it does leave out a lot of the story), and it is still possible, is that God could have brought them back to life (like he did Lazarus).
That fits in with God’s standard practice of requiring man to do as much as he can, Noah saving as many animals as he could, then God doing the rest and “resurrecting” the species of animals and plants that Noah wasn’t able to save.
The Bible doesn’t say that God did resurrect the species of plants/animals that weren’t on the ark. But it leaves open the possibility.
Where did all the water for the flood come from?
From “the waters that were above the firmament (sky)”. Some postulate that there was water vapor “in orbit” or at high altitudes in the atmosphere as a shell or a shield, around the earth.
Where did all the water go?
It’s still here, in the oceans, if the theory that the oceans were made deeper and the mountains made higher during the flood holds true.
I remember reading something in the Ensign not long ago and I Googled it and got this result, not that I agree with it:
>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.
>[Donald W. Parry, Ensign, Jan. 1998, 35]
I agree with Bookslingr’s analysis.
I believe that the 2 by 2 theory was fairly accurate, except for some animals that were needed for sacrifice. Also, maybe there weren’t as many species then? And some animals of course could live in the water. My personal belief is there weren’t quite as many species as there are now, many probably evolved.
Yeah, you would be surprised then Kim. Despite the scientific facts, many people in the church feel that there is somehow something at stake in defending a worldwide flood that killed nearly all life on the planet just a few thousand years ago… I’m baffled why people feel this is an important position to defend. I am ever-shocked at the naive and even ridiculous lengths people will go to do so.
Kim didn’t write this post, Rick did.
Oops. I just noticed that.
This question has always intrigued me. How could Noah possible have included every plant and animal found in the world on one little ark?
I don’t care how big the ark was, I just don’t believe he could have found and/or fit all of animals and plants inside it.
However, here is something to consider: Not long ago I drove up to see Mt. St. Helen’s. What an amazing sight to see. Everything in the path of the volcano was totally destroyed and killed. Yet, within a few years after the devastation, plants were spontaneously growing back, the natural bacteria in the lakes had cleaned the water to its original pristine color, and fish had appeared in the lakes.
I asked the forest ranger if they had planted the fish in the lakes, and he said they did not. The fish appeared on their own. I asked him how it could happen and he said he thought it was due to the fish eggs somehow surviving the devastation. Almost like they were in hibernation until the water was clean again.
It was amazing. My point is, that nature can and does spontaneously reappear. I doubt a flood would be any more devastating than a volcanic eruption.
I personally beleive that the worldwide flood is possible, but I am open to a localized flood as well.
Rick, where did you get the idea that the church endorsed a localized flood theory? Just curious.
“The mountains weren’t as high back then, and the oceans weren’t as deep.”
Ok, we’re talking about 5000 years ago, right? You’re telling me that you believe that all the geological changes occurred in sometime in the past 5000 years? That seems like a bit of a stretch to me.
The amount of change required to ‘flatten the Earth’ to a degree such that the present water would cover it (in such a short timeframe at that) would in all likelihood be as big an event as the flood. I mean mountains rising and the oceans becoming cavernous – that’s some big time action.
If the mountains were raised in such a short time frame, how does one reconcile all of the evidence of graduated lifting of the mountains over a very long amount of time – folding, faulting, weathering and erosion, these things all have corresponding time limits where only so much can occur over a given time.
Then again, if it all comes down to, “…God could have… ” what are we left with?
Once we go down this road, we can write off any sort of rational physical reasoning of why any of the flood story makes sense, I mean if God made it so – God made it so. I’d like to believe that there would be some sort of physical evidence to support it as literal, myself.
Ian, it’s not so much ‘endorsed’ as it is that most of the articles I can remember reading from FARMS et al had to do with the justification of the possibility that the flood was localised.
Versions of the flood myth are common to many cultures and are likely based on a massive local flood in an area which contained the population from which all/most modern humans descend. Definitely not a global event. If based on a real and local event, the timing was more likely tens of thousands of years ago, not a few thousand years. I make an assumption that the bible genealogies are based on an oral history that skips most generations. This fits with Y-chromosome Adam showing up about 60,000 years ago.
That said, it doesn’t bother me if the whole thing is allegorical.
OK NDBF Gary, have at me.
The mountains weren’t as high back then
the oceans weren’t as deep
the earth was wrought upon somehow, the tectonic plates moved
mountains were pushed up
the ocean depths were made deeper.
God could have brought [the animals] back to life
It leaves open the possibility.
there was water vapor “in orbit†or at high altitudes in the atmosphere as a shell or a shield, around the earth
————————
I disagree with every one of these statements and whole heartily write them off as ad hoc attempts at saving scriptural face. The only one which I acknowledge to be true is that the Bible “leaves open the possibility”. Then again it leaves open the possibility that UFO’s not only brought the extra water to earth, but also provided additional storage space for the animals which Noah couldn’t save and then shipped off the water after wards.
Questions:
Where did all the deep sea creatures come from if there was no deep oceans?
I sincerely hope that no person is actually so diluted to believe any of the above “postulates” and think that they are being even remotely in step with science.
Rick,
I see your point about FARMS etc., but FARMS is not official.
“FARMS is not official”
Yes, I’m well aware of this fact.
Unfortunately the prophet is often ‘not official’ either from time-to-time so what’s a poor soul supposed to do?
:)
Mary #3:
Someone agrees with me? [swoon]
Geoff #4:
The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it. So excuuuuuuuuuuuuse ME for believing the Bible.
Rick #8:
The Book of Mormon talks of upheavals at the crucifixion of the Savior. Cities sunk, mountains made flat, plains made into mountains. So we have scriptural evidence upon which to extrapolate. (Er, extrapolate isn’t the right word, maybe “make analogies upon”.)
I recently saw a PBS program illustrating how some cataclysmic events created geologic formations as opposed to thousands of years as previously thought. One such was a 1/2 mile thick glacier in North America, that essentially turned into a giant “slushee”, but it didn’t break loose until it did so in one fell swoop, and it was like a 1/2 mile high tidal wave sweeping across the land.
The man who originally proposed the theory was roundly and soundly ridiculed for years, but eventually geologists came around to his point of view by finding more points of evidence and connecting the dots.
We still don’t know the meaning “the land was divided” in the days of Peleg. Could that mean the one continent of “Pangea” was broken into many continents?
However, we do have scripture that leads us to believe that in the millenium the land masses will be reunited again somehow again.
Scriptures describing the second coming say that the mountains will flow down and become plains at the arrival of the Savior. What does that mean? Is that literal? Will they be “completely” flat? Will it be “universal,” and mountains all over the world will do that, or just in certain locations?
We don’t know, er, at least I don’t know. But hey, the scriptures say it, so….
All of this goes against so-called “common sense” of geological and tectonic science. But I don’t care. Our God is smarter than geologists.
Jeffry Giliam, nice pun talking about diluted men in a thread about the flood…
:) it has to happen sometimes, hey Bookslinger?
“Our God is smarter than geologists.”
Why is it God vs. the geologists?
You make it sound like they can’t both be right…
Not only is FARMS not official, most members (from my experience) are unaware of FARMS or think they’re some extreme faction of intellectuals, and we all know where intellect gets you in the church.
…yup. Right out of the church, no?
Jeffery,
C’mon, man. Apparently there isn’t even enough evidence in the geological record to support a localized theory. So watchya gonna do? Throw all scripture to the winds of allegory until they’re provable by science?
I mean, where do we draw the line? Was Noah a real person or not? If he was, did he build an ark? If he did, should we assume that there was a flood of sorts? If there was, where’s the evidence for such?
Oh! There’s no evidence for a flood, so that means–by reversing the logic–that we end up with a fictional character. Therefore, we have a God who made covenants with a fictional character thus placing us on shakey with respect to our ability to place our full trust in Him–as His word becomes null and void because His promises are meaningless unless they are made to real individuals.
Bookslinger: The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it. So excuuuuuuuuuuuuse ME for believing the Bible.
Hehe. Nice classic Steve Martin quote.
Ok, so I guess you believe the other intersting things the Bible says like that Adam was created out of dust, that Even was created directly from one of Adam’s (presumably muddy) ribs, that the earth was creates in six literal days, that there really were giants that roamed the earth, etc. Is that correct?
Jack,
I’m not sure what you are tying to say to me. Are you promoting a fictional Noah or simply promoting a (false) dichotomy between “it’s all true” and “it’s all fictional”?
The fact is that the most straight forward reading of the Noah story gives us a lot of predictions of phenomena which we should still be able to observe in the world. These predictions have not panned out; none of them. Of course we can modify the theory in response to this, but this is total ad hoc. Conclusion: the story of the world wide flood is wrong, really wrong.
Is it so wrong for someone who is a true believing member of the church to believe that the flood story is metaphorical?
There are SO many reasons why the story could not have happened the way it is told in the Old Testament. Have you folks that are pushing for a literal interpretation ever been to the Zoo?
As Jeff Goldblum might say (while playing his character from Jurrasic Park), “That’s one big pile of …”
Jeffery,
I agree that the predictions have not panned out. And even if we interpret the Biblical account of the flood as a localized phenomenon it still doesn’t pan out.
So my question is: at what point to we decide that science is just going to have to take a back seat to scripture before we end up relegating the lot of it (scripture) to allegory? I’m not wholly against proving the scriptures by the world’s methodologies. In fact, I think some good can come of it. But at some point I have to draw a line for myself and say: Well, I know that science doesn’t agree with this (or that) point, but I’m going to have to concede to the scriptures on this one (or that one) because the doctrine is incoherent otherwise.
And for me, that’s the problem with the flood. If it didn’t happen, then I don’t know what to make of the God of the Book of Moses.
Jeff G #12:
God is smarter than all scientists and more powerful than all science. He’s the ultimate scientist. I have no faith in the limits that earthly scientists place on God, saying what He can or cannot do.
Jack #21:
” So watchya gonna do? Throw all scripture to the winds of allegory until they’re provable by science?” Oooh. I like that.
Geoff: #22:
“”Bookslinger: The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it. So excuuuuuuuuuuuuse ME for believing the Bible.””
“Hehe. Nice classic Steve Martin quote.
The first sentence I got from Rev Bob Harrington, aka “The Chaplain of Bourbon Street” over 30 years ago. My corollary is “the Book of Mormon says it, so…”
“Ok, so I guess you believe the other intersting things the Bible says like that:”
“Adam was created out of dust”
That may be figurative, as per BY.
“that Even was created directly from one of Adam’s (presumably muddy) ribs”
That’s probably figurative as per BY.
“that the earth was creates in six literal days,”
Figurative, as prophets have gone on record as saying “time periods.”
“that there really were giants that roamed the earth, etc.”
Yes, I believe that is literal. Goliath and all that.
Jeff Milner #24: “There are SO many reasons why the story could not have happened the way it is told in the Old Testament. Have you folks that are pushing for a literal interpretation ever been to the Zoo?”
Discounting the flood story requires one to assume that the flood story is complete. I say that there is much left unsaid in the flood story, (like most of the scriptures leave a lot of things unsaid) and that the flood story is pretty much true, but merely incomplete. If we were to have full detailed knowledge of what happened (ie, was it local or global, where the water came from, where did it go, how high were the pre-flood mountains and how deep was the pre-flood ocean, why do we have more species now than could have fit on a boat that size, etc) then I believe the Genesis account would all make sense.
That’s my point, Bookslinger. The Bible says all sorts of things that we are figurative and apparently you recognize that (despite your “The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it” line). I believe the flood is one of those figurative things (and so do lots of other faithful saints). You are free to believe in a literal global flood, of course. I just think that such a belief is incorrect (and unnecessary).
Geoff: Believing a part to be figurative is still believing. And whether something in scripture is literal or figurative is still open to legitimate debate.
Not only do different people apply different figurative interpretations, we can have different literal interpretations too.
Another famous evangelical line I like: “I realize that your literal interpretation may differ from my literal interpretation.”
But I believe it logically unsound, and just a tad unfaithful, to dismiss outright the possible literalness of any scriptural passage. And I grant that it can be a bit overly dogmatic to dismiss the possibility that something is figurative.
However, I assert that figurative things in scriptures are true nonetheless.
I also grant a common apologetic point that truthfulness of certain things may at times be limited by the writer’s or the audience’s scope or viewpoint.
I think that the Lord’s explanation of his use of the word “eternal” in the D&C shows that he does know in advance that people are going to misinterpret some scriptures and jump to wrong conclusions, and that he purposely does not clarify such things up front. He often allows us our delusions.
To paraphrase his explanation in 3rd Nephi of his “other sheep” line back in Jerusalem: “They didn’t ask me to explain, so I didn’t tell them.” He allowed them their false assumption.
I have a lot of enjoyment speculating about what the scriptures leave unsaid, and trying to figure out the missing pieces. I like to take examples from part of the scriptures (geologic upheavals at the crucifixion) and see if a similar puzzle-piece might explain the holes elsewhere (ie, could some kind of geologic upheavals make the flood story more plausible?).
I’m dealing in possibilities and plausibilities. I’m sorry if my wording sometimes comes across as stating facts instead of beliefs.
I believe BY when he said Adam was not made like an adobe brick.
I believe the flood was universal. But I believe it possible that it was local. But I don’t believe that such things are essential (at this point) to our salvation.
Of more importance are belief and faith in things that lead to obedience to the commandments and bringing about righteousness.
Local versus global, figurative versus literal flood, is pretty much navel gazing. Fun to do at times, but doesn’t accomplish that much.
Doing good things on faith, as opposed to waiting until you know it for a fact, now that’s something that moves us forward.
“I believe it logically unsound, and just a tad unfaithful, to dismiss outright the possible literalness of any scriptural passage. And I grant that it can be a bit overly dogmatic to dismiss the possibility that something is figurative.”
I’m with Bookslinger all the way on this. Though I personally have views sympathetic to some of the “local flood” theories I’ve read about on Mormanity and elsewhere, I also like to remind myself and others that God works miracles. He does things we don’t understand. He does things that, according to our best scientific knowledge, are impossible. So when I start waxing too incredulous at the thought of stuffing all those beings into an ark, I try to remind myself that it’s no more incredible than being visited by a walking, talking, breathing man who had died several days earlier by crucifixion.
When’s NDBF Gary gonna show up?
Geoff,
That’s too much of a slippery slope for me. Sure, lots of things in the scriptures are figurative–even fictional, if you will. However, because something like the creation is figurative doesn’t mean that there was no creation. I think the same applies to the Lord’s finale return. We don’t know exactly where to draw the line between the figurative and the literal as we search the prophecies but we sure know that something’s gonna happen–big time. So it is with anything (imo) that is found in the “eschatological” record that Enoch saw–the flood included. SOMEthing happened. And my guess is: if that “something” didn’t involve H2O, then it involved some “heavenly” equivalent–much like the “burning” at the Lord’s coming may involve. (the fire of the Holy Spirit rather than real fuego)
itbugaf,
I have to agree with you on that. If we can discount anything in the Bible due to science, wouldn’t it be just as easy to discount the Atonement and ressurection?
If you want to talk about scientifically implausable, here is another theory that I think about. When the earth was created, it was created Near the place where God dwells. When Adam fell, the earth was actually moved from its location there and put here. Whenthe earth is celestialized and while it is “reeling” like a drunken man, it will actually be moving back. So, how about that for scientifically implausible.
ok… last time I checked none of us have actually lived during Noah’s reign so to speak.. so we have no way of knowing if the flood was worldwide or local. As for the amount of species on board, there were so many fewer animals and plants etc then compared to now. If we lost all those other species how is it we have species now? Well we lost all the dinosaurs but similar animals, reptiles etc have emerged just as the plants and trees have.
How can you not believe the story about Noah? Christ talks about it. Are you all now saying Christ was talking through his hat if he worse one? As well last time I checked the storey line there were no meteorologists living back then so there is NO WAY anyone can state with 100% certainty how hard and thick that rain fell for those 40 days and nights. Had it been literally coming down in sheets thick and fast, it would have covered the earth. Besides now when it rains it rains locally or even regionnally. GOd opened the heavens to make it rain to cover the earth not just little local areas. Don’t you think that he would made it rain hard enough to cover the earth? Get Real!!
Ian,
I, too, agree that there are many things in the scriptures that give us pause when looking at them throught a scientific lens. The scriptures in some cases simply cannot be justified by science. That’s why I believe it’s wise to adopt Galilleo’s approach–which is to avoid viewing the scriptures as a scientific treatise.
That said, you example re: the earth moving to and fro from God’s throne stems from Brigham Young’s cosmology and is, thankfully, not to be found in the canon. (sorry, I have a hard time with BY’s cosmology)
Somebody asked: Is it so wrong for someone who is a true believing member of the church to believe that the flood story is metaphorical?
I hope not.
To be honest, it’s not really important to me one way or the other how much of the story is literal. What’s more important is what the story teaches me. My best guess is that there really was a righteous man named Noah, and there may have been some kind of localized flood, but if the entire story is fictional or if there was really a worldwide flood (hard to imagine) isn’t important.
And why does everybody there were two of every kind of animal? Obviously, some people haven’t been reading the Bible.
“Discounting the flood story requires one to assume that the flood story is complete.”
No it doesn’t.
There were two of most kinds of animals, but 7 of the useful ones, if I recall correctly.
Also, one theory I have heard that is supported by other writings outside the Bible is that The Garment of Adam was passed down to Noah. The garment gave Noah control over the animals, just as Adam was given dominion over the animals. Noah told the animals to go into the Ark and then put them to hybernation. This way they could be packed in, without any conflicts between animals. The rest of the animals that did not come were told to surround the Ark to protect it from people wanting to get on. Later, after Ham stole the Garment it made it’s way to Nimrod “the mighty hunter”. Why was he a mighty hunter? Because he had the Garment, and could control the animals.
Fascinating idea really.
“so we have no way of knowing if the flood was worldwide or local.”
Other than the fact that a worldwide flood would have left evidence of its existence.
“As for the amount of species on board, there were so many fewer animals and plants etc then compared to now.”
It takes much longer than five thousand years for that kind of wide speciation.
Kim, you’re right in 39, unless you leave room for the possibility of miraculous happenings.
Jeff Milner said: “Bookslinger said: “Discounting the flood story requires one to assume that the flood story is complete.—
“No it doesn’t.”
Then I think that leaves one in the position of unwisely claiming what the Lord wouldn’t or couldn’t do.
Many speculations of possible explanations to fill in the holes of the flood story, in order to reconcile a universal flood with modern observations, are based on abilities and inclinations that the Lord has demonstrated elsewhere in the scriptures, such as restore dead things to life, or cause upheavals on the earth’s surface.
An opponent of such reconciling explanations is left with three possible rejoinders, either to say
a) God _couldn’t_ do that, or
b) God _wouldn’t_ do that, or
c) if He did do that, the scriptures would have said so.
“a” is anti-scriptural because it would be denying the power of God.
“b” is anti-scriptural because no man can know the mind of God.
“c” assumes that the scriptural record of the flood is complete.
I tend to believe that those apologists who come up with possible explanations for a universal flood are showing more faith because they are not putting limits on what God could or would do.
Scriptures have to be parsed and nuanced* carefully, therefore I allow the possibility that Genesis could be nuanced to indicate a local flood (ie, from Noah’s viewpoint, or in the scope of the inhabited world). I’m open to that possibility.
*(Example of parsing: one prophet tells Zedekiah he’s going to Babylon, and another prophet tells Zedekiah he won’t see Babylon. Zedekiah fails to parse the prophecies properly to understand how both will be true. Actually, you could say he failed to take the prophecies literally! An example of nuance is the Lord’s explanation of “eternal” in the D&C.)
But it looks to me like the opponents of the universal flood position are dismissing it as impossible, and not allowing even a remote possibility.
I prefer the side which appears to be more open-minded about and non-limiting of God’s power and possible intentions.
See Geoff’s approach is actually far more “faith promoting” than mine is. While he says that that part of the Bible is figurative, I simply say that it’s wrong to one extent or another.
It should also be mentioned that nobody is saying “God couldn’t have done X” but rather we are simply saing “X didn’t happen whatever the Bible may or may not say.”
Re: 24, 27, 37, 41…
Bookslinger #41 “Then I think that leaves one in the position of unwisely claiming what the Lord wouldn’t or couldn’t do.”
No it also doesn’t.
God can do whatever he wants, but if the overwhelming evidence doesn’t add up, then I tend to side with the evidence.
Sure it’s possible that God is changing the “evidence” to promote “faith” but if he’s out there trying to trick us, then frankly I’ll stick with science.
Jeffery,
Then your also implying that X didn’t happen regardless of what the Book of Moses says and any number of other passages that refer to the Flood which may or may not be derived from the Bible.
Sally #34 “Get Real!!”
I stand in awe at the irony of this statement. Specifically when used within the context of our discussion here.
Jeffrey Giliam said: “It should also be mentioned that nobody is saying ‘God couldn’t have done X’ but rather we are simply saing ‘X didn’t happen whatever the Bible may or may not say.'”
Are you comfortable saying that in the absolute, without a qualifier such as “I _believe_ X didn’t happen…” ?
I’m labeling my belief as belief. You’re labeling, or at least insinuating, your belief as fact.
Jeff Milner said: “Sure it’s possible that God is changing the evidence to promote faith but…”
Who says he’s changing evidence? There’s evidence, and there’s interpretation of evidence. It’s one thing to say “We find no evidence of a universal flood.” But that does not prove there wasn’t one.
Perhaps the evidence hasn’t been found, or it hasn’t been recognized, or it isn’t to be found. Or maybe wrong assumptions have been made as to what the evidence should be, or should look like.
I believe that there is no need to believe that “God changed the evidence” in order to believe in a universal flood.
We have no “demon observers” to tell us the immediate pre-flood and post-flood conditions, or with whom we could check our interpretations of evidence with actual past conditions.
A recent PBS show about the cataclysm caused by the breaking loose of the 1/2 mile thick “slushee” glacier really opened my eyes to the arrogance of some geologists who extrapolate backwards and try to authoritatively write ancient history based on currently extant evidence.
One “rogue” geologist posited that certain geological formations in North America were caused by a cataclysm as opposed to thousands of years of weathering. And then years after enough data points were discovered and analyzed, the other geologists finally accepted his theory.
If you want to side with “science” in this issue, then wouldn’t it be better to say “I _believe_ such- -and-such because evidence suggests such-and-such, and evidence tending to the contrary has not been found or generally accepted” ??
am I correct in understanding what you are saying? That which is in the Bible is false? I would hate to be standing in your shoes on Judgement Day..
“That which is in the Bible is false?”
Given that Rick is not Christian, that may very well be. At the same time, not everything in the Bible can be taken literally. For example, do you believe the parable of talents is literal?
Kim, I’m not taking sides in the larger argument, but to be completely fair to Sally, the parable of the talents is frankly presented as a mere story, whereas the account of the flood apparently purports to be a true history. So the reasons to believe in the flood account don’t apply to the parable of the talents.
Kim…you are NOT supposed to argue with your mother!