Waiting,
Interesting explanation.
In this possible explanation are you saying that rainbows could have existed all along but just couldn’t be seen until the canopy or barrier was removed and sunlight could then reach the earth?
Even if this were true it still wouldn’t agree with the Bibles’ story that explains the rainbow as a miracle, gift, sign, or message from God. The Bibles’ story seems very misleading to me when the laws of science were put into motion way before the flood was supposed to have occurred.
Man can use these very laws of science to reproduce prisms of light and other things to explain this phenomenon.
Ranchette
The Rainbow Myth
by Ranchette 31 Replies latest jw friends
-
Ranchette
-
ballistic
I was more concerned with whether you could have rivers without rain. I think not. Rivers also indicate there is high ground which according to the JWs only rose up after the flood.
I don't know why I'm continuing on with this though, it is obvious to see that the JW way of taking the Bible literally is all wrong. But they would have to take everything too literally, just like the no blood policy. -
waiting
Heeeyyyy,
I'm JUST telling y'all what we USED to tell people who would actually delve that far into the scenario! I didn't say I STILL buy into the idea, ok?
And, yes, I'm *implying* that the existance of rainbows was possible before Noah was given that sign. After all, if he couldn't *see* the rainbow --- then it would have been a new phenomenom for him, would it not? But just because he couldn't *see* the rainbow, didn't mean it didn't exist.
We're still impressed to see a partial rainbow, and -- if you're going to buy into the actuality of the situation, Noah would have been really impressed with a full rainbow in a brilliant blue sky in calm waters after being on a stinky ark for a year - and God sending him "a sign."
waiting
-
karen7680
I have been reading this board for some time now, but amazingly, have never posted! I have a few comments about mountains, rivers, and rainbows.
First of all, mountains can be formed by a few different natural forces. One is by volcanic action. Volcanoes erupt, lava flows out, the landform is changed, and a mountain is formed over time. According to the theory of creation, didn't these things happen before the Garden of Eden? I recall seeing a picture in My Book of Bible Stories that shows volcanic action in the beginnings of the creation of Earth.
Also, mountains are formed when techtonic plates collide. When this happens, chains of mountains are formed such as the Appalachian Mountains. Since Adam and Eve were supposedly first placed on Earth 6,000 years ago, this would have happened long before they came along.
Therefore, there had to be flowing rivers and waterfalls during the time of the Garden of Eden.
As for rainbows ... first, I think the story of the first rainbow is a myth. Sounds an awful lot like Native American stories to me. I remember always being told as a child that whenever I see a rainbow, it is a reminder that Jehovah will never cause a deluge again. Was anybody else given this line of crap?
In order to see rainbows, the viewer must have certain conditions present. To bottom line it, there has to be a special degree angle between the viewer on the ground and the raindrops where the rainbow is seen ... 42 degrees, I think ... so, that puts a pretty narrow set of conditions to see one, which is why they are so rarely seen. Also, the sun has to be behind you when you look at the rainbow.
Didn't it rain on Earth on before the time of Noah's flood? Seems to me that rainbows would've occured too.
Karen
-
Ballistics Ghost
thanks karen, and welcome a-board.
waiting, I knew exactly where you were coming from, in a way I'm playing devil's advocate too.
I'm not sure I believe all of the bible, I'm an evolutionist. But I was kind of asking, "why do the witnesses say there was no rain before the flood when the bible says there was rivers?".
The thing is, as karen points out, there are 101 reasons why Genesis is wrong and the witnesses seem to have a blind spot when it comes to scientific evidence such as geology.
Some other research showed that rain dissolves more carbon dioxide than the process of photosynthesis and was essential in bringing down carbon dioxide levels in order for life to begin. -
Ranchette
editid because of double posting.
Ranchette -
Ranchette
Waiting,
I'm sorry,I didn't mean to imply that I thought that you bought into that explanation.
Thanks for helping me to drive my point home here.Karen,
Thanks for your input too.
I had already thought of the volcanos but not the tec. plates.
Ranchette -
AlanF
No matter how you cut it, the Bible is chock full of problems when you try to relate the Genesis account to physical reality.
Waiting is correct about the JW view -- the Society teaches that rainbows first became visible after the Flood when the vapor canopy was removed and sunlight first reached the earth full strength. So far as I can see, the Society has not commented on this stuff since the 1988 Insight book, but that book presents their traditional view.
One should keep in mind, though, that the Bible does not actually say that rainbows first became visible after the Flood. It only says that God was going to make the rainbow a sign of his covenant not to ever again kill everything by a flood. For hundreds of years commentators have interpreted the passage as the Society does, but that's not what it actually says. It is not clear what the original writer of Genesis actually had in mind.
The simple fact is that rain has fallen since the earliest days of the earth. Geologists have found lots of "fossilized rainprints" -- imprints of raindrops falling onto soft mud that has since hardened into stone. I've seen pictures of these from rock more than half a billion years old. Many of these fossilized rainprints occur in rock that contains the oldest forms of life, life that even the Society is forced to admit is much older than Noah's Flood.
So if rain occurred before "Noah's Flood" and the Bible indicates that it didn't, then the Bible is wrong. Alternatively, since the Bible does not actually make that claim, but only says some vague things that can be interpreted that way, we again have no means of telling with certainty just what the writer of Genesis had in mind.
Problems with the reality of any kind of "Noah's Flood" are insurmountable. If one views the Flood as global, then that view is immediately falsified by massive evidence from geology. The only way to maintain that view is to ignore geology. If one views the Flood as local, one runs into less severe geological problems, but one has to interpret the Bible account so loosely as to ignore many important details -- details that Fundamentalists are eager to point out as flaws in the local flood view. So either way you cut it, the legend of Noah's Flood does not stand up to close scrutiny. The only way to get around the problem of lack of evidence for a Flood is to invoke miracles, including a major one that explains away the complete lack of physical evidence for a Flood.
A long essay on "The Flood" can be found here: http://www.geocities.com/osarsif/index2.htm . It deals with the geological evidence that disproves a global Flood and shows why the Society's view are completely out to lunch.
AlanF
-
-
patio34
Ranchette, very interesting discussion. AlanF, as usual, your erudite posts are enlightening.
Waiting, very good ideas from 'memory lane' on the WTS reasoning.
One thing that's not clear from WTS is the 'blanket' of water used for the flood waters. I had heard that it stopped direct sunlight; but conversely, that it acted as a prism directing light in many directions; thus Siberia had palm trees.
Now, imo there had to be some direct rays of the sun in order for vegetation to grow. Many, many plants need direct sun for survival.
Therefore, there had to be rainbows before. As AlanF stated tho, the Bible doesn't explicitly say there had been no rainbows previously.
Pat