Does the Rainbow Covenant Disprove the Flood?

by Severus 108 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  lovelylil

  Hi Hamster,

  I love your Avitar it is so cute.

  Anyway, quick question for you and any one else who would like to answer too. Where in the Genesis account does it say that it never rained prior to the flood of Noah's day?

  I checked and all I could find was in Genesis 7:4 - God told Noah to go into the ark and in 7 days he would send rain on earth for forty days and forty nights to flood the earth. Just because he says he will "send rain" does not mean he never sent rain prior to this. Notice the whole sentence says God will "send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights". Thus he is not only sending rain to the earth but is sending it for a prolonged period of time. I could not find any statement that said it never rained prior to this. We could assume it never rained for this long fo a period prior to this. But to assume it never rained at all - it is just that an assumption. What is this based on?
• 

  Severus

  Interesting response to my original question which, by the bye, was not a prank.

  Regarding the JW stance about predeluvian rain, it is very ambiguous:

  it-2 pp. 728-729 Rain

  At an early point in the history of the preparation of the earth, "God had not made it rain upon the earth," but "a mist would go up from the earth and it watered the entire surface of the ground." The time referred to is evidently early on the third creative "day," before vegetation appeared. (Ge 2:5, 6; 1:9-13; see MIST.) The first instance in the Biblical record when rain is specifically mentioned as falling is in the account of the Flood. Then "the floodgates of the heavens were opened," and "the downpour upon the earth went on for forty days and forty nights."—Ge 7:11, 12; 8:2.

  Now stop posting on this thread immediately! (except for rabid creationists or course...)
• 

  gumby

  
  Here's a good read. It's a little long....but a good read about this.

  Comparing the stories

  The Chaldean Flood Tablets from the city of Ur in what is now Southern Iraq, describe how the Bablylonian God Ea had decided to eliminate humans and other land animals with a great flood which was to become "the end of all flesh". He selected Ut-Napishtim, to build an ark to save a few humans, and samples of other animals.

  The Babylonian text "The Epic of Galgamesh" 1,8 and the Hebrew story are essentially identical with about 20 major points in common. Their texts are obviously linked in some way. Either:

  	Genesis was copied from an earlier Babylonian story, or
  	The Galgamesh myth was copied from an earlier Hebrew story, or
  	Both were copied from a common source that predates them both.

  In both the Genesis and Galgamesh stories:

  	The Genesis story describes how mankind had become obnoxious to God; they were hopelessly sinful and wicked. In the Babylonian story, they were too numerous and noisy.
  	The Gods (or God) decided to send a worldwide flood. This would drown men, women, children, babies and infants, as well as eliminate all of the land animals and birds.
  	The Gods (or God) knew of one righteous man, Ut-Napishtim or Noah.
  	The Gods (or God) ordered the hero to build a multi-story wooden ark (called a chest or box in the original Hebrew).
  	The hero initially complained about the assignment to build the boat
  	The ark would be sealed with pitch.
  	The ark would have with many internal compartments
  	It would have a single door
  	It would have at least one window.
  	The ark was built and loaded with the hero, a few other humans, and samples from all species of other land animals.
  	A great rain covered the land with water.
  	The mountains were initially covered with water.
  	The ark landed on a mountain in the Middle East.
  	The hero sent out birds at regular intervals to find if any dry land was in the vicinity.
  	The first two birds returned to the ark. The third bird apparently found dry land because it did not return.
  	The hero and his family left the ark, ritually killed an animal, offered it as a sacrifice.
  	God (or the Gods in the Epic of Gilgamesh) smelled the roasted meat of the sacrifice.
  	The hero was blessed.
  	The Babylonian gods seemed genuinely sorry for the genocide that they had created. The God of Noah appears to have regretted his actions as well, because he promised never to do it again.

  The were a number of differences between the two stories:

  	Noah received his instructions directly from Jehovah; Ut-Napishtim received them indirectly during a dream.
  	Noah's ark was 3 stories high and rectangular in shape. Two estimated dimensions are 547 x 91 ft. and 450 x 75 ft. The Babylonian ark was 6 stories high and square.
  	Ut-Napishtim invited additional people on board: a pilot and some skilled workmen.
  	Noah's ark landed on Mt. Ararat; Ut-Napishtim'sat on Mt. Nisir; these locations are both in the Middle East, and are located few hundred miles apart
  	In the Bible, some of the water emerged from beneath the earth. And the rains from above lasted for 40 days and nights. A 40 day interval often symbolized a period of judgment in the Hebrew Scriptures. 2 In the Babylonian account, the water came only in the form of rain, and lasted only 6 days.
  	Noah released a raven once and a dove twice; Ut-Napishtim released three birds: a dove, swallow and raven.

  Gumboat
• 

  Leolaia

  There are many more parallels with the Epic of Gilgamesh when you look at 1 Enoch (particularly with respect to Gilgamesh's journey through the underworld to Paradise). Heck, one of the giants in the Book of Giants section of Aramaic 1 Enoch is even named "Gilgamesh".
• 

  Caedes

  You can't assume that your interpretation is correct due to bearing some similarity to another morality tale in the same book.

  Sure I can. Why not?

  .

  In that case feel free to make up any old nonsense
• 

  Schizm

  Do you think you could gimme a "Diamond Wax" job, that is, if I do pass the test of having been a good boy for two more days?

  Hmmmm....well....a.....a, Ok!

  The diamond wax is a high sheen look that if'n yer sunbathin, the glare off yer nutsack can just about blind people, so I hope you ain't a nudeist kinda guy. Most people go with the chocolate one cuz it smells real good, but I can do the diamond wax. I may hafta charge like 5 bucks or sumthin cuz it's a bit spendier.

  We better get back to the flood ...or the thread owners gonna get pissed. Keep bein good buddy. Yer already impressin me.

  Gumwaxer

  Hey, Gumwaxer, I've decided I can't be "good" boy for a full 3 days in a row. There's just no way that I can possibly live up to YOUR standard of what is "good". So here's what i'm gonna do. I'm gonna squeal on ya. Yes, I'm gonna tell yo momma about all the little nasty things you been saying on this public discussion forum. Yes, I'm gonna tell yo momma how you been talking nasty, about "nutsacks" and all, and about having started your own porn business.

  How does that grab you? You've gotten yourself into some real trouble, Gumwaxer. Yo momma ain't gonna be pleased when she hears what you been up to here.

  .
• 

  Schizm

  You can't assume that your interpretation is correct due to bearing some similarity to another morality tale in the same book.

  Sure I can. Why not?

  .

  In that case feel free to make up any old nonsense

  "Nonsense"? According to who? An atheist? Most likely! I've never spoke to an atheist that had good judgement.

  .

  .
• 

  stevenyc

  Does anyone ever get the feeling that trying to discuss logic with flood believing Christians, as akin to chasing rainbows?

  steve
• 

  Caedes

  I've never spoke to an atheist that had good judgement.

  I on the other hand have spoken to lots of believers with good judgement, unfortunately you aren't one of them 'schizm' (sic)
• 

  Schizm

  I've never spoke to an atheist that had good judgement.

  I on the other hand have spoken to lots of believers with good judgement, unfortunately you aren't one of them 'schizm' (sic)

  I've provided good reasons for saying the things I have, if I don't mind saying so myself. All you've done in return is spout sarcasm. You show no intellect whatsoever. Even your biography doesn't make any sense. All it says is, "are you the farmer?". What is people who read that suppose to get out of it? Talk about "nonsense"!

  .