Rainbows

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.  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.

[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

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

 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

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.

[Bacon King]

Interesting read in this thread so far, but I'm a bit rushed at the moment so only one comment for now.

From the perspective of a literal interpretation it seems jmfcst is correct: Genesis 2 (iirc) states in plain terms that plants recieved water not from rain but from mist that rose out of the ground, and God didn't tell Noah it would rain specifically but simply that he would bring about a great flood, so Noah didn't necessarily need to know what rain was beforehand. So rainbows in the clouds would have started happening after God first created rain (for the flood), no?

(my Biblical knowledge is a bit rusty so granted I may be forgetting something here) 

[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

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Interesting read in this thread so far, but I'm a bit rushed at the moment so only one comment for now.

From the perspective of a literal interpretation it seems jmfcst is correct: Genesis 2 (iirc) states in plain terms that plants recieved water not from rain but from mist that rose out of the ground, and God didn't tell Noah it would rain specifically but simply that he would bring about a great flood, so Noah didn't necessarily need to know what rain was beforehand. So rainbows in the clouds would have started happening after God first created rain (for the flood), no?

(my Biblical knowledge is a bit rusty so granted I may be forgetting something here) 

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 he sends rain to water the plants.

The account in Genesis 2 has man created to serve as the gardener of Yahweh.  Given the description of the breath of life, it was used to give life to all living things in that account, but the mist seems to be specific to man and is one thing that distinguishes man's creation from the creation of the animals which are created later than man in this account.

The account in Genesis 2 differs from the account in Genesis 1 of how Elohim created the universe both in focus and in some details of sequencing.  That account focuses upon the whole of creation while the Yahwehist account focuses upon the intended role of man in that creation.

(As an aside, let me point out that one of the blunders of the later division of the books of the Bible into chapters and verses for ease of reference occurs here, as Genesis 2:1-3 would be more properly numbered Genesis 1:32-34.)

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

[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.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.  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.

[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.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

[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

[Bacon King]

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.

I suppose that answers the question, "can God make a rock so big He Himself can not lift it?" or however it goes.

[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?!

[John Dibble]

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.

[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. 

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Rather it is that I don't need there to be an omnipotent being to believe in God.