With respect to rainbows they form every time white light passes though
airborne water droplets. I have seen them in sea spray, water falls, and in
condensing water round hot springs. The significance of the rainbow in
Genesis 8 must not lie in the fact it was new, but in the meaning that God
invested in it. It's familiarity reinforces its message.
There are other examples of the familiar taking on new meaning as a result of
divine action or command in Scripture. Circumcision is one. Another example
of the familiar being endowed with new significance is our Lord's use of bread
and wine.
God bless
Jonathan
gordon brown wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Jun 1999, Vernon Jenkins wrote:
>
> > It is unthinkable that Moses would have erred in these details, I agree.
> > But what of Gen.2:6? Aren't we informed there of a different - but
> > equally-effective - source of water that was to sustain life throughout
> > the antediluvian period? If rain had fallen during this time, why is the
> > post-Flood rainbow so clearly a novelty? Is it logical to suppose the
> > Lord would use some commonplace phenomenon as a guarantee and reminder
> > of his covenant with Noah and his descendants (Gen.9:13)? I suggest the
> > significance of this event cannot be lightly dismissed.
>
> Gen. 2:6 must be consistent with Gen. 2:5. Unless this was a new
> phenomenon, it still did not allow for the growth of the vegetation
> mentioned. Thermal areas have steam arising from the ground without
> allowing the growth of vegetation, although I am not saying that that is
> what this was.
>
> I don't think that it is clear that the post-Flood rainbow was a novelty.
> By analogy, are we to assume that because circumcision was the sign of the
> covenant with Abraham, he was the certainly the first person ever
> circumcised?
>
> Gordon Brown
> Department of Mathematics
> University of Colorado
> Boulder, CO 80309-0395