Question for bomgeography about the flood

[_tapirrider]

In a post you said "A localized flood is a completely viable scenario". That got me thinking about haplogroup x2a'j in Iran. How do you decide that it is evidence of a migration from the Near East to America instead of evidence that Noah and his family got off the ark in Turkey near the Iranian border? I ask because LDS teachings are that Adam through Noah was in America. How do you decide if they had haplogroup x or not? How do you decide that haplogroup x began in the Near East when the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint's doctrine is that mankind began in Missouri?

[_LittleNipper]

Yes, how does one? I'm not trying to be unsympathetic ---- I'm just emphasizing another marked difference between Mormon and Biblical concepts.

[_The CCC]

In a post you said "A localized flood is a completely viable scenario". That got me thinking about haplogroup x2a'j in Iran. How do you decide that it is evidence of a migration from the Near East to America instead of evidence that Noah and his family got off the ark in Turkey near the Iranian border? I ask because LDS teachings are that Adam through Noah was in America. How do you decide if they had haplogroup x or not? How do you decide that haplogroup x began in the Near East when the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint's doctrine is that mankind began in Missouri?

Assuming that's true. There are plenty of good LDS that don't believe that. We don't know how it all happened because of gentic bottlenecks, and the like.

[_The CCC]

Yes, how does one? I'm not trying to be unsympathetic ---- I'm just emphasizing another marked difference between Mormon and Biblical concepts.

The Bible won't help you there.

[_spotlight]

Assuming that's true. There are plenty of good LDS that don't believe that. We don't know how it all happened because of gentic bottlenecks, and the like.

There never was a genetic bottleneck of a family as small as that of Noah's from which we all sprang as I assume you already know and with which you agree.
Now just take Dr. Shades excellent observation about the promise god made to Noah after the flood to realize that only a global flood fits such a promise.

[_tapirrider]

Assuming that's true. There are plenty of good LDS that don't believe that. We don't know how it all happened because of gentic bottlenecks, and the like.

Bottlenecks aside and that we don't know how it all allegedly happened, I'm really just interested in why Dave claims that haplogroup x2a'j is evidence of a migration from the Near East to America when it can be just as easily claimed that it is evidence of Noah's family migrating from Missouri to the Near East.

[_The CCC]

Assuming that's true. There are plenty of good LDS that don't believe that. We don't know how it all happened because of gentic bottlenecks, and the like.

There never was a genetic bottleneck of a family as small as that of Noah's from which we all sprang as I assume you already know and with which you agree.
Now just take Dr. Shades excellent observation about the promise god made to Noah after the flood to realize that only a global flood fits such a promise.

That's why I said a local albeit regional flood meets the strict requirements. Later bottle-necks could have had a influence on descendents, as has been shown in other cases.

[_Maksutov]

CCC, why can't you let go of the flood? It's clearly a myth from earlier peoples that came to be incorporated in the Bible. Noah was originally Utnapishtim. Giving him a new name and changing some details doesn't obscure that fact.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utnapishtim

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilgamesh_flood_myth

Which Came First Noah or Ut-Napishtim?

http://www.religioustolerance.org/noah_com.htm

The Babylonian tablets which contain the full story of the flood have been dated circa 650 BCE. However, portions of the story have been found on tablets from about 2000 BCE. A study of the language used in the tablets indicates that the story originated much earlier than 2000 BCE. 3 Variations of the original story have been found translated into other ancient languages. 4

Many conservative Christians believe that the flood occurred circa 2349 BCE, and that the account in Genesis was written by Moses circa 1450 BCE, shortly before his death. 5,8 Thus, the Babylonian text must be a corrupted version based on a Paganized adaptation of the true story in Genesis. Alternatively, it might be an independent attempt at describing the world-wide flood.

Liberal theologians, noting the different names used to refer to God, and the different writing styles throughout the Pentateuch (first 5 books of the Hebrew Scriptures), believe that Genesis was assembled over a 4 century interval, circa 950 to 540 BCE by authors from a variety of Hebrew
traditions. 6

J and P seem to have based their stories on two original stories from Mesopotamian sources, perhaps based on a massive series of floods in Ur and surrounding areas circa 2800 BCE which would be perceived by the local population as being very extensive; perhaps world wide. Alternatively, it may have been based on the catastrophic flooding of the Black Sea.

.............

Regardless of the ultimate origins of the story, there is no evidence for a global flood and no convincing explanation for how the waters could rise and subside in the ways described. A local flood is hard to reconcile with the statements of Yahweh regarding his covenant and is also in contradiction to statements by LDS leaders.

[_spotlight]

That's why I said a local albeit regional flood meets the strict requirements. Later bottle-necks could have had a influence on descendents, as has been shown in other cases.

But local floods have destroyed lives since, violating the promise.

[_I have a question]

In a post you said "A localized flood is a completely viable scenario".

It is not a viable scenario for believing Latter-day Saints.

Noah lived at a time when people thought and did evil continually (see Genesis 6:5, 11), and God called him to be a preacher of righteousness to that wicked generation. When the people rejected his message, God commanded Noah to build an ark, gather animals, and prepare for a flood. Noah and his sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth, and their wives were the only people on the whole earth saved from the flood (see Genesis 6:13–22; 7:21-23; Moses 8:16–30). After the flood, God made covenants with Noah (see Genesis 9:8–17). Noah not only served as one of God’s prophets but was also a ministering angel after he died and brought heavenly messages before the birth of Christ and during the Restoration (see Luke 1:19, 26; D&C 128:21).

https://www.LDS.org/topics/noah?lang=eng

Not everyone throughout the modern world, however, accepts the story of Noah and the Flood. Many totally disbelieve the story, seeing it as a simple myth or fiction. Typical of some modern scholars, one author recently discounted the events of the Flood by using such terms as “implausible,” “unacceptable,” and “impossible”; he stated that believers who would hope to provide geologic or other evidence regarding the historicity of the Flood “can be given no assurance that their effort, however sustained, will be successful.” 1 Another author titled his book The Noah’s Ark Nonsense, 2 revealing his disbelief that the Flood actually took place.

Still other people accept parts of the Flood story, acknowledging that there may have been a local, charismatic preacher, such as Noah, and a localized flood that covered only a specific area of the world, such as the region of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers or perhaps even the whole of Mesopotamia. Yet these people do not believe in a worldwide or global flood. Both of these groups—those who totally deny the historicity of Noah and the Flood and those who accept parts of the story—are persuaded in their disbelief by the way they interpret modern science. They rely upon geological considerations and theories that postulate it would be impossible for a flood to cover earth’s highest mountains, that the geologic evidence (primarily in the fields of stratigraphy and sedimentation) does not indicate a worldwide flood occurred any time during the earth’s existence.

There is a third group of people—those who accept the literal message of the Bible regarding Noah, the ark, and the Deluge. Latter-day Saints belong to this group. 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. We are assured that these events actually occurred by the multiple testimonies of God’s prophets.

https://www.LDS.org/ensign/1998/01/the-flood-and-the-tower-of-babel?lang=eng