Continuing the debate about NO RAIN before Noah's life
No rain teaching:
Deluge was over. There was a uniform temperature with the canopy
and slight air movement. Again, first mention, first existence
and an interdependence of no rain, mist, no rainbow and no
seasons
My answer:
Of course you would have to understand Gen.1:14 as "festivals"
and not "seasons of the year." If you admitted there were seasons
then you would have to come close to admitting there could well
have been rain within "seasons of the year."
You say Genesis 1:14 and the word "moadim"(seasons) = God's
festivals of Lev.23.
This Hebrew word is indeed used for God's festivals in the first
five books. Because it is, some have been quick to dogmatically
proclaim loud and strong that God's festivals were from the very
beginning. Even Adam Clarke has an interesting comment on this
line of thought in his famous Bible Commentary. This Hebrew word
is number 4150 in Strong's Concordance. In the "Englishman's
Hebrew Concordance" you will find every place in the OT where
this word is used(page 672 in the edition I have). The
"Theological Wordbook of the OT" has much to say about this word,
Vol.l, Page 387/88. In Ex.34:18 we have it translated "in the
time of" and = the month of Abib. It is a different Hebrew word
used here for "feast"(#2282 not 4150). Obviously the word "moed"
or "moadim" is here used NOT for "feast" as the feast has already
been mentioned as the feast of unleavened bread. It is used here
as a "month season, Abib." It is used as a general expression for
the season of the year that the month of Abib is in. We may say
today "the spring season of Abib."
Notice Lev.23:4. Here the word (#4150) is used TWICE. It would be
a little silly to render this verse as: "These are the feasts of
the Lord ..... which you shall proclaim feasts" as God has made
it plain already they are feasts of His in verse 2. The KJV
translators had the correct meaning of what God was saying here.
The feasts of the Lord were to be holy gatherings, proclaimed to
be observed in their own particular seasons of the year. The Jews
have always known that the Passover/Unleavened Bread feast was to
be observed in the "spring" season not the winter season(from
Palestine). The "fall" feasts (Trumpets, Atonement, Tabernacles)
was to be in the fall season not the spring(Palestine year).
This Hebrew word (#4150) CAN MEAN a certain time of the year, a
certain period of the year, be it spring, summer, fall etc. It
does NOT JUST mean "feast" or "festival."
It would be wonderful for us keepers of the feasts of the Lord,
to be able to prove 100%, without any doubt, that this word
"moed" in Gen.1:14 means ONLY "feasts" for then we could indeed
say that God had His feasts from the very beginning. BUT.....
such is not the case. No dogmatic stance can be taken on that
view, unless you are going to be very UNwise. We just CANNOT be
sure for certain that Moses was telling us that God had His
festivals from the beginning, or that God simply had the lights
of heaven mark out day, night, signs of various weather to come
(as the farmers used to watch the sky before we had the space age
weather man), for yearly cycles, and for seasons within that
year(spring, fall etc.).. If it is the latter, then God did have
different seasons from the beginning, with weather patterns (but
probably not as wild and contrasting as today in many parts of
the world).
From what I have already said above under other comments, I am
inclined to lean towards the latter understanding of Gen.1:14.
God did have yearly seasons, with seedtime and harvest, cold and
heat, summer and winter, and RAIN as we are familiar with today,
only not as drastic, but much more pleasant for the world of that
age before the flood of Noah.
No rain teaching:
Man had great longevity. There was no seasonal stress of extremes
and changing weather fronts. The sun's shortwave radiation and
cosmic rays were filtered more.
My answer:
The Bible does indicate that man had greater longevity than
today. We do have men mentioned who lived hundreds of years, but
were they the norm or the exceptions? We cannot know for sure,
but I will take the relative few given as examples of the norm
during that time and age. It may also have just been God's will
that mankind live much longer then than today. Just his plan and
desire for that age. As for Dillow's other statements above. I
see no Biblical proof in specifics. I do know the sun's rays are
of benefit for health(vitamin D is produced by the sun's rays)
even today IF we had not put holes in the ozone. I know from
experience that living for months without bright sunny days has a
psychological effect on humans. I lived in a part of B.C. for
three years that often had periods of three to four months of
cloudy sunless weather during the wintery time. Let's face it,
what is better than a warm sunny day with blue skies and a few
snowy white clouds drifting by, while out next to a stream
rolling through a country meadow, with the birds singing and
sheep grazing. The fishermen among us know exactly how lovely
that is.
No rain teaching:
Canopied skies therefore blocked the production of C-14
substantially or totally so such testing for dates for these
worlds (including pre-man ones) is misleading. Radiation is known
to cause aging. A plot of age versus generations displays a
exponential decline curve reminiscent of a change of one set of
conditions to another set of different conditions.
Mt answer:
Again, that is Dillow's thoughts, another scientist may have
other evidence or claims, to counter his. I'll leave all that for
them to argue over.
No rain teaching:
Noah's drunkenness (Genesis 9:20-21) can be attributed to the new
conditions of the new age. Water in a canopy would press down on
the atmosphere below increasing the atmospheric pressure. Dillow
shows that 40 feet of perceptible water in the canopy would
increase pressure to 2.18 atmospheres by the weight. The
chemical reaction changing glucose to alcohol is:
C6 H12 06 ----> 2(C 02) + 2(C2 HS OH)
The carbon dioxide is suppressed with greater atmospheric
pressure so fermentation takes longer.
My answer:
I think Ewin answered all this above. And I can make wine inside
the house, without a canopy of water above, so what on earth has
all this got to do with proving it did not rain until the flood?
No rain teaching:
Noah was caught off guard by the increased alcoholic content and
lower pressure causes intoxication sooner - a double whammy.
My answer:
Whhhaaattt! I see nothing in the Scriptures that says Noah was
caught off guard by anything! It simply says Noah planted a
vineyard and got drunk! Let's leave it at that and not try to
build something out of nothing that is not stated. There are many
people today who plant vineyards, drink of the wine and get
drunk. If they are caught off guard, it is usually by "The
deceitfulness of the human heart" (Jer.17:9).
No rain teaching:
Tests in high altitude found blood alcohol higher than in lower
altitude. So another piece of seemingly unrelated biblical data
dovetails into the water heaven theory. No wonder there is no
record of God chastising Noah for drunkenness and cursing Ham.
My answer:
Just a minute, where in the Scripture does it tell us at what
altitude or even what area of land Noah was living at this time
when he planted a vineyard and became drunk?
Genesis is not a record of EVERYTHING that went on. God may have
chastised Noah for all we know. He was not perfect or without
sin, for as it is written: "all have sinned and come short of the
glory of God." Only Christ Jesus never sinned.
No rain teaching:
Yes, it was Ham who violated Noah, but Ham's son born about the
time of the inebriation was cursed, as the plain reading of the
account states and "Ham father of Canaan" is twice stated
(9:18,22). God also knows there is a psychological letdown after
catastrophic stress as with Lot, Elijah and Hezekiah.
My answer:
The Scripture does NOT say it was Ham who violated Noah. The word
"violate" is not found in the text with regards to Ham. He, Ham,
SAW and TOLD (verse 22). That is all it says, no more and no
less. And what has that got to do with "a canopy, no rain before
Noah" idea? It sure did rain BEFORE all this with Noah took
place, for 40 days and 40 nights at least (chap.7).
No rain teaching:
Psalm 148 has caused scepticism, it nevertheless bolsters the
water heaven idea. It naturally falls into two segments of praise
in the heavens (1-6) and praise from the earth (7-14). The waters
above the heavens (4) is in the heaven section and of course is
above the heavens. Hail, snow, vapors, clouds and wind are
related to the earth. By poetic license, waters above are
addressed though nonexistent at the time of the psalmist.
My answer:
This psalm is written at the time of the person writing it. They
were seeing things are they knew they existed THEN AT THAT TIME
while they wrote. Look at it, is there anything there that does
not exist even today? Can we not say and sing this psalm today
with the same intent as the person who wrote it when they wrote
it? I think so! I had read this psalm as a young boy. What did
the words "Praise Him..... you waters above the heavens" mean to
me. Why just another way of saying the waters above, that would
sooner or later come down to earth as rain. Poetic
personification of the water above that floats around the earth
to become clouds and rain to fall on the earth at times. Waters
above were every bit in existence in the psalimist's day as they
are in our day.
No rain teaching:
The waters were first separated vertically (Genesis 1:6-8) and
the top water was placed above, not within, the firmament called
heaven.
My answer:
Come on now, what God is telling us in Gen.1:6-8 is that instead
of a dark complete soup like surface of the earth that extending
above the water covering the earth for who knows how high. So
thick and black that first of all He had to begin to thin it out
so day and night could be started to be distinguished(verses
2-5). Then divided the waters even more by having waters below
and waters above with an expanse between, that we could say in
comparison was waterless. God calling this expanse between
"heaven." The heaven where the birds generally fly. This is the
overall heaven, first heaven, but does this heaven continue
above? It could be argued it does. The waters in the clouds on
the western prairies can be very low at times to the earth's
surface, then again the waters in the clouds above mount Everest
is so high man would die for lack of air if we could stay up
there with them.
God is speaking here in GENERAL terms, not in strict scientific
technical terms. We today generally call the expanse between us
on the earth and the waters in the clouds above "heaven" - the
heaven where the birds fly. That heaven can be of various
distances at various times between the waters below and the
waters above, but we still call it heaven, so does God.
No rain teaching:
Moses had six words for clouds and several for vapor, yet
employed plain water as his word of choice.
My answer:
Yes because he was telling us how God was dividing this thick
dark soup like water covering the earth, so thick and dark that
even day and night could not be noticed if you had been down on
the surface of the water covering the earth in a boat. The
context is all this WATER and darkness which God was beginning to
move. He did not completely fashion it all until the 4th day,
when clear lights from the second heaven could shine upon the
earth. On the 4th day we had the sky (with clouds etc.) as we
know it today, as I read it. But in the earlier verses WATER is
the subject not clouds or vapor. His choice of word was VERY
FITTING for the context.
No rain teaching:
The great lights which Moses recorded must be different than the
sun and moon, for why would he not mention them in the book of
beginnings when he wrote of stars? He wanted to portray something
unique from his experience and ours. Using the generic term of
lights with one of greater intensity than the other, connotes the
impression of a general and vast region of the sky which was
Illuminated without any distinct form as the circular sun and
moon afford in a clear sky. A canopy occluding or veiling the sun
would account for the greater light on the sunward side, while
casting diffused light to the other side of the earth for the
lesser light.
My answer:
That is your theory. I do not read these verses of chapter one
anywhere near as to how you want us to read them. Even from my
youth as a child reading these verses I never came up with an
idea as you portray to us. I saw and still do, that day and
night, light and darkness, has generally speaking once more,
light that rules each. The light of the day is not the light of
the night. The light of the light is not the light of the
darkness. Pretty simple to me, even when I was a child. And what
gives us on this earth the two different lights, one to rule the
day and one to rule the night? Why the heavenly bodies of the
sun, moon, and stars. The stars are specifically mentioned (verse
16). So the sun, and moon are not mentioned by the names we know
them as today. Big deal, from the very words and context I
understood Moses to mean those two heavenly bodies. Even as a
child I understood it that way. Does this light still come to
earth today that divides the day from the night and light from
darkness? Yes it does! From where does it come? From the heavenly
bodies of the sun, moon, and stars. As it is today so it was then
when God reformed and divided the waters of blackness from off
the earth, to form the sky, land and sea, ready for living
creatures in whom would be the breath of life. Ready also for
those who would be made after His image - mankind.
Oh, the Hebrew for "made" and "set them" (verses 16,17) are in
the past tense. Should have been rendered as "And God HAD
made...." - "And God HAD set them....." The sun, moon, stars, had
already been made and created long before what was now taking
place in verses 14-19. God was now organizing the sky so the
lights from these heavenly bodies could shine fully and
clearly upon the earth (generally speaking that is, when
clouds were not in the way, but even then we still have a
difference between day and night).
No rain teaching:
Again, Moses was conveying new concepts in terms of already known
phenomena and surely would have used the terms sun and moon if
they were appropriate.
My answer:
Not so, they were already in existence. His readers would have
already been quite familiar with the two great lights that gave
light on the earth to divide day from night. They would have
easily understood what two great lights he was speaking about. I
did as a child reading these verses.
..................
To be continued
|
