Was there rain and rainbows before the flood?
- Thread starter ironduck
- Start date
Ironduck - I think a rainbow is the event that occurs due to rain. You can get a similar effect from a prism, but specifically, I would think a rainbow (by definition) is the stream of colours you see in the sky.
You can get the same effect by spraying water around in droplets from a hose, or just splashing about in a river. I think that's one of the sticking points.
Also humans need a deal of free standing water to survive, well or river, of all the species we seem to consume more than other animals by mass. Our body systems seem to need more water, why exactly is along standing debate. Needless to say no running water or rain, and most likely humanity as we know it would not exist.
Also humans need a deal of free standing water to survive, well or river, of all the species we seem to consume more than other animals by mass. Our body systems seem to need more water, why exactly is along standing debate. Needless to say no running water or rain, and most likely humanity as we know it would not exist.
Um ... maybe?
Actually, you got me. That's certainly a rainbow, to me and you.
But it's certainly not from rain.
Um ... I'll shut up now.
Actually, you got me. That's certainly a rainbow, to me and you.
But it's certainly not from rain.
Um ... I'll shut up now.
That's pretty much how I took it too...ybbor said:
How does anyone take a story seriously without an explaination?ironduck said:
I don't see how any of the verses quoted by Classical Hero indicate that there was no such thing as rain previous to the flood.
And I have no interest in joining into any of the Creation vs. Evolution threads that are 10+ pages long and be lost. Not happening. I don't even see how this is a creation vs. evolution issue being there is no evolutionary process involved in rain.ironduck said:
I would like to understand how any portion of the biblical flood story indicates that there was no rain. The bible verses mentioned do not say that, no matter how imaginative I get with my interpretation.ironduck said:
I'm not trying to argue for the same of being a butt hole--I just don't see any point to starting a thread about something, getting 3 pages of responces, stating that you are ignoring all but one reply (whether that is what you are doing or not is irrelivent, that is how it appears), and then not explaining why you think the way you do. I'm confused, that is all.
ybbor
Will not change his avata
Caprice said:
agreed. I don't care if you can wave your magic ironduck-wand and convince anybody of one side or the other. Nothing will convince anyone that the Bible can't be true because there were no rainbows/rain, nor will you convince anyone to become a Christian because until this thread their one sticking point was that there had to be rain. It won't even be a drop in the bucket to either side. It's as pointless as arguing about what exact shade of red little red riding hood's cape was. (Personally I'm in favor of R:200 G:15 B:0)
So why do I stick around? Because quite frankly I'm curious as to what your point was after in the KO creationism thread you were so intent on dropping the issue at hand by saying it's been discussed before (which it probably has), and going after 'black rain.' (like HERE, and HERE these found after sifting through 105 replies in the thread after asking for a specific 7-word phrase. compared to 8 replies with the single search word "radiometric"). Is it really that important? For all the noise you're making do you have a point?
So far the main response I've heard is that it's odd the we Christians don't have a hard-and-fast answer on this (which isn't surprising considering it's not a biblical issue and if your grouping people based on their adherence to the Bible I wouldn't expect a straight answer across the board), and that someone long ago brought it up and you're genuinely curious as to what the answer is. Yet somehow despite pages of 'I don't know', and 'it's not important' you found a single post that fit. Apparently the only possible answers can be yes and no, "I neither know nor care" doesn't count.
(P.S. I think you took my contention of "straw-man" a bit too seriously. I didn't really mean it.
classical_hero
In whom I trust
The Bible indicates that the first time there was rain on the earth was when the Flood came. We are talking about before the flood.Caprice said:
Genesis 7:4,11,12 4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.
11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
12 And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.
This is the first time in the Bible that we see the word rain.
classical_hero
In whom I trust
Can you prove that it wasn't? I do not think anyone can pinpoint the first time it rained unless you were there, which none of us could have been. I believe that God was there and thus he is capable to tell what happened at that moment. I trust the Bible very much and I accept it's words to be true.
No, why should I?classical_hero said:
YOU make the unsubstantiated claim, the claim for which there is so far no indicating but the lack of mention in a spurious old collection of goatherders' myths.
Also, the pure choice of the word 'rain' is indicative that this rain wasn't special in any regard but the mentioned one - the duration. If 'water falling from the sky' had been a novel concept, there would have been mention of that, most probably, and even more probably a description. Also, no special reaction is mentioned by the people, suggesting that they were not surprised by the falling water. No panic, or so.
This is in direct contradiction to your previous claim, i.e. that the rain causing the world-wide flood was the first ever.
make up your mind!
irrelevant. for the purpose of this my discussion with you I am making the same assumption, however absurd it is.
kingjoshi
King
Were those God's exact words to Noah? I mean, if this is being said AFTER the flood, then obviously the humans know of rain and it's part of their vocabulary.carlosMM said:
It makes sense to assume that if rain had occured, it would've been mentioned. Given no other data to point to, this must be the first occurance.carlosMM said:
I do not care - as I chose to accept his literal interpretation of his version of the bible, as quoted by him.kingjoshi said:
please prove this by showing how all things in existence at any time are mentioned in the bible at their first occurnce. If you can't show that, your point is moot.
kingjoshi
King
My desire was to try to understand why he believes what he does and provide some rationalization. I don't know what your intentions are but it doesn't seem that.
ironduck
Deity
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2002
- Messages
- 6,561
*sigh*
I guess I didn't word my posts carefully enough in this thread after all.
Caprice, ybbor:
As I tried to explain I was only really interested in hearing what people who believe the flood story to be true thought. That automatically cancels out every explanation I get from people who don't believe it to be literally true, and since most people said they either don't believe it's true or simply didn't mention one way or the other I cannot use their answers (at least unless they tell me they do believe it's true).
Secondly, as for the people who say they don't know - fair enough, but it's not getting me anywhere since I have specifically seen and heard of people who say that the answer is clear.
classical_hero specifically stated that the answer is clear, that's why I said that finally I got an answer.
I don't care if the answer is yes or no, I just wanted to find out what it was, since it's apparently obvious to biblical literalists. And yes, the creationists I've talked to here have pretty much all had hard and fast answers about all kinds of stuff that is not in any way clear to me. Ice comets? Heavenly canopy? It's not obvious to me, but they had hard and fast answers. I was simply asking for the answer.
And yes, I find the answer of 'no rain, no rainbows' amusing. But as I've specifically stated several times this is not the thread to discuss the answers, it's just to hear what people who literally believe in the flood story think the answer is.
I guess I didn't word my posts carefully enough in this thread after all.
Caprice, ybbor:
As I tried to explain I was only really interested in hearing what people who believe the flood story to be true thought. That automatically cancels out every explanation I get from people who don't believe it to be literally true, and since most people said they either don't believe it's true or simply didn't mention one way or the other I cannot use their answers (at least unless they tell me they do believe it's true).
Secondly, as for the people who say they don't know - fair enough, but it's not getting me anywhere since I have specifically seen and heard of people who say that the answer is clear.
classical_hero specifically stated that the answer is clear, that's why I said that finally I got an answer.
I don't care if the answer is yes or no, I just wanted to find out what it was, since it's apparently obvious to biblical literalists. And yes, the creationists I've talked to here have pretty much all had hard and fast answers about all kinds of stuff that is not in any way clear to me. Ice comets? Heavenly canopy? It's not obvious to me, but they had hard and fast answers. I was simply asking for the answer.
And yes, I find the answer of 'no rain, no rainbows' amusing. But as I've specifically stated several times this is not the thread to discuss the answers, it's just to hear what people who literally believe in the flood story think the answer is.
Gingerbread Man
Dark Magus
I admire your trust of the bible, but that doesn't mean extrapolating meaning from it beyond its scope.classical_hero said:
First mention doesn't equate to first existance. And something isn't made true by the mere fact that nothing shows it is false. Lets just say I'm a woman for a second. You have nothing to prove it wrong, but that doesn't make it true.
Similar threads
