tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post5884341911559207494..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Were there rainbows before the flood?Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-58182728225674503412017-05-30T20:33:22.167-04:002017-05-30T20:33:22.167-04:00I lean toward a local flood. In response to the ab...I lean toward a local flood. In response to the above objections to local flood I'd say that The Flood may be different from other local floods if it affected all of humanity (and so was "universal") even if it wasn't global. Also, the word "earth" can merely mean "land". The original Hebrew need not refer to all land everywhere [i.e. the entire globe]. Though, I'm open to the Flood not being universal [meaning there might be some modern descendants of Adam who aren't also descendants of Noah]. <br /><br />Regarding the destruction of "all flesh", maybe it's limited to the writers own limited conception of the world and/or land (i.e. that area of Mesopotamia). If some of the fish weren't killed, then not "ALL flesh" were completely destroyed. "All" doesn't always literally mean "ALL" (as we Calvinists say). If that qualifying exception is possible, then that leaves open the possibility the exemption I mentioned above in defense of a local Flood.<br /><br />Regardless of local or global, I don't think it's necessary to postulate that rainbows never occurred before the Flood. God may merely be saying that He gives a new significance and meaning to rainbows that will hold from that time forward. I also don't think that people need to know that significance for it to hold. Since, analogically, humans have dignity as being made in the imago dei irrespective of whether they know about or believe either.ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.com