The Rainbow question

[Hank]

Vance to your first post
Not sure where you going:
I hope you know that I can make my very own rainbow.
I hope you know floods and major deadly floods still happen.

My answer to your query : NO.

Noah is a fictitious story, it does not lessen the importance of God’s promise. There was none in the first place.

 

[Hank]

We know how the rainbow is made, but we know that God created the process. We know how photosynthesis works, but we know that it is all God's work. We understand how we, ourselves, reproduce, but we know that God created this reproductive process. We know that God could have waved his hand and brought each of us individually into existence miraculously in our perfect time. Yet, he chose to allow a natural process of sexual reproduction, a process created by Him, for this creative effort. Why is it so abhorrent that He used a natural process from the beginning?

Scientific knowledge can only help us understand God's Creation more fully, it can never destroy Faith.

UNLESS, of course, you accept the atheistic line of thought.

I am an agnostic.

How exactly does one know God did it?

The legend claimed a worldwide flood. The legend claimed it never rained before. Ergo there never was a rainbow. Can you show or attempt to show your scientific approach to explain this?

 

[Jet Black]

Actually before the flood light did not refract.

please spare me the pain of crazy pseudoscience

 

[Vance]

Ah, but I don't believe the Scripture requires a reading that it was global or that it had never rained on the Earth before the flood. It is difficult to determine with many of these stories how much is meant to be poetic or allegorical or simple fact. Unlike some claim, I don't think the Scripture necessarily gives a heads up "the following is allegorical" in every case (actually in very few cases). And many non-literal phrases are used even when describing real events, just as we use in our own language today.

So, with any given account, what we can know for sure (those who believe that Bible is the inerrant Word of God) is that the message is true and from God. If there seems to be conflict with Scripture and our growing understanding of God's Creation, then it is the result of either our incorrect reading or our incorrect scientific conclusion. As time goes on, it is more often the former than the latter.

 

[mikelaughs]

Vance makes a good point here, that i would like to stress.

Science cannot disprove God.
Science is the study of God's creation. One might be tempted to say that it is the study of our natural world, however, scientific studies of the supernatural (i.e. the power of prayer to heal) has greyed this boundry.

At the end of science (if there was such a thing) when everything is known and has been discovered, science will most definitely find God.

If you don't believe that, then you can't believe that God had anything to do with our known universe. If God had any contribution, however small, science will eventually have to account for that contribution.

You can't get to the end of discovery and say: Well, everything in the known universe happened as a result of the laws the universe is governed by, accept this...aw, who cares about that, we're 99.99% completely sure of how everything happened. Nope, no God, nowhere.

Actually Mike is heading somewhat in the right direction.

The point is that God created the natural world and all its processes, but that, in itself, is a miracle. The fact that we are beginning to understand exactly HOW God might have created life on this Earth is the same as learning how rainbows actually happen. Scientific explanation of God's handiwork is not an attack on God, it is simply our grasping out to understand His greatness.

The fact that many see in evolution an alternative to God's creative force is besides the point, they are simply wrong. It is the same as if a person said that the Biblical story of Noah and the rainbow was proved false by the scientific explanation of the refraction that creates the rainbow.

Atheists *do* use evolution to attempt to disprove the the existence of God. Too many Creationists simply aid them in their endeavors by agreeing with them that if you believe in evolution, you are denying God's role in the process. Believe me, atheists are very satisfied that Creationists have bought into this lie.

We know how the rainbow is made, but we know that God created the process. We know how photosynthesis works, but we know that it is all God's work. We understand how we, ourselves, reproduce, but we know that God created this reproductive process. We know that God could have waved his hand and brought each of us individually into existence miraculously in our perfect time. Yet, he chose to allow a natural process of sexual reproduction, a process created by Him, for this creative effort. Why is it so abhorrent that He used a natural process from the beginning?

Scientific knowledge can only help us understand God's Creation more fully, it can never destroy Faith.

UNLESS, of course, you accept the atheistic line of thought.

 

[Hank]

Ah, but I don't believe the Scripture requires a reading that it was global or that it had never rained on the Earth before the flood. It is difficult to determine with many of these stories how much is meant to be poetic or allegorical or simple fact. Unlike some claim, I don't think the Scripture necessarily gives a heads up "the following is allegorical" in every case (actually in very few cases). And many non-literal phrases are used even when describing real events, just as we use in our own language today.

So, with any given account, what we can know for sure (those who believe that Bible is the inerrant Word of God) is that the message is true and from God. If there seems to be conflict with Scripture and our growing understanding of God's Creation, then it is the result of either our incorrect reading or our incorrect scientific conclusion. As time goes on, it is more often the former than the latter.

If I do not need to accept a worldwide flood, who besides Noah survived it? If others besides Noah survived it, was God's covenant significant? We still have floods.

If it rained before, how would the atmosphere have been and how did water form in it in order not to show a rainbow?

There is no conflict between Scripture and science, they simply are incompatible.

 

[Vance]

I believe it most likely that the flood covered a region and God was punishing that region just as He later did Sodom and Gamorrah. So, everyone outside that region survived just fine. See my post over on the Christian board about the Scriptural analysis of the flood showing how a regional flood is consistent with the text.

As for the covenant, I do not know of any flood which has come along and killed every living thing in its region, down to the last person. So far, He has kept His word.

I am not sure what you mean by the atmosphere question. It would be the same as it is now. We see rainbows now after the rain, Noah saw a rainbow then after the rain. God wanted us to remember His promise everytime we see a rainbow. The text never says that there had never been a rainbow before that day.

 

[Hank]

Science cannot disprove God.

It did. There is nothing to disprove. If something is not around it does not exist.

Science is the study of God's creation.

Science is knowledge.

 

[Vance]

Mike:

Now you see the point I am making. Atheists just hate it when we separate scientific knowledge and atheism and/or philosophical naturalism. It is so very useful to atheists that Creationists maintain this concept that evolution=atheism so that they can convince people that when they come to accept evolution, they must abandon Christian beliefs.

Satan has some very devious methods of accomplishing his goals. And the anti-evolutionist YEC's can't even see how they are being used.

 

[mikelaughs]

Hank,

yes we still have floods, but the covenant was about a worldwide flood.

If I do not need to accept a worldwide flood, who besides Noah survived it? If others besides Noah survived it, was God's covenant significant? We still have floods.

The bible never mentions rain before God spoke to noah about the ark. it does mention dew every morning, which would indicate a humid environment.

so, why didn't it rain before the flood, did it necesarily even have to rain for a rain bow to be present? To these questions we can only speculate, for or against. Let's not put God in our box of the now though. He created the now and the then, ask him how he did it. Maybe he'll share it with you.

If it rained before, how would the atmosphere have been and how did water form in it in order not to show a rainbow?

There is no conflict between Scripture and science, they simply are incompatible.

 

[mikelaughs]

It did. There is nothing to disprove. If something is not around it does not exist.

Hank. This is just bad. look at this mess of a statement.

"if something is not around" requires me to believe that everything that is "around" has already been discovered. This has NEVER been true in the past, so what makes you think it is true now.

If you don't belive this rediculous idea, then that must mean that there are things that "ARE" but are presently not "AROUND"

you must then deduce that these things that "are" DO exist, even though they are not around.

???

 

[Jet Black]

The bible never mentions rain before God spoke to noah about the ark. it does mention dew every morning, which would indicate a humid environment.

it doesn't mention quantum states either... so?

 

[mikelaughs]

it doesn't mention quantum states either... so?

that's arguable, but not the point i was trying to make.
Point i was shooting for was - why are we arguing about contradictions in the bible that are not there?

If the bible doesn't say there was rain, why are we arguing that a rainbow would appear before the ark because it happens after ANY rain?

If the bible doesn't say there was never a rainbow before the flood, why would we need to scientifically explain that there wasn't one.

I'm making Vance's point here, which is valid, about arguing modern theories against bible interpretations.

 

[Gracchus]

I remember reading some years ago that the people who live in the Tigris-Euphrates delta are still flooded every spring, and ride out the flood by putting their goods, livestock and families on reed boats.
I would guess that the story of Ur-Nipishtim (Noah) was simply a story to entertain and reassure the kiddies while they rode out the flood.
It never ceases to amaze me that there are adults who still believe this obviously fictional story.

(Edited for punctuation and spelling.)

 

[Hank]

Hank,

yes we still have floods, but the covenant was about a worldwide flood.

A world wide flood which never happened – oh wait, you mean to say god knew a worldwide flood is a physical impossibility, thus he promised not to do something he can’t anyhow?

The bible never mentions rain before God spoke to noah about the ark. it does mention dew every morning, which would indicate a humid environment.

so, why didn't it rain before the flood, did it necesarily even have to rain for a rain bow to be present? To these questions we can only speculate, for or against. Let's not put God in our box of the now though. He created the now and the then, ask him how he did it. Maybe he'll share it with you.

You answer question as cleverly as he who is not around.

Hank. This is just bad. look at this mess of a statement.

"if something is not around" requires me to believe that everything that is "around" has already been discovered. This has NEVER been true in the past, so what makes you think it is true now.

If you don't belive this rediculous idea, then that must mean that there are things that "ARE" but are presently not "AROUND"

you must then deduce that these things that "are" DO exist, even though they are not around.

???

You made at least five fallacies in one post. The biggest is the repetitive non sequitur.

On the plus side, using your train of thought, I believe in Santa Claus and I know you've been a bad boy. That is why he has not shown up with presents lately because most boys the world over have been bad. Sounds familiar?