bcspace wrote:I personally accept a local Flood since I accept direct scientific evidence that there has been no global flood in the time period specified. I don't believe a local flood in the face of doctrine is catastrophic to the Church. There is no direct revelation on the subject, just tradition passed down. So I don't believe it's unreasonable for the Church to stick with traditional Christianity on this one until there is further revelation.
So despite numerous official sources (recognized by your own admission) on a global flood, you personally reject that idea?
Interesting.
It is better to be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener at war.
Some of us, on the other hand, actually prefer a religion that includes some type of correlation with reality. ~Bill Hamblin
bcspace wrote:Yes. A global flood and the baptism of the earth is published by the Church in it's own manuals. It is official doctrine as long as there is nothing of later date to change it and I'm quite certain such does not exist.
I personally accept a local Flood since I accept direct scientific evidence that there has been no global flood in the time period specified. I don't believe a local flood in the face of doctrine is catastrophic to the Church. There is no direct revelation on the subject, just tradition passed down. So I don't believe it's unreasonable for the Church to stick with traditional Christianity on this one until there is further revelation.
My emphasis.
BC, please define what you mean by "no direct revelation." Old Testament and Book of Abraham prophets didn't receive and scribe direct revelation? You consider said scripture to be "just tradition passed down"?