>If it had been preserved by oral history for
>several million years, people who migrated to other places would take it
>with them, and it certainly seems plausible then that the neighbors of the
>Jews would have similar flood legends.>>
>
Jim Bell responded
>This is the alternative hypothesis, which requires oral tradition over 5
>million years ago. Clearly, there is no evidence for this.
You would be on firmer ground if you said, "No evidence has been found to
support this." Admittedly, finding such evidence could be extremely
difficult even if the scenario were true. I would suggest that those who
want to investigate the plausibility (or lack thereof) of Glenn's scenario
would be more likely to learn something significant by studying drilling
cores from the Mediterranean than by trying to determine how long oral
traditions could be propagated.
>
>And it is not just "neighbors," but China, Mexico, etc. which have Noahtic
>sounding stories.
"Neighbors" can walk great distances in 5 million years :-).
>
>That leaves special revelation. "Dream warnings," as I've explained, are not
>oracle revelation.
They're certainly different from special revelation, and most if not all
the cases I know about from Scripture are instances if God reaching in to
tell one individual what he or his family must or must not do at a
particular juncture, rather than relating God's plan for an entire people.
Is it possible, however, that God preserves some knowledge of history in
all people for the purpose of giving them a base from which to understand
the Gospel when it is presented? I guess I'm saying that the flood account
could somehow arise through general revelation. That's probably off the
wall, so I won't try to defend it :-).
>
><<The problem with LDS is that they manufactured doctrine regarding the
>nature of God that has no foundation in Scripture. >>
>
>It is NOT "manufactured doctrine" if you believe in non-Scriptural revelation!
>That's the point. For them, God made a special, Scriptural revelation to the
>"lost sheep" over here in North America.
I don't believe in non-Scriptural revelation of the plan of salvation. I
do believe, as I presume you do, that there are other sources of
information that purports to be revelation. Satan seems pretty good at
cooking up false religions. And what he "reveals" to those who listen to
him isn't total nonsense. Any good con man knows that a story can be made
far more plausible by starting with a core of truth. I suppose it's
possible that the flood accounts from other cultures were indeed part of a
"revelation" from Satan. Why would he do such a thing? To establish
himself as a source of revelation with a story that was plausible based on
what other ancient cultures knew to be true from God's revelation.
I would be remiss if I didn't add that so far as I know, no archaeological
evidence has been found to support the claims made in the Book of Mormon,
while the Old and New Testaments both appear to be quite accurate where
archaeological corroboration is possible.
>
>If you allow for God's special revelation to other cultures, then how are you
>going to limit it? Who are you to decide that the Koran or the Book of Mormon
>are not "special revelation"?
If I accept the Bible as God's revelation -- I do -- and another book, like
the Koran, contradicts it -- it does -- I have a sound basis for rejecting
it. Come Jim, we have the Scriptures and -- what makes it all work -- the
witness of the Holy Spirit.
>
>You and Glenn are opening a dangerous door. You may seek to say it only goes
>"so far." But it will blow open and flatten your noses.
>
I'm inclined to agree -- at least when the so-called revelation deals with
the attributes of God, his plan for men, salvation and the like. I'm not
convinced that we can totally rule out some sort of general revelation
about history.
Bill Hamilton | Vehicle Systems Research
GM R&D Center | Warren, MI 48090-9055
810 986 1474 (voice) | 810 986 3003 (FAX)
hamilton@gmr.com (office) | whamilto@mich.com (home)