If the Garden of Eden was in or around Jackson County, Missouri, then the City of Enoch was also in that vicinity, and Noah lived in that region as well. The Bible says nothing about how widespread mankind was by Noah's era. Were they living in both North and South America? What about Africa, Asia and Europe? Australia and New Zealand? What did Noah know about people in parts of the earth that were thousands of miles away from him? Did he have airplanes and satellite communications that let him know the behavior of people on all parts of the earth? How exactly did people over the entire globe know enough about the Plan of Salvation to be held accountable in such a dire way for rejecting it? Most of the people of the world today are still so ignorant about Christ that they could hardly be condemned to death for disobedience to God's law. How many of Noah's contemporaries could be held accountable for rejecting his testimony, unless he preached to them in person? And how many of earth's people could he reach? I don't see any reason in Genesis to believe Noah circumnavigated the globe to preach to the wicked so they could be justly condemned to drown.I think the story of the Jaredites and their journey to the Americas is a conscious reflection of the Noah experience, in reverse. Their vessels were similar to his in design, and according to rabbinic tradition were lit the same way as Noah's ark, by shining stones. I think Noah's story is like that of the Jaredites, who sailed halfway around the world during a year voyage to leave the wicked behind. Noah did the same journey in reverse. Noah's horizon was much closer in size to the region where the Book of Mormon played out, or to the Middle East.You can "cover" the mountains with an inch of rainfall, without having to inundate the lowlands under a five mile deep ocean. The simile of "baptizing the earth" has to have limits. The earth was not immersed in a giant sphere of water. It has no nose to hold, no hands or feet, and no one held their right arm to the square and pronounced the baptismal prayer before plunging the whole earth under water. If anything, it was like a baptism by sprinkling. We should not get carried away with the simile. We al, have images in our minds that were created from paintings and storybooks and cartoons, as distinct from actually reading what Genesis says. I think it is far more likely that Noah's story is the story of how the lineage bearing the priesthood migrated over the oceans to the Old World, just as the stories of Jared and Lehi speak of similar voyages in the opposite direction, with destruction of the wicked but not their obliteration.
I am enjoying reading your scientist series and your informed in depth insights about the flood. To those who don't agree with you, perhaps reading The apostle Paul's discourse in 1 Corinthians would further serve to see your point of view. chapter 13:8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.
9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
It seems to me that if we are going to say that scientists since scientists discount a universal flood then there must not have been a universal flood then we should also say that the miracles attributed to Christ should also be discounted since they can't be explained by science either. Or we can acknowledge that the flood was a miracle and by definition miracles don't have a natural explanation that can be understood by scientific inquiry or evidence.Likewise, arguing that there isn't enough water on the earth to account for a universal flood is absurd. We are talking about a miracle performed by a God who has created millions of worlds. Are we seriously suggesting that he couldn't bring enough water to the earth to completely flood it and then remove it again? How did He do that? I don't know, if I did it wouldn't be very miraculous.
Here it is made clear:"During Noah
I agree, the world has been baptized. That entitles it to a complete immersion. Why do we try to trifle with it? The whole point of this remarkable event was the saving of the creatures and the removal of all humans, except for Noah's 8.
Hi, Rhonda. Thanks for your important questions. Let me respond in reverse order.The two most-often-cited scripture passages cited in support of a total immersion of the earth as part of a
I recomend You read the fAQ on the web page of the author where he addresses this question in detail.
I find it troubling how science seems to go out of their way to disagree with Biblical accounts. If the flood was a local flood, why didn't Noah and family just leave the area? If it was a local flood why did two of every animal have to be saved in a massive ark? If it was a local flood why were birds gathered if they just fly to dry ground or high trees? How could the earth be baptized in a partial flood? Would it really take a year before land was visible if it was a local flood in a desert?Let's not so easily agree with scientific conclusions that attempt to diminish the marvelous works and power of God.
As far as the authorship and correctness of Genesis goes, we have both a second witness and additional information to cross-reference with: the Books of Moses and Abraham. What of these?What, also, of the concept of the earth's baptism? Wouldn't that, by definition, be by complete immersion?
Email (will not be published)
Daily news, articles, videos and podcasts sent straight to your inbox.