Rainbows

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The rainbow has a most wondrous appearance that has caused it to make an appearance in a wide variety of religions and folklores.  To the Norse, the rainbow was the Bifrost Bridge linking Asgard (Heaven) to Midgard (Earth), a theme shared by many other religions.  In the Book of Genesis and The Epic of Gilgamesh it is a sign from a diety that he (Yahweh) or she (Ishtar) will see to it that a flood will not be used again as a means of pest (i.e., human) control.

From the standpoint of our modern understanding of optics, rainbows being instituted after a world-wide catastrophic flood is difficult to accept on a literal level.  Not because it requires a change in the laws of physics to have taken place.  After all, if one stipulates that there is an omnipotent deity, then the laws of physics are stable only so long as the deity calls for that.  Rather it is because such a change affecting only the one phenomenon is a stretch.

Let us consider the possible ways such a change could have been accomplished without requiring a radical change in the way things work and why they don't work.

The simplest idea would be that man was changed to grant man color vision.  Certainly one of the most striking aspects of the rainbow is the display of the spectrum of monochromatic hues it provides.  Alas, that doesn't work.  Rainbows are still observable by those who are color blind.  Besides, such a change would have affected far more than just rainbows.

Other methods to have the colors of the rainbow act identically before the flood also fail to give a mechanism that fits the text.  For example, one such possible change, the introduction of chromatic aberration after the flood, wouldn't eliminate the rainbow from having existed prior to the flood.  While less colorful, it would be narrower and brighter if all wavelengths of light refracted equally.

What about if refraction itself hadn't existed before the flood?  While it would mean that there wouldn't have been any rainbows, it would also mean that the present human eye was incapable of focusing light so than men could see.   While conceivably an omnipotent God could have altered man and the animals so that they used a different system of vision that was replaced by the current methods, such a major change certainly would not have gone unremarked.

At this point, we've more or less exhausted the possibilities of physics or biology.  But it does not preclude another possibility.  What if the necessary ingredients for making a rainbow had not been in existence?  You need sunlight and raindrops together to have a rainbow.

One could eliminate the possibility of there having been direct sunlight if prior to the flood, the vault of the heavens was sufficiently filled with clouds that direct sunlight never reached the ground.  However, the fourth day of the creation story as recounted in Genesis 1 establishes that the Sun, Luna, and the stars were established then to be signs.  Any perpetual cloudbank thick enough to prevent rainbows would have kept the stars from being useful as signs.

So what of the other alternative, that there had been no rain?  Genesis 2:5 on first glance offers some support, since it clearly established that rain had not always been around, the full context of the verse indicates that the growth of plants is dependent upon rain.  Cain could hardly have been a tiller of soil if there was no rain.  Also consider that in Genesis 7:4, God does not need to explain to Noah the concept of rain.

In summary, for rainbows to have occurred only after the flood as a sign of God's covenant as is told in Genesis 9:12-17 requires massive changes in the way things worked and yet the only observable result was the addition of rainbows to the list of natural phenomenon.

[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.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.)  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.

[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.

[John Dibble]

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.

[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

[John Dibble]

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?

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

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

[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

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

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.

[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"

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

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"

Thank you I was aware.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.)

[John Dibble]

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

It's not disproof, sure, but it's a perfectly fine reason not to believe it. If you believed everything that lacked any evidence whatsoever you'd believe in a whole lot of fantastical nonsense, much of which would be contradictory, so on what basis should we believe this story over all the others ones that lack evidence?

[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…

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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?

[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.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

While inerrancy does not require literalism, literalism does require inerrancy, for literalism holds no value if there is that significant an error in the received text.  There's no point in trying fix Genesis by assuming that at some points a year is not a year.  Either take it as literal truth or assume that the book is not a literal recounting of events before Moses.  Both positions hold more logical rigor.

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.

[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?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

[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.