Rainbows

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

haven't read your whole post yet, but I did read the following comment:

Also consider that in Genesis 7:4, God does not need to explain to Noah the concept of rain.

To say that Noah only understood what God explicitly spelled out is really really out of touch which much of scripture where people declared godly facts without them being explicitly spelled out to them.

Even within my own testimony of my conversion, the only explicit words God spoke to me were, "Yes, that is the reason why, now go and tell them the truth."  But he revealed in that instant magnitudes more to my spirit than what he explicitly stated to me (e.g. I understood Jesus was alive, I understood I was forgiven, I understood I had been exhaulted above both the physical and spiritual universal, I understood that I had died to this world, etc, etc, etc....).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, basically, you claim that you were given information about the Bible by God before you'd read it.  OK, that's an answer to the question.

not exactly...

I read a very small part of bible - 2.5 to 3.5 chapters>>>God opened my eyes to believe>>>>I believed and received the Holy Spirit>>>God gave me many experiences/revelations I had no prior knowledge of>>>>through later reading, I would find examples of those exact same experiences in the bible along with the bible's explanation of them.

Even the fact that those filled with the Holy Spirit can be given experiences and knowledge they have not previously learned is also prophesied:

Isa 52:14 14 Just as there were many who were appalled at him —
       his appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any man
       and his form marred beyond human likeness—
 15 so will he sprinkle many nations,
       and kings will shut their mouths because of him.
       For what they were not told, they will see,
       and what they have not heard, they will understand.

So, just like in my testimony, Noah gleaned much more info from God than what was explicitly stated by God.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

The phenomenon of rain falling from the sky is hardly a spiritual one that is incapable of being comprehended by the physical senses.  (An explanation of why it happens would be, but that isn't a factor here.)

granted my examples were of the non-explicit revelation of spiritual truths, but there are plenty examples in the OT of God providing and imparting both spiritual and physical knowledge in order to equip the faithful to suceed in their God given commission.

---

 In any case Genesis 7:4 is certainly not the only reference in Genesis that one can use to infer that rain did fall from the sky before the flood according to a literal interpretation.

Well, I didn’t find your “there must be rain in order for Cain to till the soil” argument convincing since the bible explicitly states the plants were watered by a different hydrologic cycle.  And nothing in the scripture precludes Cain from using irrigation.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Given the complete lack of evidence for the Noah story, I think it's far more sensible to just not believe it. There's no good reason to believe that the way things worked, either in physics or biology, suddenly changed due to the intervention of some supernatural being.

1)  there is no need to force the advent of the refraction of light to make the Genesis story work, as assumed by this thread's premise.
2) the bible explicitly mentions biological changes (e.g. God explicitly redefining the upper limits of old age)
3) since God defined the physical laws, nothing precludes God from changing the age limits of mankind

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Is it scientifically possible to rain for 40 days and nights in a row?

no, but neither it is "scientifically possible" to create a universal out of nothing or even rise from the dead after three days

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Given the complete lack of evidence for the Noah story, I think it's far more sensible to just not believe it. There's no good reason to believe that the way things worked, either in physics or biology, suddenly changed due to the intervention of some supernatural being.

1)  there is no need to force the advent of the refraction of light to make the Genesis story work, as assumed by this thread's premise.
2) the bible explicitly mentions biological changes (e.g. God explicitly redefining the upper limits of old age)
3) since God defined the physical laws, nothing precludes God from changing the age limits of mankind

Ok... so what? What exactly about that provides actual evidence?

the point wasn't that it provides evidence for (since no claim in the scripture is made for such evidence), rather that lack of evidence is not in itself an argument against

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Is it scientifically possible to rain for 40 days and nights in a row?

no, but neither it is "scientifically possible" to create a universal out of nothing or even rise from the dead after three days

Indeed.

my point was that God is not limited to what is "scientifically possible"

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

3) since God defined the physical laws, nothing precludes God from changing the age limits of mankind

Indeed, he did so both up and down if one treats the entirety of Genesis as the literal truth.  Genesis 6:3 has God limiting the human lifespan to 120 years before the flood even happened.  Yet according to Genesis 11, all eight of the ancestors between Shem and Abram lived longer than that, most of them much longer.  (Only Abram's grandfather, Nahor, lived less than 200 years.) So did Abram, and his sons Isaac and Ishmael, and his grandson Jacob.  (Rabbinic tradition also accords lives slightly longer than 120 years to several of Jacob's sons.)

No, he did NOT ramp the ages both up and down, if you’ll take the time to notice, you’ll see the upper age limit of men within the generations started to ramp down after God proclaimed a limit of 120 years:   Noah 950…   Eber 464…. Peleg 239… Serug 230… Terah 205… Isaac 180 …Jacob 147 ... Amram 137… Jehoiada 130…

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

So God grew impatient with His plan to gradually limit the lifespan of man to 120 years and decided to go for a quick fix with the flood instead of instituting a quick reduction in the lifespan?

no, BOTH were implemented - the flood came AND the lifespan of men was limited to 120 years.  

Why do I need to explain this to you, it's all contained in Gen ch 6?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

My inclination on the subject of bizarre biblical ages is that its meaning has been corrupted over the millennia.  Perhaps mistranslations and glossing-over resulted in our conception of "years" mixing with some other conception of time (it could be 950 cycles of the moon, after all), or the ages imply some sort of numerology that we have long lost the cultural knowledge to interpret.

Generally I assume a universe that is rationally consistent as much as possible; it is God's blessing to man to be able to understand the world around us. 

hate to shake you up, but the NT accepts the ages of people and timeline of events as mentioned mentioned in Genesis and Exodus.  So, if Jews 2000 years ago accepted it as literal, then so do I.

Also, since Genesis itself confronts and deals with the advanced age issue by mentioning God limiting the years to 120, we know it aint referring to moon cycles, which are dealt with separately in the Law of Moses.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

And anticipating a question from jmfcst, when I say that inerrancy does not require literalism, I mean that the spiritual message contained in Genesis is equally inerrant whether one holds the book to be a literal recounting of the events that occurred prior to Moses, or a compilation of creation myth and imperfectly recalled oral history.

well, seeing that, from a historical perspective, the NT treats Genesis as literal, your point is neither here nor there.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

My inclination on the subject of bizarre biblical ages is that its meaning has been corrupted over the millennia.  Perhaps mistranslations and glossing-over resulted in our conception of "years" mixing with some other conception of time (it could be 950 cycles of the moon, after all), or the ages imply some sort of numerology that we have long lost the cultural knowledge to interpret.

Generally I assume a universe that is rationally consistent as much as possible; it is God's blessing to man to be able to understand the world around us.  

hate to shake you up, but the NT accepts the ages of people and timeline of events as mentioned mentioned in Genesis and Exodus.  So, if Jews 2000 years ago accepted it as literal, then so do I.

Also, since Genesis itself confronts and deals with the advanced age issue by mentioning God limiting the years to 120, we know it aint referring to moon cycles, which are dealt with separately in the Law of Moses.

Quite a bit of historical evolution occurred before the turn of the millennia, so I would disagree with this statement.

Genesis 6:3 is a strange verse to me; it would seem to imply by some translations that men do not possess immortals souls.  I would imagine its some sort of pagan relic.

not sure what "historical evolution" you're referring to, but it is clear the rest of the bible, including the NT, treats Genesis as literal.  And since I allow the scripture to interpret itself, I accept the scriptures interpretation of Genesis.

So, to me, this whole thread either:
1) distorts what is actually written (e.g. God must have instituted the refraction of light at the flood), or
2) attempts to trump scripture's own interpretation of itself, in which case I am going to side with the scritpure's own interpretation each and every time.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Well, quite simply, I don't accept the autointerpretability of the scriptures.

because you rather give it your own meaning?  why not simply write your own book?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

So, to me, this whole thread either:
1) distorts what is actually written (e.g. God must have instituted the refraction of light at the flood), or
2) attempts to trump scripture's own interpretation of itself, in which case I am going to side with the scripture's own interpretation each and every time.

The point of this thread when I started it was that having rainbows being around only since the flood requires massive changes in how the universe works occurring at that time.  A literalist interpretation of Genesis requires one to believe in a God who actively acts to encourage disbelief in Himself.  Even if I thought that to be a plausible notion, I find no evidence in the Bible that God has ever sought to discourage belief in Himself.

1)    it does NOT require in change in how the universe works, rather it simply requires a change to the hydrologic cycle, which the bible explicitly states.
2)   Jesus and the Apostles took the account of the Flood literally, as does the rest of the bible, therefore so do I.
3)   Proverbs 25:2 “It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, to search out a matter is the glory of kings.” And Mat 18:6 “every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.” – therefore, I allow God to be God and simply accept the witnesses of God for things I cannot trace.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

There's a problem with your interpretation.

The rainbow effect can be seen, albeit in not such a grand scale as when it is occurs as a result of rain, by spraying water in sunlight.  Said sprays could come from waves or waterfalls as well as by the action of man.  Are you going to argue that man was never able to observe these phenomena before the flood?  However you likely will argue that no such observation was ever made.

God wasn't referring to rainbows seen in other ways (spray, waterfalls, etc), rather he referred to the rainbows from rain:

Gen 9"13 "I have set my rainbow in the clouds"

---

  Just as you likely will refuse to acknowledge that in a literal reading of Genesis, that God admits in Genesis 3:22 that he is not omnipotent.

again, you're taking it out of context - knowledge of good and evil - it had nothing to do with be omnipotent

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Wrong tree.  According to Genesis 3:22, had man sampled the fruit of the tree of life he would have been immortal, no matter what God wished.  Of course, one has to wonder why God left those trees about.  One might even think (as some Gnostics did) that God intended for man to fall.

eating from the tree of life has nothing to do with omnipotent, rather it has to do with living forever

“The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”

the tree of life comes back into the picture in Revelation:

Revelation 2:7 Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To the one who is victorious, I will give the right to eat from the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God.

Revelation 22:2 down the middle of the great street of the city. On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations.

Revelation 22:14 “Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city.

Revelation 22:19 And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.

Obviously, the people in the eternal state in Revelation are not omnipotent

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

That's not how I read the passage in Genesis 2.  As I read the sequence in Genesis 2:5-8

1. We have an explanation that plants are not yet growing for there is no rain for them nor anyone to tend them.
2. Yahweh causes a mist to rise out of the ground and to moisten it in preparation for the making of man.
3. Yahweh creates man.
4. Yahweh takes man to Eden where He has prepared a garden.
5. Yahweh causes the plants there to begin to grow.  I.e., He fulfills the conditions established for that to happen: he has brought man to tend the garden and [/b]he sends rain to water the plants.[/b]
 

I bolded the error you’ve made, for it is explicit stated:

Gen 2:10 “A river flowed out of Eden to water the garden”

So, it was not rain that watered the garden, but rain, for there is no mention of it raining.  Rather the mist that came up from the ground that watered the whole face of the earth, along with the rivers, are the only two forms mentioned to water the ground.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Except that the place the mist came up was not Eden alone according to Genesis 2:6, therefore there is no reason to believe that the Earth was watered pre-flood solely by the rivers originating from the ground in Eden. Indeed that the mist watered ground used to form man was outside Eden is indicated by Genesis 2:8, since that verse has Yahweh placing man in Eden after his creation.

1) never said the mist came up only in Eden, rather it said the mist watered the whole earth.
2) never said the Earth was watered solely by the rivers, and mist watering the whole earth does NOT preclude watering also from rivers

---

At most Genesis 2:10 might be used to support the idea that rain fell only in Eden.  Indeed, given the history of the ancient Hebrews and the deserts where they lived, a place with abundant and plentiful rain would have seemed as an Eden to them.

Nothing in Gen ch 2 can be used to support rain falling anywhere on earth, much less Eden, since it was explicitly stated garden in Eden was watered by a river.  Your interpretation is just one long continuous hack.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I don't see how anyone can read Genesis 2:5 and not take it that from the beginning it was intended that rain provided the water for plants, but obviously you do.

actually, it was stated that rain had not yet fallen but rather mists and streams watered the ground.  and I would be willing to guess my interpretation is far more accepted than yours, as usual

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

eating from the tree of life has nothing to do with omnipotent, rather it has to do with living forever

I wasn't referring to man's omnipotence (which he does not and never will have), but God's.  According to a literal reading of Genesis 3:22, God would have been unable to revoke man's immortality had man eaten of the tree of life.

wow, now that wasn't very thought out, for the tree of life reappears in Revelation...so when those in eternal state have eaten from the tree of life and have been given eternal life, does God lose his omnipotence simply because the faithful are given eternal life?!

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

eating from the tree of life has nothing to do with omnipotent, rather it has to do with living forever

I wasn't referring to man's omnipotence (which he does not and never will have), but God's.  According to a literal reading of Genesis 3:22, God would have been unable to revoke man's immortality had man eaten of the tree of life.

wow, now that wasn't very thought out, for the tree of life reappears in Revelation...so when those in eternal state have eaten from the tree of life and have been given eternal life, does God lose his omnipotence simply because the faithful are given eternal life?!

The implication being given is that according to that reading he does not have omnipotence in the first place. If he's unable to take away the eternal life from someone who's eaten from the tree, then he's not actually omnipotent by virtue of having something he is unable to do. That's not to say it implies he's not powerful, just not all-powerful.

only with those like you and Ernest are God's faithful promises seen as a weakness.