Rainbows!

[Buy Bologna]

I guess I better surrender. You win.

Thank you.

 

[matt44]

Are trying to show that the bible may not be true based on a rainbow? Seriously, there are plenty of ideas and concepts from the bible to argue against the validity of the bible. Arguing about whether or not rainbows existed before the flood would be pointless. Nowhere in the bible does it say that rainbows didn’t exist before the flood, but rather I think it can be inferred that God was only using something easily identifiable to remind people of his promise not to flood the world again.

^What this person said. I've been asked the "rainbow question" before by an atheist friend. I explained how it isn't a contradiction, then asked him why he wasn't asking about why humans in the OT lived to be hundreds of years old. THAT'S something that defies our current scientific understanding. (Of course, I in no way encourage limiting ourselves to what can be explained by modern science)

 

[RoadWarrior]

No.

As a matter of fact, the rainbow is a good illustration. Science and people of logic know, for example, that the light waves are mostly unseen. Right before RED in the rainbow is (obviously) Infrared. InfraRED is just beyond our ability to see. And on the other side of the spectrum, Violet in which ultraviolet light waves go on which go outside our eyes ability to see.

The wavelengths range anywhere to comic gamma to radio.

Dude, it was a figurative phrase since the EM spectrum is a well known fact which still fits the analogy.

http://local.content.compendiumblog...b-4018-9d3a-31dc846044ee/Visible spectrum.jpg

 

[Buy Bologna]

^What this person said. I've been asked the "rainbow question" before by an atheist friend. I explained how it isn't a contradiction, then asked him why he wasn't asking about why humans in the OT lived to be hundreds of years old. THAT'S something that defies our current scientific understanding. (Of course, I in no way encourage limiting ourselves to what can be explained by modern science)

You really think this is the only example of bible incompetence?

Read the OP. This one is just as good as any. Like talking donkeys, or a superman named Samson who's kryptonite was his hair being short.

I figured this one would be fun to talk about.

Dude, it was a figurative phrase since the EM spectrum is a well known fact which still fits the analogy.

http://local.content.compendiumblog...b-4018-9d3a-31dc846044ee/Visible spectrum.jpg

OH, gotcha

 

[razeontherock]

Who doesn't love a rainbow?

But I'm trying to give the bible the benefit of the doubt here and going to ask christians for help.

Since a rainbow is a reminder that god won't ever bring a great deluge on the earth again (according to the bible).

How did we not see rainbows before the deluge? What did god do? Did he change the atmosphere to where our eyes could see it? Or did he tweek our eyes to where we could see the broke down spectrum by particles of water/prisms?

Of course we could always see the spectrum tho or we wouldn't be able to discern colors at all. Did they see in black and white back in the days of living to 900?

IDK, just chalk this one up as another reason in think the bible is silly. But of course, i am open to hearing your reasoning on this matter. thanx.

What you're actually talking about, is a Covenant. Do you know what that is?

IF (big little word there) the story were literal, then it would, by necessity, also include some pretty massive changes not only to earth's atmosphere but also to the land masses as well. None of that has any real bearing on a believer's actions today, either Christian or Jew. (Though as CF proves, people like to debate that endlessly)

BTW: your tagline is just one more way that the Gospel is in the stars

 

[Buy Bologna]

What you're actually talking about, is a Covenant. Do you know what that is?

IF (big little word there) the story were literal, then it would, by necessity, also include some pretty massive changes not only to earth's atmosphere but also to the land masses as well. None of that has any real bearing on a believer's actions today, either Christian or Jew. (Though as CF proves, people like to debate that endlessly)

BTW: your tagline is just one more way that the Gospel is in the stars

Yes I know what a covenant is.

So god is promising that he will never bring a great deluge again, yada yada yada......

And of course the bible becomes less literal the more scientific fact we discover. In other words, even bible understanding evolves.

But to say things like "a rainbow doesn't mean that literally" or 'there wasn't literally a talking snake' 100 years ago, you would be called a heretic by the christian community.

Now if Noah legend isn't to be taken literally and is symbolic or metaphoric of something I wouldn't be so close minded as to hear your interpretation. And on the whole rainbow part too if you wouldn't mind. Didn't he make a sacrifice too? Was the sacrifice not literal either. I'm mean cmon, god ordered him to preserve the species. It would be kind of silly to kill an EXTREMELY DANGERED SPECIES wouldn't it?

 

[dollarsbill]

Who doesn't love a rainbow?

I love rainbows! Every time I see one I remember God's promise.

 

[razeontherock]

Yes I know what a covenant is.

So god is promising that he will never bring a great deluge again, yada yada yada......

READ: you have no idea what a Covenant is. Check.

And of course the bible becomes less literal the more scientific fact we discover. In other words, even bible understanding evolves.

READ: your profession of not being closed-minded, is a sham. Check.

But to say things like "a rainbow doesn't mean that literally" or 'there wasn't literally a talking snake' 100 years ago, you would be called a heretic by the christian community.

READ: you have no idea of Church history, nor even what heresy is; yet you like speaking as if you do. Check.

Now if Noah legend isn't to be taken literally and is symbolic or metaphoric of something I wouldn't be so close minded as to hear your interpretation. And on the whole rainbow part too if you wouldn't mind. Didn't he make a sacrifice too? Was the sacrifice not literal either. I'm mean cmon, god ordered him to preserve the species. It would be kind of silly to kill an EXTREMELY DANGERED SPECIES wouldn't it?

The first few things you ask here are apparently not sincere, but the last question is simple enough to address in this situation: why did he take 7 pairs of clean animals? (Haven't thought that one through, eh?)

 

[Buy Bologna]

READ: you have no idea what a Covenant is.

Covenant (biblical) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I really don't see any conflict of what I said here.

READ: your profession of not being closed-minded, is a sham. Check.

Of course. That's why I'm an agnostic here at a Christian forum looking for different viewpoints. What open minded person would do that?

READ: you have no idea of Church history, nor even what heresy is; yet you like speaking as if you do. Check.

Well then why don't you enlighten me?

On a grander scale every day. The bible is becoming less literal because of science.

Do you mean to tell me that during medieval times they knew that the earth was 4 billion years old? No, they took the bible for what it said and you KNOW it. The earth was created in 6 literal days....of course not to you becuz science has smashed that logic.

The first few things you ask here are apparently not sincere, but the last question is simple enough to address in this situation: why did he take 7 pairs of clean animals? (Haven't thought that one through, eh?)

First off let me ask you before we go into this further. Is this flood literal? The animals and everything?

I'll take it this flood literally happened. Since you asked me 'why did he take 7 pairs?'

Which means he literally took 7 pairs. LOL! . Are you for real? (Facepalm)

Anyway, believe it or not. I did think it through. I just thought I would avoid the subject of the 'the bible contradicting itself' by just going with 2 of every kind. I don't want do sidetrack this thread. But since you ask, the bible says at one point 2 of every kind and 7 of every kind. I find it interesting that Noah had to chase down 7 penguins in Antarctica instead of 2 anyway.

And you never told me the meaning of the rainbow since it isn't literal.

 

[razeontherock]

On a grander scale every day. The bible is becoming less literal because of science.

Do you mean to tell me that during medieval times they knew that the earth was 4 billion years old? No, they took the bible for what it said and you KNOW it. The earth was created in 6 literal days

You think the early Church was medieval times? And this is being open minded how? You're either interested in understanding this stuff, or you're asserting your opinion, regardless of facts. The latter is in evidence.

You need to come to terms with that.

First off let me ask you before we go into this further. Is this flood literal? The animals and everything?

I'll take it this flood literally happened. Since you asked me 'why did he take 7 pairs?'

Which means he literally took 7 pairs. LOL! . Are you for real? (Facepalm)

You're either going to deal with the story or you're not. I see no evidence that you intend to.

 

[Buy Bologna]

You think the early Church was medieval times? And this is being open minded how? You're either interested in understanding this stuff, or you're asserting your opinion, regardless of facts. The latter is in evidence.

You need to come to terms with that.

No, pick any other time period before science discovered it. Pick the time of the first century christians. Did the 1st century christians know that a lot of this wasn't literal? Say, the creation days?

You're either going to deal with the story or you're not. I see no evidence that you intend to.

You are what is called 'evasive.' You haven't answered any of my questions yet.

You are scapegoating answering the questions.

I'm am here, at CF....searching....asking... inquiring..... and you are dogmatically stereotyping me as someone who isn't sincere.


Now why don't you tell me....
Which is it? 2 of every kind or 7?

Is the bible more understood now more than ever?

Quit scapegoating. Quit being evasive.

How about you give me the benefit of the doubt and assume I am sincere and open minded and really want to know.

Jesus didn't stick his nose up to the pharisees. So come on.

 

[Buy Bologna]

Let me guess.

I was taking the scripture out of context.

I literally thought Noah was a real man and his family too.

But I guess the whole rainbow thing wasn't literal.

 

[razeontherock]

No, pick any other time period before science discovered it. Pick the time of the first century christians. Did the 1st century christians know that a lot of this wasn't literal? Say, the creation days?

Absolutely! Literalism is a modern invention. You need to read this as the original audience did. They weren't scientists.

Now why don't you tell me....
Which is it? 2 of every kind or 7?

Neither. It was 7 of clean animals, 2 of unclean. This would skew population in favor of clean animals, and leave some for sacrifice. (Per the story, that is)

Is the Bible more understood now more than ever?

No. Hearing it as the original audience did is "hermeneutics." We can't expect that to be complete, but we sure can't expect to accomplish that with just a surface reading of the text, either. Learning how things were historically taught is paramount, and for the OT that means asking Jewish Rabbis who study the Talmud for their whole lives. It also means learning the history and the culture. Names and geography can also be critical, just to understanding the text.

The only advantage we have, is portions of the OT that pertain to Christ, we can see whereas they couldn't. Yet our society is by default much more removed from God.

How about you give me the benefit of the doubt and assume I am sincere and open minded and really want to know.

If you wish to be treated as someone who is sincere, how bout you stop being a jerk and be sincere? Read through this thread, look at your responses! You continually violate the sensible edict by your avatar

 

[razeontherock]

Let me guess.

I was taking the scripture out of context.

I literally thought Noah was a real man and his family too.

But I guess the whole rainbow thing wasn't literal.

Case in point: conflate Noah and his family with a rainbow? How is this sincere?

 

[Buy Bologna]

Case in point: conflate Noah and his family with a rainbow? How is this sincere?

I don't even know where to begin with your failed logic.

But let me just go with this post of yours.

Are you really asking me the what relations a rainbow has with Noah and the flood legend?

Have you not read the bible?

I am sincere, as in devoutly wanting to know if a rainbow was seen before the flood. As the OP says.

 

[razeontherock]

devoutly wanting to know if a rainbow was seen before the flood. As the OP says.

We don't know. Some will believe that must be history, or else their Faith will shatter. Historically, this has been taught as allegory, for deeper Truths. My take is that every story is best understood understood as myth with moral first, and from there the historical aspect should fade away into irrelevance.

G-d will not send anyone to hell for viewing Adam and Eve as a picture of emerging conscience, and hunter gatherer into agricultural society, to forming cities. We even have one poster claiming that every generation from Adam up to I don't know how recent, represents an evolutionary stage. And you know what? As crazy as that sounds, the overall picture he presents (which includes much, much more) is cohesive.

We know there is a rainbow. We know there is coming judgment, and those that are Judged harshly, really won't like it, and G-d really won't change because of that fact.

This much, might actually affect how some of us live today and tomorrow. That's what matters!