Noahs Ark

[Autodidact]

sandy: Please stop addressing me. I'm not interested in talking with you.

 

[Evandr]

Well I'm unclear whether you are interesting in disputing any further. My question would be, in figuring this out, what role will science play for you, and what role personal revelation? What role Mormon doctrine or prophetic revelation? What do you do when the latter two differ sharply from the first? To what extent is science a useful tool to learn about the natural world?

I believe that science is most definitely a useful tool but so is a belief in God and personal revelation very useful. Revelation defines what is important and what is merely interesting and that includes considerations in science.

I never said that I had no faith in science, it is logical thinking that caused my last post because I was introduced to ideas and thoughts I had never considered. That does not mean that my faith in my religion has been shaken, quite the contrary, reconsidering the flood story and the particulars thereof only serves to strengthen it because such reconsiderations can be made without having to reconsider the gospel or even the overall concept of the story and/or its intent. It's a good feeling to add another part to a puzzle that is still making perfect sense even though that part added was a point of interest and not a critical point of the Gospel. The flood story needs to be taught to children and leaving out nuances of information that leaves the point of the story in tact is simply good teaching. As has happened today – the particulars can be added when the mind of the receiver is capable of digesting the information. Sometimes that happens a lot later than necessary.

When all is said and done I believe that science and God will be in perfect harmony. I simply believe that science, although having put together a great deal that is true and on a good foundation, is currently lacking in the knowledge and understanding that is capable of being had and the intellect of God is not, therefore I deem it wiser to follow my belief in God, experience all the wonderful personal growth, feelings of peace and contentment, and, yes, even personal revelation that most certainly does accompany it.

I was not always a religious person, there is a large part of my life wherein I was not religious (I have always believed in God), much like an atheist, so I know the cold, empty, and uncertain feelings that can accompany such ignorance (no insult intended). My understanding and devotion to God has given to me a startling contrast to such emptiness. If for no other reason that should be enough for someone to embrace the concept of God.

In short: From the beginning to the end there is a story line, God sees it all and provides those who seek after His face with that which is important for them to comprehend during their mortal probation. Science reveals much about the earth I live on during my mortal probation. They are both part of the same story line, a story line that is not invalidated because certain unconnected parts of it seem to contradict each other. As I said, in the end when all the voids of the story line are filled we will see that science and God are in perfect harmony, indeed, we will see that God created the classroom and we are but students trying to graduate to much bigger and better things.

 

[Autodidact]

I believe that science is most definitely a useful tool but so is a belief in God and personal revelation very useful. Revelation defines what is important and what is merely interesting and that includes considerations in science.

I never said that I had no faith in science, it is logical thinking that caused my last post because I was introduced to ideas and thoughts I had never considered. That does not mean that my faith in my religion has been shaken, quite the contrary, reconsidering the flood story and the particulars thereof only serves to strengthen it because such reconsiderations can be made without having to reconsider the gospel or even the overall concept of the story and/or its intent. It's a good feeling to add another part to a puzzle that is still making perfect sense even though that part added was a point of interest and not a critical point of the Gospel. The flood story needs to be taught to children and leaving out nuances of information that leaves the point of the story in tact is simply good teaching. As has happened today – the particulars can be added when the mind of the receiver is capable of digesting the information. Sometimes that happens a lot later than necessary.

When all is said and done I believe that science and God will be in perfect harmony. I simply believe that science, although having put together a great deal that is true and on a good foundation, is currently lacking in the knowledge and understanding that is capable of being had and the intellect of God is not, therefore I deem it wiser to follow my belief in God, experience all the wonderful personal growth, feelings of peace and contentment, and, yes, even personal revelation that most certainly does accompany it.

I was not always a religious person, there is a large part of my life wherein I was not religious (I have always believed in God), much like an atheist, so I know the cold, empty, and uncertain feelings that can accompany such ignorance (no insult intended). My understanding and devotion to God has given to me a startling contrast to such emptiness. If for no other reason that should be enough for someone to embrace the concept of God.

In short: From the beginning to the end there is a story line, God sees it all and provides those who seek after His face with that which is important for them to comprehend during their mortal probation. Science reveals much about the earth I live on during my mortal probation. They are both part of the same story line, a story line that is not invalidated because certain unconnected parts of it seem to contradict each other. As I said, in the end when all the voids of the story line are filled we will see that science and God are in perfect harmony, indeed, we will see that God created the classroom and we are but students trying to graduate to much bigger and better things.

O.K. well this thread is not about your religious faith and no one is asking you to question it. Those issues are outside the scope of this thread. This one is about a hypothetical global flood and whether there ever was one.

We agreed, IIRC, that what the Bible describes is contradicted by science. Also you assert that "personal revelation," whether yours or others, is contradicted by science. So my question to you is, if the consensus of every branch of science that has studied the issue is that there has never been a flood, and the combination of the Bible and personal revelation says there was, which do you believe?

You assert that they will ultimately be in harmony. How? When they are not in harmony, which one should change?

And would you please stop talking about your religious beliefs that are not related to the subject of this thread, which is whether there has ever been a global flood?

 

[misanthropic_clown]

Well, I guess I would be one other Mormon who has no qualms dismissing the global flood concept as either entirely metaphorical, or an actual event which occurred on a much smaller scale and became embellished over time. For me it is usually science FTW.

But there are plenty of Mormons who would disagree, including many high up in the church. I can't say it gets discussed altogether that much, it is not particularly integral to the church either way.

 

[Evandr]

O.K. well this thread is not about your religious faith and no one is asking you to question it. Those issues are outside the scope of this thread. This one is about a hypothetical global flood and whether there ever was one.

We agreed, IIRC, that what the Bible describes is contradicted by science. Also you assert that "personal revelation," whether yours or others, is contradicted by science. So my question to you is, if the consensus of every branch of science that has studied the issue is that there has never been a flood, and the combination of the Bible and personal revelation says there was, which do you believe?

You assert that they will ultimately be in harmony. How? When they are not in harmony, which one should change?

And would you please stop talking about your religious beliefs that are not related to the subject of this thread, which is whether there has ever been a global flood?

Well, if you are going to insist that any argument exclude personal religious beliefs and demand that only facts born of mortal scientific foundations be considered than you win. The flood never happened, the whole thing was just a whimsical story that has survived thousands of years waiting to be disproved by you and yours. Harmony cannot be achieved between two apparent contradictions if you say it cannot because, after all, science has all the answers.

Good Luck with that - your going to need it

 

[Autodidact]

Evandr: Have you personally received revelation on this point, or are you relying on someone else's? If so, whose?

 

[Evandr]

Evandr: Have you personally received revelation on this point, or are you relying on someone else's? If so, whose?

Not on this point exactly, that is why I was pleased at the link you provided. Personal revelations are few and far between and only come when necessary unless you want to call the promptings of the Holy Ghost personal revelations. Technically they are the same but they should not be called revelation because that can be blown out of proportion. I am LDS and I will go with the prophet because, long ago, personal revelation has indicated to me that I am on the right path. I pray a lot, I get answers to my prayers in divers’ ways but they are always recognizable. Another thing that is recognizable is promptings of the spirit.

I cannot speak for you or anybody else, only myself. I believe that in the end it is the individual who will answer for themselves and what someone else said of did not say will have no bearing on it unless that person was appointed to tell you something and you simply did not listen. I am not that person so appointed.

In fine, yes, I do often rely on other people much smarter than me and who I believe have been appointed to give me direction. In fact, I believe it is a fool who relies solely on their own understanding to guide them through mortality.

 

[Autodidact]

Not on this point exactly, that is why I was pleased at the link you provided. Personal revelations are few and far between and only come when necessary unless you want to call the promptings of the Holy Ghost personal revelations. Technically they are the same but they should not be called revelation because that can be blown out of proportion. I am LDS and I will go with the prophet because, long ago, personal revelation has indicated to me that I am on the right path. I pray a lot, I get answers to my prayers in divers’ ways but they are always recognizable. Another thing that is recognizable is promptings of the spirit.

I cannot speak for you or anybody else, only myself. I believe that in the end it is the individual who will answer for themselves and what someone else said of did not say will have no bearing on it unless that person was appointed to tell you something and you simply did not listen. I am not that person so appointed.

In fine, yes, I do often rely on other people much smarter than me and who I believe have been appointed to give me direction. In fact, I believe it is a fool who relies solely on their own understanding to guide them through mortality.

What prophet? Who has received what revelation about this purported flood?

 

[Autodidact]

Well, if you are going to insist that any argument exclude personal religious beliefs and demand that only facts born of mortal scientific foundations be considered than you win. The flood never happened, the whole thing was just a whimsical story that has survived thousands of years waiting to be disproved by you and yours.

O.K. My work is done.

Harmony cannot be achieved between two apparent contradictions if you say it cannot because, after all, science has all the answers.

Who said that science has all the answers? I do think, though, that it is the best way to learn about the natural world. Do you disagree?

Good Luck with that - your going to need it

Good luck with what? Using science to learn about the natural world? It's working pretty well so far, don't you think?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Wow, how screwed up is this.

No...not at all but I'll let you continue...

I'll try and make as clear and as simple as possible. All verses are from the KJV.

Will you be defining words for us or simply relying on the KJV.....Which version of the KJV will you be using...?

" In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Gen1:1 That happened on the first day (Gen 1:5).
There was no space which is the firmament and which is what we call the universe space and it's contents. This was created on the 2nd day,

So if we are to understand...your understanding and what your bible is saying...The earth was created BEFORE the Universe. Is this your position?.....

It's without a doubt they believed the earth was the center of the universe. This view stayed that way into the early 1500s (AD). So if you stand by the biblical claim the earth was created before the universe then you don't do your posting any justice.

And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day." Gen 1:6-8

How do we know this was space."And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

What "lights" are you referring to? What lights are in the firmament that will give light upon the earth? That we know of, there is but one light source from a star that can do this. All other stars are too far away. What is the "them"? The moon has no light nor does it produce light.

And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth..." Gen 1:14-17

So your god is just getting around to making the stars and placing them in the firmament? If this is the case then what light was created on the first day in verses 3,4 and 5? Mind you...as you assert, the whole of the universe, with the exception of earth which is (INSIDE the universe) didn't come into existence until verse eight, the second day and it wasn't until the fourth day when your god created the sun and the stars. Here's a small tidbit of info for you. The sun is a star.

From these verses it is obvious that at the end of the first day the universe was not as we know it, which I stated, that the firmament (space) separated the waters from above (Heaven) from the waters below Earth (which I have to presume that included the sky since there is no reference to it's separate creation yet it appears in verse 21 as "the open firmament of heaven."

.......

The waters for the flood did not come from earth the came from the waters that were above the firmament (Gen 7:11).

Your very own apologist say no.
The Water Vapor Canopy Theory: Why the Bible (And Science) Says It is False

I think your misperception come from using Bible dictionaries instead of the Bible.

And in your case using the bible serves you no purpose if you lack an understanding of the text. If you're unfamiliar with the culture and limited scientific knowledge of the people.....so then your arguments become weak. Trying to use the bible to prove the claims of the bible is futile. As you admit, trying to reconcile the bible with the natural world is difficult and in some cases (The flood narrative) impossible. The ancient peoples understanding of the order of the universe and earth and how they came into existence was deficient. We know so much more now then we knew in those days.

They have the earth, the universe and earth's living creatures/organisms all being created in a most peculiar way (earth being created before the universe, thick layer of water above the earth, light being created before the sun or any other stars, creatures and plants being created before the sun - which we know is vital to plant life)...not at all how they are understood to have come into existence today.

 

[freethinker44]

Good luck with what? Using science to learn about the natural world? It's working pretty well so far, don't you think?

Science is the process of gathering knowledge, so it will always work well to explain anything. Even if it is wrong about something it corrects itself or ammends a theory when new facts are discovered.

 

[darkendless]

Why do you need science to debunk this garbage about Noah's Ark? Common sense should prevail. However, as we know, christians are really known for their ability to think for themselves :|

 

[Evandr]

What prophet? Who has received what revelation about this purported flood?

When I buy a car it is called by a maker and a model name. Although I will look at it with a discerning eye I must take some things on faith by the make and model. When considering the Gospel of Jesus Christ the flood issue is a very minor concern, I will take it on faith, adding to my learning as I go like I have here, because it is attached to much greater things, things important to be considered when speaking of God.

The flood is not a point needing revelation; evidently it is an issue whereupon it is appropriate to have different viewpoints. Nothing about the Gospel will change because of such differences - in the end the complete story will be made manifest to those wishing to dwell on it for a time and then science and God will be seen in harmony.

As for what prophet, I speak of the current prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, namely Thomas S. Monson. Don't ask me how I know that, I just do and for you to posses such revelation you will have to seek after it yourself.

Incidentally, the LDS church is the only successful religion that makes such a claim and is still around after nearly 180 years, the length of this, the last dispensation.

Forgive me if I sound as one proselytizing but you did ask a very specific question.

 

[Autodidact]

When I buy a car it is called by a maker and a model name. Although I will look at it with a discerning eye I must take some things on faith by the make and model. When considering the Gospel of Jesus Christ the flood issue is a very minor concern, I will take it on faith, adding to my learning as I go like I have here, because it is attached to much greater things, things important to be considered when speaking of God.

O.K., it's not important to you. Then don't post. The question isn't whether it's important to you, but whether it happened or not.

The flood is not a point needing revelation; evidently it is an issue whereupon it is appropriate to have different viewpoints.

That's funny. I could have sworn that you said you believed there was a flood because of personal revelation. I know I didn't bring it up.

Nothing about the Gospel will change because of such differences - in the end the complete story will be made manifest to those wishing to dwell on it for a time and then science and God will be seen in harmony.

Fine, who cares, that's not the issue. We're not arguing about what effect the non-occurrence of the flood has on your religious beliefs. We're just trying to establish whether it happened or not.

As for what prophet, I speak of the current prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, namely Thomas S. Monson. Don't ask me how I know that, I just do and for you to posses such revelation you will have to seek after it yourself.

So you're saying that Thomas Monson had a personal revelation that Noah's flood actually happened?

Incidentally, the LDS church is the only successful religion that makes such a claim and is still around after nearly 180 years, the length of this, the last dispensation.

What on earth are you blathering on about? This thread is about the flood, not the LDS church.

Forgive me if I sound as one proselytizing but you did ask a very specific question.

Yeah, which has nothing to do with your answer.

 

[Autodidact]

As for what prophet, I speak of the current prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, namely Thomas S. Monson. Don't ask me how I know that, I just do and for you to posses such revelation you will have to seek after it yourself.

Sorry, you're just an anonymous poster on the internet. There's no reason whatsoever I should accept your word that you "know" something, especially given your lousy track record in this thread. Do you have a source for your assertion?

 

[Autodidact]

Here's another long thoughtful Mormon article rejecting the literal flood. Do you think all of these scholars are rejecting Monson's revelation?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

sandy: Please stop addressing me. I'm not interested in talking with you.

Yet you persist. :hug:

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Yet you persist.

She's asked politely ...

 

[sandy whitelinger]

She's asked politely ...

Wow, lessons in politness coming from you...whoda thunk it?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

She asked politely. You'll do what you'll do.