Rainbow before the great flood

[FresnoJoe]

4 hours ago, post said:

you don't need rain to have a rainbow....
and all the Bible actually says is that for a period before the creation of man, there wasn't rain....

With A Blanket Of Fog Protecting The LORD's Green Earth
You Would Not Have The Sunshine Needed
To Make God's Rainbows
Don't You Know

This is hard for some of you to accept,
because you have human tradition
and you are set in your own way
of thinking

Amen~!

[post]

2 minutes ago, FresnoJoe said:

With A Blanket Of Fog Protecting The Earth
You Will Not Have The Sunshine Needed
To Make God's Rainbows
Don't You Know

[FresnoJoe]

4 minutes ago, post said:

Still,
No Rainbow

But A Muddy Print Of Something
Man In A Blue And Yellow Funk?

[enoob57]

17 minutes ago, post said:

right:
and where is it written "there was no such thing as a rainbow before this time" ? 
and where is it written "the flood was the first time it ever rained" ? 

To station oneself upon the hermeneutic of God's Word one must submit to The Word Itself- where The Word is
silent we remain silent... where The Word Speaks we speak...

Ge 9:13-15

13 I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth.

14 And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud:

15 And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.
KJV
As this the first Speak/Written about the rainbow "bow in the cloud" it represents, (in context), a position in time
after flood! Whatever your speaking of  it is outside the hermeneutic of The Word and all that have made His
Word their Word will simply not follow your whatever it is...    Love, Steven

[post]

23 minutes ago, enoob57 said:

where The Word is silent we remain silent.

i hear you saying that, but you ain't really doing that, are you? 

 

[post]

33 minutes ago, FresnoJoe said:

Still,
No Rainbow

But A Muddy Print Of Something
Man In A Blue And Yellow Funk?

in love i say this -- might want to get those glasses re-checked, Joe. 

[enoob57]

2 hours ago, post said:

i hear you saying that, but you ain't really doing that, are you? 

 

Perhaps you can show me where I have done otherwise  

[post]

i was looking for something else and happened to notice that Answers in Genesis lists the whole "no rainbows / no rain before the flood" speculation as an 'argument that should be avoided' 

https://answersingenesis.org/creationism/arguments-to-avoid/there-was-no-rain-before-the-flood/

heh, someone agrees with me. that's encouraging to discover 

[PlasmaHam]

11 hours ago, post said:

i was looking for something else and happened to notice that Answers in Genesis lists the whole "no rainbows / no rain before the flood" speculation as an 'argument that should be avoided' 

https://answersingenesis.org/creationism/arguments-to-avoid/there-was-no-rain-before-the-flood/

heh, someone agrees with me. that's encouraging to discover 

 For some reason the quoting system was bugging.

  I think the reason why Answers in Genesis avoids that argument is because it is hard to support scientifically, which is kinda their thing. I mean, it seems hard to find evidence that it didn't rain thousands of years in the past. The only real reason the notion exists in because of the Biblical mentions of it. 

[post]

5 minutes ago, PlasmaHam said:

 For some reason the quoting system was bugging.

  I think the reason why Answers in Genesis avoids that argument is because it is hard to support scientifically, which is kinda their thing. I mean, it seems hard to find evidence that it didn't rain thousands of years in the past. The only real reason the notion exists in because of the Biblical mentions of it. 

did you read the article? 

it seems to agree with what i've been saying - that the actual text of the Bible does not say this. it's silent on the issue. 
so things that the Bible that are silent about, which are completely speculative, that don't really make sense, and require that God arbitrarily change His physical laws, are things we should probably avoid using as arguments and taking strong stances on. 

here's a quote from it: 

 

A Biblical Analysis

Proponents of the “no-rain” view refer to Genesis 2 to support their position. Genesis 2:5–6 states that “the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground” (emphasis added).

From this passage, all that can really be said is that no rain had fallen up to that time—that is, prior to the creation of man. Remember, Genesis 2 is primarily a detailed recap of Day Six of Creation Week. The passage describes the environment before Adam was created. This mist may have been one of the primary methods that God used to hydrate the dry land He created on Day Three. Furthermore, while this mist was likely the watering source for that vegetation throughout the remainder of Creation Week, the text does not require it to be the only water source after Adam’s creation.

Some argue that this mist eliminated the need for rain until the time of the Flood. However, presence of the mist prior to Adam’s creation does not preclude the existence of or the need for rain after he was created.

Genesis 2:5–6 reveals that before the Sixth Day of Creation Week, God had watered the plants He made with a mist, but had not yet caused rain or created a man to till the ground. To demand that rain didn’t happen until after the Flood from this passage has no more logical support than to claim, from the passage, that no one farmed until after the Flood.