Second-hand sign? (was Re: Noahic Covenant)

From: Vernon Jenkins (
Date: Wed Jul 03 2002 - 17:44:48 EDT

  • Next message: bivalve: "Bats, bugs, bunnies..."

    To the Forum :-

    The explanation of the colours of the rainbow was first given by Isaac
    Newton c1667 - its curved appearance
    having been correctly explained c1611. A rainbow is seen by an observer
    with his back to the sun when a
    shower of water droplets is illuminated by the sun's rays. The formation
    of a rainbow thus provides clear
    evidence of rain.

    The Scriptures first mention this "bow in the clouds" in Gen.9:13 where
    - following the Flood - it is described
    as "a token of the covenant between me (God) and the earth" - a
    perpetual reminder of His promise never
    again to destroy all flesh that is upon the earth by water. What is
    surely implied here is, (a) the rainbow
    was a _novelty_ and therefore, (b) untill the Flood, the Antediluvians
    had never known _rain_.

    These far-reaching conclusions are supported by Gen.2:5,6 where we read,
    "...the Lord God had not caused it
    to rain upon the earth...but there went up a mist from the earth and
    watered the whole face of the ground."
    [Quoting Henry Morris (The Genesis Record, p.84): "The original
    hydrologic system was thus drastically
    different from that of the present day."]

    Here, then, is a further hurdle for those who wish to turn the literal
    truth of these early chapters of Genesis
    on its head. If the rainbow had been a familiar sight to Noah during his
    long years before the deluge, where
    was the logic and fitness of God's using it 'second-hand' as a token of
    the covenant?



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jul 03 2002 - 18:09:46 EDT