[net.religion] Rainbows and discussions

ucbmonet.arnold@ucbcad.UUCP (06/27/83)

#R:orstcs:14800002:ucbmonet:22400017:000:498
ucbmonet!arnold    Jun 23 16:29:00 1983

I would disagree that the Bible is creationistic.  I would agree it
could be intrepreted that way.  If, however, you insist that it can
only be read in a creationistic fashion, you deny the intelligence of
many thinking Christians who are not creationists.
		Ken
P.S.  I do not mean to imply by this that anyone who does interpret it
this way is not intelligent.  I'm sure there are intelligent
creationists.  I'm not sure I would use the epithet "thinking", but
that is another argument entirely.

rand@orstcs.UUCP (07/25/83)

#N:orstcs:14800002:000:1498
orstcs!rand    Jun 20 13:08:00 1983

	Subject: Rainbows and discussions

I've seen a lot of banter about the rainbow after the flood being
a promise to not flood the entire earth again.  I will add my two (one?)
cents worth.  Genesis 2:4ff:

	This is the account of the heavens and earth when they were
	created.  When the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,
	no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no
	plant of the field had yet sprung up; the Lord God had not 
	sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the 
	ground, but streams (alt: mist) came up from the earth and
	watered the whole surface of the ground.

Genesis 7:4

	Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty
	days and forty nights, ...
					(New International Version)

As fas as I know there is no mention of rain between those verses,
suppose that there really was no rain before the flood!  Then the
promise would have some significance.  Now, before I hear from
everybody, let me say something:  Please discuss this rationally,
remember, if you are a creationist, perhaps you should take it at
face value, if you are something else, remember the concept is in the
context of the Scriptures, which are themselves creationistic.

About the possibility of a group to intelligently discuss the
heavier subjects such as net.inquiry, I'm for it.  There is a good
argument for the above concept which I have seen somewhere, but it
gets deeply into the creation/evolution discussion and I don't think
I want to put it on here.