Noah's flood

[non sequitur]

The story of Noah and flood, as well of most of the book of Genesis, is pure mythology. It is a story full of symbolism that teaches certain spiritual principles. It's silly to think that it's more than that. There is simply no way that a guy built a boat and put two of every species of animal on the earth on that boat. Come on people.

[ute4ever]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

The story of Noah and flood, as well of most of the book of Genesis, is pure mythology. It is a story full of symbolism that teaches certain spiritual principles.

But the city of Enoch being up and transported to another sector of the galaxy....that was real, right?

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by ute4ever

But the city of Enoch being up and transported to another sector of the galaxy....that was real, right?

Either that or they built a treehouse and called it even steven.

[myboynoah]

Literal flood covering the whole earth with all those animals in one big boat? Yeah, God is almighty and all, but given what we can observe, He must have been pretty busy right after the flood covering up the evidence and then stimulating species diversity (or going Jurassic Park with all that DNA He stored in the Ark--so who was the geneticist? Noah, Ham, Shem or Harpo? Certainly not Sourtherton!).

Localized event or symbolism? Yeah, but how do we explain the relocation of the human family from the New World (I suppose the family of Adam referred to it as the Old World back then) to the Old World where they alit on Mt. Ararat? Joseph Smith placing the Garden of Eden in Western Missouri takes one down a literalist path.

:?

[bluegoose]

I tend to agree with others that it is not possible for the flood of Noah to have been a literal occurance. Catastrophic event - not likely. Local event in the Fertile Crescent - perhaps. Primarily symbolic - more likely.

Here is an interesting read that I came across that discusses various aspects of the flood and the arc. I didn't have time to check any of his references or quotes, so I can only assume his data is accurate.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

One point that stood out recently. Someone previously mentioned Mt Everest and the Himalayas. What is Everest now - 29,000 feet (+/_)? IIRC, it grows approximately 4 mm per year. Going back the roughly 6,000 years to the time of the "flood", that would still only account for approximately 78 feet in elevation change at its peak. This is taking into consideration there were no major geological changes which may have occurred since that time.

How much water would be required to cover the earth in its entirety? Even taking into consideration all of the oceanic and subterranean water, I still can't fathom the concept.

This is a tough one to grasp for me and my feeble, semi-scientific mind. I wish that I had more answers to this and many of the other stories in the scriptures. Maybe next week we can tackle Moses and the parting of the Red Sea or some of the other plagues of Egypt...

[fuegote]

Why was this discussion based on how the earth looks today?

6000 years ago, many powerful earthquakes before, before the world split from pangea into the continents it is today....we don't know what the earth looked like back then as far as mountains, streams etc.

The flood can easily be looked at as literal under those circumstances, especially seeing hos a Tsunami and a Hurrican "flooded" cities and countries.

I"m still trying to figure out how 40 days of cow manure....yeah.

Doesn't the Brother of Jared make mention of the Ark and how the Ark traveled? http://scriptures.lds.org/ether/6/7#7

I would think it was more literal than symbolical, but there is an amazing amount of symbolism with it.

[Surfah]

Sure a localized flood would reconcile science, reason, and faith but I am pretty sure that the Church subscribes to the belief that the flood was a catastophic and cleansing of the earth type disaster. I remember vividly sitting in a Bio 130 class at the Y discussing this event when the Ensign was running its monthly spotlight on Old Testament patriarchs and the January issue had just printed an article on the flood and stated that the flood did in fact cover the entire earth. The teacher said that he didn't believe that the flood covered the world but was in fact localized as many of you have suggested. One student brought up the Ensign article and the teacher responded that he didn't believe it and then told the class that he wasn't a member of the church either. A collective groan and rolling of the eyes mixed with a few gasps erupted from the class. Needless to say the teacher seemed to lose any credibility and respect from the class from that point on. Sad really.

I do in fact believe that the flood was completely catastrophic and covered the entire earth. The animals I believe were led to the ark intuitively not because their minds were quickened as Skousen suggests, but perhaps because Noah had in his possession the garment made for him by the Lord in the Garden of Eden. The animals recognized this garment and were obedient to he who possessed it. This is why the garment was so desireable, passed down among the prophets, but also stolen by Ham, who then passed it along to his son Nimrod. Nimrod noted as a mighty hunter, mind you in the scriptures, but according to Jewish lore and belief was a mighty hunter who boasted of his skills. It is believed that no animal could escape his bow. A task made simple with the help of Adam's garment.

[fuegote]

*HIJACK* one of my favorite things about the scriptures is how the names of the antagonists just seem to fit:
Ammoron = A moron
Nimrod= such a nimrod...

i'm sorry, I had to say that.

[Rickomatic]

Why should we not believe that the earth was covered with water entirely? Hasn't it been said that that was the baptism of the earth and like any baptism, every part must be submerged?

[WaterCat]

http://ldsscience.blogspot.com/2005/11/noahs-flood.html