Noah and the rainbow

[addo]

This is something that I've been thinking lately. In the Bible, if taken literally, it is said that God has given the rainbow as a sign of the covenant between the Lord and humanity which would last until the end.

My question is this: did the rainbow exist before being used as a sign by God? Did God use a thing and gave it a different meaning, or did He create it in that moment?

Also, how do you understand this story? Is it true, or is it a myth? I would like the opinions of all of you, if possible.

Blessings,

Emanuel

 

[juvenissun]

This is something that I've been thinking lately. In the Bible, if taken literally, it is said that God has given the rainbow as a sign of the covenant between the Lord and humanity which would last until the end.

My question is this: did the rainbow exist before being used as a sign by God? Did God use a thing and gave it a different meaning, or did He create it in that moment?

Also, how do you understand this story? Is it true, or is it a myth? I would like the opinions of all of you, if possible.

Blessings,

Emanuel

The physics of rainbow is not new. But in order to "see" the rainbow, there is a need of minimum conditions in the atmosphere. A rainbow can not be seen in a foggy sky.

If you think about the description of Flood realistically, then many of them are realistic. If you can see that over half of the information are realistic, how would you treat the rest of it?

 

[Jase]

This is something that I've been thinking lately. In the Bible, if taken literally, it is said that God has given the rainbow as a sign of the covenant between the Lord and humanity which would last until the end.

My question is this: did the rainbow exist before being used as a sign by God? Did God use a thing and gave it a different meaning, or did He create it in that moment?

Also, how do you understand this story? Is it true, or is it a myth? I would like the opinions of all of you, if possible.

Blessings,

Emanuel

Rainbows have always existed. The Ancient Hebrews just didn't understand what caused them (refraction of the visible light spectrum as the sun's rays go through droplets of water in the atmosphere).

As for the flood, a local flood was most certainly possible and the likely origin of the story as that region of the world flooded quite often. A global flood? Defies all logic, scientific evidence, and natural laws.

 

[philadiddle]

I think they are giving the rainbow a meaning, as opposed to a meaning bringing about the rainbow. (If that made sense)

 

[markedward]

I think of it in terms of bread and wine. Bread and wine existed before Jesus was crucified; but every time we eat the bread and drink the wine we memorialize the specific event. The rainbow existed beforehand, but God assigned a symbolic meaning to it when the flood's rainclouds departed: the appearance of the rainbow serves as a reminder of God's covenant to Noah.

 

[ebia]

God gave a meaning a meaning to an existing phenomenon.

In my view the story of Noah, which runs to the end of chapter 9, is the bibles answer to the question you see still a lot: "if God is so powerful, why hasn't he just wiped out evil by force"

 

[juvenissun]

God gave a meaning a meaning to an existing phenomenon.

In my view the story of Noah, which runs to the end of chapter 9, is the bibles answer to the question you see still a lot: "if God is so powerful, why hasn't he just wiped out evil by force"

Because He wants YOU to do it.

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

The answer you get to this will differ between Old Earth and Young Earth Creationists. Some (although nowhere near all) Young Earth Creationists believe that it did not rain before the Flood. They would be more likely to believe that the rainbow was created as a sign at that time. Old Earth Creationists and Young Earth Creationists who believe that it did rain before the Flood are more likely to believe that a new meaning was given to a pre-existing symbol.

 

[ebia]

Because He wants YOU to do it.

Theres some truth in that (not by force, but that to change people you have to work with them), but that's not the point of the Noah story.

 

[granpa]

here is a "bow of God" in the sky.

 

[juvenissun]

Theres some truth in that (not by force, but that to change people you have to work with them), but that's not the point of the Noah story.

Well, in Noah's story, God is powerful and He does wipe out the evil.

(I just wonder what exactly is the thing He wiped out. I never thought about that before.)

 

[ebia]

Well, in Noah's story, God is powerful and He does wipe out the evil.

(I just wonder what exactly is the thing He wiped out. I never thought about that before.)

Well, no he does not - that's the whole point. Read to the end of the chapter.

 

[cubinity]

Anyway. This is about rainbows, right?

Rainbows are always opposite the sun.

There can be a double rainbow, but two rainbows can never intersect.

Neat.

 

[juvenissun]

Anyway. This is about rainbows, right?

Rainbows are always opposite the sun.

There can be a double rainbow, but two rainbows can never intersect.

Neat.

I saw an image which showed two rainbows intersected. One in the sky and one on the sea.

Not kidding.

 

[Jig]

A global flood? Defies all logic, scientific evidence, and natural laws.

I'm guessing you don't believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus either then. That defies logic, scientific evidence, and natural laws.

 

[cubinity]

I'm guessing you don't believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus either then. That defies logic, scientific evidence, and natural laws.

I agree with you that the resurrection does defy logic, scientific evidence, and natural laws in the sense of logic, scientific evidence and natural laws about humans and that they don't resurrect from the dead.

I would say, however, that one man resurrecting from the dead in a miraculous feat is still possible, since, as an isolated event, there is no residual indicators in nature that it happened or didn't.

The flood of the entire world differs from the resurrection of Jesus Christ because, unlike the resurrection, the flood's residual evidence would be everywhere, preserved geologically throughout the centuries.

So, while one cannot point to the lack of evidence to make a solid argument against an isolated, miraculous resurrection, one can point to the lack of evidence and make a solid argument against a flood of water that drowned the entire planet.

In that sense, they are fundamentally different.

 

[Jig]

The flood of the entire world differs from the resurrection of Jesus Christ because, unlike the resurrection, the flood's residual evidence would be everywhere, preserved geologically throughout the centuries.

This has nothing do with the actual physical evidence. Your presuppositions and worldview philosophies have allowed you to interpret the geologic evidence differently than those who trust in a literal rendering of the Bible's account of history. And as such, you cannot rightly claim the evidence is in support of your position - only that your own interpretation is.

So, while one cannot point to the lack of evidence to make a solid argument against an isolated, miraculous resurrection, one can point to the lack of evidence and make a solid argument against a flood of water that drowned the entire planet.

There is no "lack of evidence" for a global flood. No matter what position you subscribe to the amount of evidence stays the same. This is because all evidence requires an interpretation to find a voice. The creationist utilizes the same exact same piece of physical evidence the evolutionist does - each just apply different philosophical assumptions.

 

[cubinity]

This has nothing do with the actual physical evidence. Your presuppositions and worldview philosophies have allowed you to interpret the geologic evidence differently than those who trust in a literal rendering of the Bible's account of history. And as such, you cannot rightly claim the evidence is in support of your position - only that your own interpretation is.


There is no "lack of evidence" for a global flood. No matter what position you subscribe to the amount of evidence stays the same. This is because all evidence requires an interpretation to find a voice. The creationist utilizes the same exact same piece of physical evidence the evolutionist does - each just apply different philosophical assumptions.

Cool.
But, the point still stands.
The resurrection of one guy, and a cataclysmic event covering the entire earth, are fundamentally different in terms of evidence because one can happen without leaving much of an evident foot-print, and the other inevitably leaves a world-wide evident footprint.

 

[JVPITER]

This has nothing do with the actual physical evidence. Your presuppositions and worldview philosophies have allowed you to interpret the geologic evidence differently than those who trust in a literal rendering of the Bible's account of history. And as such, you cannot rightly claim the evidence is in support of your position - only that your own interpretation is.

Hi

What interpretation or worldview can make the following physical evidence just disappear:
- 30,000 undisturbed annual layers at the bottom of Lake Suigetsu in Japan
- 100s of 1000s of undisturbed annual ice layers from Greenland

There is no "lack of evidence" for a global flood. No matter what position you subscribe to the amount of evidence stays the same. This is because all evidence requires an interpretation to find a voice. The creationist utilizes the same exact same piece of physical evidence the evolutionist does - each just apply different philosophical assumptions.

Where is the geological layer laid down by the flood, with all the soil, plant matter, dead animals and other debris? There should be a single layer worldwide.

But there isn't.

Cheers

 

[cubinity]

Hi

What interpretation or worldview can make the following physical evidence just disappear:
- 30,000 undisturbed annual layers at the bottom of Lake Suigetsu in Japan
- 100s of 1000s of undisturbed annual ice layers from Greenland



Where is the geological layer laid down by the flood, with all the soil, plant matter, dead animals and other debris? There should be a single layer worldwide.

But there isn't.

Cheers

hmm. yes. very interesting.