Rainbow before the great flood

[Kan]

Whatever the Bible does not say, is not necessary the door for creative writing. We understand the methods of deduction and comparison, but they have strict rules of context. Well said Enoob.

The idea that there was a canopy of water in some form over and around the earth, perhaps in the upper atmosphere, is possible, but at best it is merely a model put forward by creation science nerds. A bit of ignorance and pride there, because it can easily be shown from scripture, that a uniform temperature and a greenhouse effect did not exist before the flood, and neither did the earth need a reserve of oceans of water in the sky to flood the earth. This idea comes from a lack of knowledge of the cause of rain, and the dynamics of the flood waters.

When scientists try to stick up for the Bible, they invariably end up representing God's Word in need of them.

[post]

same with the rainbow -- the Bible does not actually say this was the first rainbow. 

if we try to use as a rule that whenever the Bible first mentions something, that's when it was created - can we consistently do that with the whole of scripture?
is that actually a logical thing to do, and a sound "rule" of hermeneutic ((fancy, pious-sounding word that just means "interpretation"))?

were the Nephilim created in Genesis 6? at the very least many hundreds of years after the creation of everything else? was Noah the first person ever to make wine, and that, only after the flood? was Babel the first city, and the tower the first building? was it built from the first bricks? there is no mention of sandals until Genesis 14 - when Abram tells the king of Sodom that he wouldn't take even the thong of one from him. does that mean no one wore shoes before that time? 

hmm, this could get silly. 

but if we don't take that as a rule all the time, but only in certain special cases that are to our advantage, aren't we just applying 'rules' haphazardly to the scripture whenever it suits us, to support our own speculations? where the Bible is silent, are we being silent, or are we inserting things that aren't actually there? 
is that being honest? is that good or right? 

here's an excerpt from the same article about rainbows -- it's in line with the same train of thought, and it's not just about a lack of scientific evidence or sound scientific logic, it's also about what is actually in the scripture and what is actually not: 

 

Rainbow

Well, then, how about the rainbow? Didn’t God specially create the never-before-seen rainbow as a sign of His promise? Not necessarily. In Genesis 9:13, God said, “I do set my bow in the cloud,” and the fact that God does not imply that He had never set a rainbow in the clouds before but only that, from now on, the rainbow—appearing as it so often does as rain is ending—would henceforth have a special significance as a token (reminder 1) of God’s promise to never again send a worldwide Flood.

[post]

41 minutes ago, Kan said:

Whatever the Bible does not say, is not necessary the door for creative writing. We understand the methods of deduction and comparison, but they have strict rules of context. Well said Enoob.

i was with you up the point that you wrote "well said Enoob" 

because from where i am sitting, it sure looks like he is the one engaging in a bit of "creative writing" -- asserting that there was no such thing as rainbows before Noah stepped off the ark, though the Bible does not say this, and more than that, claiming that his opinion is as good as the scripture itself, and anyone who thinks differently is the one engaging in poor 'hermeneutic' -- again all about a minor point that the Bible is silent about. 

when the Bible is silent, isn't it a bit more reasonable to suppose that the normal course of nature in the universe that God created takes place? instead of imagining a science-fiction world in which the very basis of eyesight ((refraction of light through a transparent medium)) never existed before the floodwaters receded? 

you really think that's not "creative writing" but supposing that God took a beautiful part of creation that He had already made, and declared it to be a sign to all of creation that He would show it mercy for as long as the earth endures, belongs in the 'speculative fiction' section of the library? 

weird. 
for a moment there Kan, i comprehended you. 
but now my mental issues are rearing their head(s) again.  

[post]

18 minutes ago, post said:

when the Bible is silent, isn't it a bit more reasonable to suppose that the normal course of nature in the universe that God created takes place?

especially since God assuring us that as long as the earth endures, 'the normal course of nature in the universe that God created will take place' is pretty much exactly how we're introduced to the promise, and the rainbow is described as a sign of this promise? 

The Lord smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart:
"Never again will I curse the ground because of humans, even though every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood.
And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done.
As long as the earth endures,
seedtime and harvest,
cold and heat,
summer and winter,
day and night
will never cease.”
(Genesis 8:22-23) 

so ((in context)) God declaring a thing He had already created which is always a part of nature after a rain and any other time there is a mist of water in the air to be a sign that nature will continue as it is, and He will not destroy the earth by water ever again -- is that so extraordinary that you cannot believe it ?? 


 

[SIC]

1 hour ago, Kan said:

Whatever the Bible does not say, is not necessary the door for creative writing. We understand the methods of deduction and comparison, but they have strict rules of context. Well said Enoob.

I agree completely

[FresnoJoe]

1 hour ago, post said:

because from where i am sitting, it sure looks like he is the one engaging in a bit of "creative writing....
asserting that there was no such thing as rainbows before Noah....

Creative Writing?

He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end. Ecclesiastes 3:11

Or Bench Marks In The History Of Mankind?

I set My bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a sign of a covenant between Me and the earth. Genesis 9:13 (New American Standard Bible)

~

You Think?

Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. Proverbs 30:5-6

[Kan]

10 hours ago, enoob57 said:

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

 

2 hours ago, post said:

i was with you up the point that you wrote "well said Enoob" 

because from where i am sitting, it sure looks like he is the one engaging in a bit of "creative writing" -- asserting that there was no such thing as rainbows before Noah stepped off the ark, though the Bible does not say this, and more than that, claiming that his opinion is as good as the scripture itself, and anyone who thinks differently is the one engaging in poor 'hermeneutic' -- again all about a minor point that the Bible is silent about. 

when the Bible is silent, isn't it a bit more reasonable to suppose that the normal course of nature in the universe that God created takes place? instead of imagining a science-fiction world in which the very basis of eyesight ((refraction of light through a transparent medium)) never existed before the floodwaters receded? 

you really think that's not "creative writing" but supposing that God took a beautiful part of creation that He had already made, and declared it to be a sign to all of creation that He would show it mercy for as long as the earth endures, belongs in the 'speculative fiction' section of the library? 

weird. 
for a moment there Kan, i comprehended you. 
but now my mental issues are rearing their head(s) again.  

The above quote of Enoob, I read on its own without knowing his opinion, and he is merely saying that God said something at a certain time, which does not suggest that the rainbow did or did not exist. But he disagrees with you, and I did not bother finding that out.

Unfortunatley it is denying a process of thought as we both know. For instance "I went to the shop" does not say how or when, so it must be a lie? No it demands process of thought which goes something like this - "People do that..." etc.

"And God set His bow in the sky" God has a bow, had a bow before, Noah knows what it is, it is everywhere, sees it in the cloud.

I doubt if Noah looked up and said "Wow, what is that?"

[post]

25 minutes ago, Kan said:

 

The above quote of Enoob, I read on its own without knowing his opinion, and he is merely saying that God said something at a certain time, which does not suggest that the rainbow did or did not exist. But he disagrees with you, and I did not bother finding that out.

Unfortunatley it is denying a process of thought as we both know. For instance "I went to the shop" does not say how or when, so it must be a lie? No it demands process of thought which goes something like this - "People do that..." etc.

"And God set His bow in the sky" God has a bow, had a bow before, Noah knows what it is, it is everywhere, sees it in the cloud.

I doubt if Noah looked up and said "Wow, what is that?"

ah, thanks 

then maybe it's enoob i don't comprehend, because he is saying that 'where the Word is silent, we should remain silent' but he's saying my "assessment or thought process violates this" - though what i am saying is that the Bible is actually silent about both the rainbow pre-flood, and the phenomena of rain, post creation of man and prior to the flood.
if he's not opposing the idea that the rainbow may pre-exist the recession of the waters, then he's not being awfully cryptic, and i don't comprehend why he should say i "violate" that where the Bible does not specifically state a thing, we ought not assume it is the case -- since that's exactly what i've been saying. perhaps it is enoob who does not comprehend me. 

ha! and yet i receive so much flak here for observing, with full scriptural justification, that all of us have issues with our minds. 



 

[post]

1 hour ago, FresnoJoe said:

I set My bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a sign of a covenant between Me and the earth. Genesis 9:13

"set" - in past tense

Strong's Hebrew 5414

also "to give" or "appoint" or "put / place" or possibly "dedicate" -- it is not the word "create" 

check out how this word is variously used in scripture here

it is the same word in Genesis 1:17 - He 'set' the sun and the moon in the sky to give light to the earth, and to mark days, after He 'created' them in verse 16. 

same word in Leviticus 10:17 - 

Why have you not eaten the sin offering in the place of the sanctuary, since it is a thing most holy and has been given to you that you may bear the iniquity of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the LORD?

here, translated "has been given" -- meaning 'was assigned' -- and not meaning 'was created' at that time that it is here mentioned. 




the construction and the words used in this scripture, Genesis 9:13, are not sufficient to conclusively say from the text that this was the creation of the rainbow. it was for sure the designation of this as a sign - but beyond that, the scripture itself is silent. 

[enoob57]

22 minutes ago, post said:

"set" - in past tense

Strong's Hebrew 5414

also "to give" or "appoint" or "put / place" or possibly "dedicate" -- it is not the word "create" 

check out how this word is variously used in scripture here

it is the same word in Genesis 1:17 - He 'set' the sun and the moon in the sky to give light to the earth, and to mark days, after He 'created' them in verse 16. 

the construction and the words used in this scripture are not sufficient to conclusively say from the text that this was the creation of the rainbow. it was for sure the designation of this as a sign - but beyond that, the scripture itself is silent. 

 That is where a Biblical person shall stand ... till the Bible give us other! I will not in the fancy of my own mind
assert anything other than what God allows through a Biblical hermeneutic... this allows me to stand before The
Lord without pretense and say I followed Your Word Lord as I best could with You Holy Spirit as my guide. Love, Steven