Was Noah's Rainbow the First Rainbow?

Don’t put words into my mouth. I haven’t said either of those things.

The discussion will go much more smoothly if you listen to what I say rather than trying to dictate my lines for me.

I am mystified by why believers accept Genesis as the word of God, but I haven’t claimed that they are “all idiots.” And I’ve actually defended the author(s) of the Genesis account, saying:

But keep in mind that all of us today – including the AiG folks – have an advantage that the author of Genesis lacked: modern scientific knowledge.
1 Like

I don’t think its rational to believe Genesis if that’s all you have access too. As I explained earlier, I trust the Bible because of what I found in Jesus. Then coming to Genesis, it was much easier to make sense of it.

And the issue about modern scientific knowledge is fine. That is part of why it we find it does not conflict with evolutionary science, even if you read it literally.

More replies tomorrow. I’m off to bed.

1 Like

And I spent 50+ years developing my understanding of Genesis, which is why I don’t make sweeping statements about what people “in the 21st century” ought to be able to believe… it depends on many things, and the century and the cultural baggage is only a trivial part of it.

If believers are out of step with the 21st century (whatever you mean by that), they either know something you don’t, or they’re idiots. Similarly if the ancient writer meant to glorify God in the Flood account, and ended up making him a Divine Doofus, either he knew something you don’t, or he’s an idiot.

Since you say that your reaction against Christianity only began with literalism and then embraced all the subtleties, perhaps it’s not useful for you to stick with the simple-minded literal objections that the New Atheist Online Infantry always trot out, rather than employ your more sophisticated knowledge of the text and its background.

Notably (as Josh has hinted) your reliance on science to debunk Genesis reveals a stunningly limited view of ancient mindsets and literature, theology, history of thought and even the history and philosophy of science itself. Admittedly there are Christians who fall into that hole too, but probably not so much round here.

3 Likes

No, keiths loves to push his interpretations onto believers. keiths never admits he is wrong even after his many flaws have been pointed out.

If it rains at night there wouldn’t be any rainbows. And not every daytime shower produces one.

1 Like

But anyone who sees the actual meaning of the Hebrew word used there should understand that His literal word is NOT a rainbow. Throughout the OT it refers to the archer’s weapon. “Hanging up your guns” means the same thing in our culture- that one is giving up hostilities. It sure doesn’t mean that the guns just got created when you decided to hang them up. You may not even literally hang them up and still “hang up your guns”. The rainbow was then merely a symbol of what God was actually doing. He said “bow”. We turned it into rainbow because of the immediate context but in the larger context of His anger with the sons of Adam the literal meaning of the word is appropriate.

Look, I don’t know what abuses you suffered as a young person at the hands of fundamentalists, I only know what abuses I suffered. Is it God’s fault the ancient Hebrews understood metaphor and double-meaning better than 20th century American Christians? Is the meaning of God’s word bound by what the people you grew up under thought it said, even when Abraham and the patriarchs would have read it differently? None of us are here to defend what your pastor when you were growing up thought about these passages. We each have our own ideas about them and some of us will defend them. I suppose we each react to the discovery of the human frailties and ignorance of our youthful authority figures differently.

4 Likes

Even after killing all but 7 people out of the world’s entire population, and in a clumsy manner that also kills all the animals too? Now that’s faith.

You seem to have forgotten what “YEC” stands for. The date and manner of origin of two people is the least of it.

The rainbow would of been the first one because it never rained before. Thats the historic opinion.
One can make a rainbow in a hundred ways. Yet only in the sky from after a rainstorm.
The audience for genesis is expected to understand there was no rainbow before this
Actually the rain stopped long before the people came off the ark. Yet the great moisture would still have had a bow there unless it was raining episodically.

You can have a rainbow without rain. I’ve seen that often.

It can happen when there are misty clouds with water droplets that never reach the ground.

How did plants grow without rain?

If this happens its very rare. its understood the great bow is about a great promise based on the event of rain. I never saw misty clouds making a bow but anyways because there would be no rain before the flood there would be no misty clouds.
Why deny Gods words? Are you saying the bible was a lie?

The bible is cklear a mist uniquely came up to water the earth.

I don’t trust your interpretation of what the Bible says.

1 Like

Somehow, I assumed that The Garden of Eden depended on misty clouds.

No, but I suggest that it is being misinterpreted.

2 Likes

No. The Hebrew text is NOT clear. That is why English translations translate the underlying Hebrew word variously. For example:

“mist” (KJV, ESV, NASB)
“streams” (NIV, CEV)
“springs” (NLT, NET)
“underground water” (God’s Word Translation)
“underground stream” (ISV)

Robert, if mist was clear, the Hebrew word’s meaning wouldn’t have been argued among scholars for so many centuries. You are confusing your favorite tradition with diligent lexicography.

Also, “water the earth” is based on the Hebrew word ERETZ, so it is referring to watering the ground or watering the land— not the entire planet earth as modern day English readers tend to assume. (Remember: In 1611 when the KJV was translated, the English word “earth” lacked many of the “planet earth” denotations and connotations people tend to assume today, over 400 years later. Languages change over time. In 1611, “earth” was a very reasonable translation of Hebrew ERETZ. “Earth” is more ambiguous today and far more prone to misunderstanding.)

Thus, there is no reason to extrapolate conditions from a specific time and place (the Eden garden) on the entire planet earth (which even you would agree in the Noah pericope was a context many centuries later) based on descriptions of specific conditions (probably based on a high water table, high humidity, and more morning dew) in the specific ERETZ/land of Eden where the Genesis garden was located. You are confusing the time and place. Apples and oranges. (Tradition tends to ignore details, context, and complex topics. Tradition and popular opinion loves simplicity.)

No. It was not unique. Mist-based and/or dew-based watering—even if that was the intended meaning of the author—is found in many ecosystems around the world today. Many waterfalls produce mist-based watering and morning dews support both plant and animal life in many areas.

5 Likes

the bible is clear. your claims its wrongly interpreted are just yours. The mist that came up to water the place was pointed out directly as opposed to the modern planet. thats why it was included.
It didn’t mean it rained . It was the source of water/life as opposed to rain or streams etc etc.
There would be no rivers or streams in the original earth. The great river noted came from the underground and divided into four heads.
Remember the hebrew itself is only articulating the inspired conversation.
if you didn’t think it was as it said then you should offer up your options. You didn’t because the bible is clear and god meant the readers to get it clear.
King James wasn’t wrong about everything.

Which, of course was whispered by God to Moses in King James English, right??

Ugh…

2 Likes

Just to say this and then I’m going to bed.

I had a conversation with some troll on subreddit for progressive Christianity about… something, and he started yelling (you know what I mean) at me for ‘not believing’ the omnipotent God can translate His word correctly… and completely ignoring the number of translations in the process.

1 Like