On Wed, 3 Jul 2002, Vernon Jenkins wrote:
> 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_.
Vernon,
Should I understand you to imply that a sign of a covenant can only be
something that never existed prior to the covenant? Are you sure that
there was no circumcision before Abraham? Were there any sabbaths before
the Exodus (Exodus 31:13)?
> 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."]
Genesis 2 is not about the Flood. Genesis 2 and 3 are about the Garden of
Eden and the Fall of Man. In Genesis 2 we see that the Garden was planted
in a region that had previously been desolate, devoid of vegetation (vs.
5). Two reasons are given for this, namely, absence of rain and absence of
a man to cultivate the ground. This is how things work today. Go to an
uninhabited region that lacks for rain, and it also lacks vegetation. So
this verse gives us no reason to believe that there was a different system
before the Flood. If plant life could flourish without rain, then this
verse wouldn't make sense. The two problems are corrected in the next two
verses (6 and 7). Then in verses 8 and 9 we see plant life flourishing.
Gordon Brown
Department of Mathematics
University of Colorado
Boulder, CO 80309-0395
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 04 2002 - 16:51:19 EDT