Rain and The Creation

[PotLuck]

Just some thoughts...

In school I had been taught that a mixture of substances and lightning was the catylyst of life. But if we look at the bible it did not rain in the garden. The plants were watered by a mist or vapor coming up from the earth. In fact, rain isn't even mentioned until the Flood.

It would also seem that there were no rainbows until after the Flood. God makes the rainbow as a sign of peace for the earth. If rainbows existed before the flood then how could that be a sign, something that already existed?

There were already plants and animal life before rain or lightning.

Rain is also used as the shaper of the earth by erosion taught by evolution. But yet, the bible doesn't support it. No rain, no lightning... no erosion.

According to the bible man was on the earth before it rained.

|v5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
|v6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
(OldT:Genesis 2:5-6)


|v4 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.
(OldT:Genesis 7:4)


|v2 The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained;
|v3 And the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated.
(OldT:Genesis 8:2-3)


|v12 And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations:
|v13 I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth.
(OldT:Genesis 9:12-13)

 

[seebs]

I see absolutely nothing about "mist coming up from the ground".

 

[PotLuck]

|v6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
(OldT:Genesis 2:6)

NIV says streams. Ok, point taken.

But it did not rain. That's the point.

 

[mhess13]

If you have a "Defender's Study Bible" Dr. Morris speaks at length of the pre-flood conditions and why it didn't rain

 

[PotLuck]

If you have a "Defender's Study Bible" Dr. Morris speaks at length of the pre-flood conditions and why it didn't rain

Unfortunately I don't have one. But I'll certainly get one.
A friend showed me this and I never really thought about it before. It would appear that it didn't rain until some time AFTER man entered the scene. I was rather taken aback by this.

If the Flood wasn't the first occurance of rain on earth then do we know by the bible when the first time was?

 

[herev]

Just some thoughts...

In school I had been taught that a mixture of substances and lightning was the catylyst of life. But if we look at the bible it did not rain in the garden. The plants were watered by a mist or vapor coming up from the earth. In fact, rain isn't even mentioned until the Flood.

It would also seem that there were no rainbows until after the Flood. God makes the rainbow as a sign of peace for the earth. If rainbows existed before the flood then how could that be a sign, something that already existed?

There were already plants and animal life before rain or lightning.

Rain is also used as the shaper of the earth by erosion taught by evolution. But yet, the bible doesn't support it. No rain, no lightning... no erosion.

According to the bible man was on the earth before it rained.

|v5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
|v6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
(OldT:Genesis 2:5-6)


|v4 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.
(OldT:Genesis 7:4)


|v2 The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained;
|v3 And the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated.
(OldT:Genesis 8:2-3)


|v12 And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations:
|v13 I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth.
(OldT:Genesis 9:12-13)

I think this is an excellent question. Unfortunately, the Bible doesn't mention evaporation happening before the flood, either, so, does that suggest that with all of the water in the oceans, and in the streams, and in the trees and plants and such, that water didn't ever evaporate?

 

[PotLuck]

It would seem there wasn't enough water on earth yet for the formation of "rain" clouds, not until the water was released from the depths (earth) and the heavens (deluge of rain).

At least that's what I'm getting from it.

Can anyone imagine the plant life though? Water from below and with little or no cloud cover the plant life must have been terrific.

 

[herev]

If you have a "Defender's Study Bible" Dr. Morris speaks at length of the pre-flood conditions and why it didn't rain

welcome back mhess13, its been a while

 

[gluadys]

Just some thoughts...

In school I had been taught that a mixture of substances and lightning was the catylyst of life. But if we look at the bible it did not rain in the garden. The plants were watered by a mist or vapor coming up from the earth. In fact, rain isn't even mentioned until the Flood.

It would also seem that there were no rainbows until after the Flood. God makes the rainbow as a sign of peace for the earth. If rainbows existed before the flood then how could that be a sign, something that already existed?

There were already plants and animal life before rain or lightning.

Rain is also used as the shaper of the earth by erosion taught by evolution. But yet, the bible doesn't support it. No rain, no lightning... no erosion.

Why not go for the obvious answer? It did rain, and these portions of the bible are mythological stories not history.

 

[PotLuck]

Why not go for the obvious answer? It did rain, and these portions of the bible are mythological stories not history.

If Genesis is a lie then that would make the rest of the bible untrustworthy since we wouldn't know what's true or what's just a tall tale. By what standard then do we use to judge the bible? I really hadn't expected this to become a debate of the authenticity of the bible. Why would God lie to Moses?

 

[Null-Geodesic]

If Genesis is a lie then that would make the rest of the bible untrustworthy since we wouldn't know what's true or what's just a tall tale. By what standard then do we use to judge the bible? I really hadn't expected this to become a debate of the authenticity of the bible. Why would God lie to Moses?

then you can state with a little more authority what was said. Why are you equating mythology with lie?

 

[gluadys]

If Genesis is a lie then that would make the rest of the bible untrustworthy since we wouldn't know what's true or what's just a tall tale. By what standard then do we use to judge the bible? I really hadn't expected this to become a debate of the authenticity of the bible. Why would God lie to Moses?

But where in my post did I suggest that Genesis is a lie or a tall tale?

You are attributing to me statements I did not make and do not agree with.

 

[PotLuck]

Why not go for the obvious answer? It did rain, and these portions of the bible are mythological stories not history.

But where in my post did I suggest that Genesis is a lie or a tall tale?

You are attributing to me statements I did not make and do not agree with.

Myth - A fictitious story, person, or thing.
Fictitious - Adopted or assumed in order to deceive.

Myth isn't truth. Something not true is false, a lie.

 

[Null-Geodesic]

Myth isn't truth. Something not true is false, a lie.

Only if it is intended as a historical narrative. As an allegory it can still be 'truth' yet not use facts. Don't you ever read poetry or fiction in general.

 

[gluadys]

Myth - A fictitious story, person, or thing.
Fictitious - Adopted or assumed in order to deceive.

Very selective quoting from the dictionary. Most fiction is not adopted or assumed in order to deceive. Most fiction is created to tell a story, not to deceive anyone.

Myth isn't truth.

Since when? Perhaps what you really mean to say is that myth is not fact. Different thing entirely than not being truth.

 

[Andy D]

But still it is strange that the rainbow came as a sign after the flood...

And also that the creation account in Genesis isnt even in the correct order for evolution to occur anyhow.

 

[Null-Geodesic]

And also that the creation account in Genesis isnt even in the correct order for evolution to occur anyhow.

Yet another reason to reject Genesis as literal fact.

 

[Andy D]

And the reason God inspired His word to be written in incorrect order was???? Come on, you are Christian right? Please give me your Biblical view....cause u might as well rip Genesis our of your Bible otherwise.

 

[PotLuck]

Very selective quoting from the dictionary. Most fiction is not adopted or assumed in order to deceive. Most fiction is created to tell a story, not to deceive anyone.

Since when? Perhaps what you really mean to say is that myth is not fact. Different thing entirely than not being truth.

I believe the bible to be the infallible Word of God from
"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." (Genesis 1:1)
to
"The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen." (Revelation 22:21)

If parts of Genesis are myths then other parts of the bible could also qualify as not being true. If that's the case then I could also doubt Jesus's resurrection as being true and simply being a story concocted by some that said they saw Him to validate their witness to an unbelieving public. The parting of the Red Sea could be classified as myth also along with just about every other "story" in the bible.

If I can not believe the bible then I may as well throw it away because it's of no use to me and my faith in Christ is unfounded based only on myths and fairy tales.

 

[Andy D]

then you can state with a little more authority what was said. Why are you equating mythology with lie?

I have something better than a tape of Moses speaking to God. I have a written account of many of the conversations and events that happened. Recorded in His word.