No Rainbows For 1 Year = Jesus Is Coming

[sixpacktr]

Quick question:

Why do you all assume that there were no rainbows before the flood? All God said was that the rainbow would be a sign of a covenant between him and the earth that he'd never flood it again. He didn't say "hey look at this new thing I'm making to show you", but rather that it would now be the visible token of the covenant.

Just as people have shook hands with people at introduction or in friendship, and then shook hands with someone that they'd entered into a contract with, it has different meanings if we assign it such.

So to me, there have always been rainbows, but God made it special to Noah thru covenant.

Just my $0.02...

[Guest Yediyd]

Quick question:

Why do you all assume that there were no rainbows before the flood? All God said was that the rainbow would be a sign of a covenant between him and the earth that he'd never flood it again. He didn't say "hey look at this new thing I'm making to show you", but rather that it would now be the visible token of the covenant.

Just as people have shook hands with people at introduction or in friendship, and then shook hands with someone that they'd entered into a contract with, it has different meanings if we assign it such.

So to me, there have always been rainbows, but God made it special to Noah thru covenant.

Just my $0.02...

Wow, Six...GOOD POINT!!!!!

[musashi]

is that what the mormons believe though? i don't think so. and i should say here too that its not just the mormons that take the flood story literally. other christians that take it literally also say it was the first rainbow, and other ideas spring off from that such as that maybe it didn't rain before the flood at all, the canope and all that stuff.

here's the joseph smith quote again..

"I have asked of the Lord concerning His coming; and while asking the Lord, He gave a sign and said, "In the days of Noah I set a bow in the heavens as a sign and token that in any year that the bow should be seen the Lord would not come; but there should be seed time and harvest during that year: but whenever you see the bow withdrawn, it shall be a token that there shall be famine, pestilence, and great distress among the nations, and that the coming of the Messiah is not far distant."

so joseph was talking to jesus at the time and he asked him when he was coming. "in the day of noah i..." that sentence makes it sound like thats when he put the bow in the sky to me, not that he's just pointing at another rainbow to noah saying, well i'm gonna use that as a token for this." kinda takes the whole miracle out of the event.

the next part of the quote jesus is saying any year the bow is there, he's not gonna come. that sounds to me like he put it there then, and he'll take it away right near the end. i guess you can read into this one another way if you like, but really? isn't that what he's saying.

he told noah that the bow is a sign in ANY year that the bow should be seen the Lord would not come. doesn't that make him a liar? please don't strike me with lightning - because after noah he did come. he was born in bethlehem and he lived on the earth for more than 30 years. i haven't heard any historical reports about strange lack of rainbows when he came to the earth then.

[Gwen]

i saw a rainbow yesterday evening. just thought yall might want to know.

all honesty, i've not been following this topic to that much detail. and i haven't reasearched it (not commonly taught in sunday school classes; must not be the most important belief we have if it is "mormon teachings") but out of curiosity from the last comment, there may not be any historical reports on the lack of rainbows, but where exactly are the historical reports of having them? ppl just don't seem to write this down. failure to show proof of one hypothisis dosen't by default make the other hypothisis true, there must still be evidance of the other. sometimes lack of evidence keeps things in theory stage for a long time, same reason we have so many theories as to what happened to the dinosaurs; not enough evidence to prove or disprove any of them, so they stay theories.

[sixpacktr]

but whenever you see the bow withdrawn, it shall be a token that there shall be famine, pestilence, and great distress among the nations, and that the coming of the Messiah is not far distant."

As for the rainbow, it was my conjecture that perhaps that was what was happening. Enoch himself, before Noah, asks the Lord, when he is weeping because of the wickedness of men, "why do you weep as the rain upon the mountains" or something like that, which to me says that there was rain before the flood.

Also, famine, pestilence, etc., denotes to me a lack of rain, and therefore a lack of rainbows. The great distress among the nations? A fight for water, for food, for necessities.

I don't see a huge problem here. I still think that the rainbow existed before, but if it didn't, oh well! Not a big deal to me. Joseph wasn't lying, nor was the Lord, regarding his coming. Joseph spoke after the birth of Christ, so your point of Christ living on the earth for 30 odd years but no record of no rainbows really isn't to the argument you're making.

We are told that the earth will be in commotion and that there will be great calamities prior to the Lord's 2nd coming, when the wicked will be judged and found wanting. Take away water and food and people will become animals because the survival instinct will kick in big time...

[Snow]

Quick question:

Why do you all assume that there were no rainbows before the flood?

Because that's what the bible implies:

"And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations:

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

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

[Annabelli]

There was not rain before the great flood. The people at that time had only known dew.

Gen 7:11 ¶ In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

[Dr T]

That can mean that they opened up or describing "the flood." It says nothing about it being the first time it rained.

[sixpacktr]

That can mean that they opened up or describing "the flood." It says nothing about it being the first time it rained.

I agree with Dr T on this. Read the account in Moses of the life of Enoch. He asks the Lord how he can weep "like the rain upon the mountains" for the wickedness of the world when he is all powerful. Enoch was before Noah. How did he know of rain if it never had done that before?

[Princess3dward]

<div class='quotemain'>

That can mean that they opened up or describing "the flood." It says nothing about it being the first time it rained.

I agree with Dr T on this. Read the account in Moses of the life of Enoch. He asks the Lord how he can weep "like the rain upon the mountains" for the wickedness of the world when he is all powerful. Enoch was before Noah. How did he know of rain if it never had done that before?

If it had NEVER reined before, than how would water be recycled? And how would people live?

[sixpacktr]

There have been some that have questioned the flood because "how" could God make it rain everywhere on the earth 40 days and nights. Remember, Peleg was a descendant of Shem, after the flood. The earth wasn't divided until after the flood.

Now I know that some feel that the "divided" referred to in Genesis 10:25 is a political divide, but I don't believe that. So if the land was one mass during the time of Noah and the subsequent flood, I don't find it so hard to believe it would rain for 40 days and nights over a certain land mass. And we don't know what the make up of the land was in that land mass, so...

Look at some of the other planets, especially somewhere like Jupiter, where the giant red spot can cause storms for years. I live in Buffalo, and it snowed every day for a month. Every day! Thank heavens that I didn't have to shovel then (I was in an apt).

It rained hard for several days in OK/TX and the flooding was unbelievable, so yes, I believe that it rained 40 days and nights and there was a massive flood.

Rain, I think, was not an anomaly. Perhaps the thought of 40 days of rain and massive flooding was what the people's problem was??

[Adomini22]

The more we talk of science and religion....the more I come to understand that there is alot that we (everyone) dont know. All will be revealed in due time. Nevertheless, I once thought that there may not have been rain before the flood, but the quote from Enoch makes me wonder....

[Snow]

There have been some that have questioned the flood because "how" could God make it rain everywhere on the earth 40 days and nights. Remember, Peleg was a descendant of Shem, after the flood. The earth wasn't divided until after the flood.

Now I know that some feel that the "divided" referred to in Genesis 10:25 is a political divide, but I don't believe that. So if the land was one mass during the time of Noah and the subsequent flood, I don't find it so hard to believe it would rain for 40 days and nights over a certain land mass. And we don't know what the make up of the land was in that land mass, so...

Look at some of the other planets, especially somewhere like Jupiter, where the giant red spot can cause storms for years. I live in Buffalo, and it snowed every day for a month. Every day! Thank heavens that I didn't have to shovel then (I was in an apt).

It rained hard for several days in OK/TX and the flooding was unbelievable, so yes, I believe that it rained 40 days and nights and there was a massive flood.

Rain, I think, was not an anomaly. Perhaps the thought of 40 days of rain and massive flooding was what the people's problem was??

I take it you have never had a science class nor have ever talked to someone who has.

[CrimsonKairos]

Dang, Snow...ouch!

We're using rapiers with padded tips here, what's with the sharp tip?

Scientists hardly agree with each other on everything. There's room for all theories. If what you meant to say was, "According to my understanding of science, the flood is not possible in a literal sense," then I read ya. B)

[Guest Yediyd]

The Bible says that professing themselves to be wise, they became fools...so, if I have a choice between a bunch of scientist who don't even agree and just trusting the lord...I guess there is no contest. I'm not going to definitavely say there was a flood or there wasn't...because that information is not essential to my salvation, but I do tent to take the Bible literally, and I believe the account of the flood. I don't believe that it was a parable. I guess I will find out later what G-d was talking about when he mentioned the flood in the Bible.

...I do think that comment by you, Snow...was uncalled for. You are supposed to be a moderator...so moderate yourself and if you don't have something positive to add...then control that meanspiritive keyboard of yours.

[sixpacktr]

I take it you have never had a science class nor have ever talked to someone who has.

Thanks CK and Yed, for the support.

Actually, Snow, I scored a 32 on my science portion of the ACT a LONG time ago, so to answer your question, I did take science classes and devour up as much as I can still.

My point is that I choose to believe the Bible and choose to believe revelation. I think that most scientists that are honest with themselves (read not bloated with pride that they know everything) will be the first to admit that anything is possible.

I understand the bluntness of email, and the temptation to score points off of the "stupid" person. To each his own. But if I'm wrong, I'm perfectly fine with that, but I'll wait for HF to tell me so, not some scientist that is "smarter" than me, or someone that thinks that science answers it all...

[Guest BillP]

I've often been told throughout my life time in the church that if the science doesn't work with the theology than there is a problem with the science; and if the theology dosen't work with the science there is a problem with the theology. When the science and the theology work together you have a correct theology and a correct science. When is the theology required to become emperical? Should not logic be applicable to correct theology? There is a scientific process (i.e. Fry Test to name one), what is the logical theological process?

[Adomini22]

Snow is just bitter. I guess she knows the ins and outs of science better than the scientists. And.... that doesnt bug me one bit. I hope her science can answer to salvation..... cause its a lonely world without salvation, science or not. ( oh, and for opinions sake..... I think the flood did happen cause the earth needed to be baptised before its cleansed with fire) And that is necessary..... if you believe in God, that is. Thanx!

[CrimsonKairos]

Oh my...how to say this...

Snow is a dude.

[BenRaines]

And personal attacks on ones level of inteligence or schooling is not the way we would like to run this site. Better to say I believe it to be this way or I believe what I have read or have faith in, etc.

Can everyone please play nice in the sandbox?

Ben Raines

[Guest BillP]

<div class='quotemain'>

I take it you have never had a science class nor have ever talked to someone who has.

Thanks CK and Yed, for the support.

Actually, Snow, I scored a 32 on my science portion of the ACT a LONG time ago, so to answer your question, I did take science classes and devour up as much as I can still.

My point is that I choose to believe the Bible and choose to believe revelation. I think that most scientists that are honest with themselves (read not bloated with pride that they know everything) will be the first to admit that anything is possible.

I understand the bluntness of email, and the temptation to score points off of the "stupid" person. To each his own. But if I'm wrong, I'm perfectly fine with that, but I'll wait for HF to tell me so, not some scientist that is "smarter" than me, or someone that thinks that science answers it all...

No one have a response for this floundering soul?

[sixpacktr]

No one have a response for this floundering soul?

Huh?

[Guest Yediyd]

And personal attacks on ones level of inteligence or schooling is not the way we would like to run this site. Better to say I believe it to be this way or I believe what I have read or have faith in, etc.

Can everyone please play nice in the sandbox?

Ben Raines

I agree, Ben...

...but I don't like it in this sand box...cats keep burying me!

[Dr T]

Better you than me... :)

[puniisham]

I read in one of the church literatures that the beginnning of every year to look for a rainbow as a sign that all will be well for the year but if no rainbow appears then we have much need to worry.