4,994
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 60:
Line 60: + + + + + + + + +
→Un, excuse me..
:Your statement only argues for a separate article on biblical sig, and "actual" definition.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 17:56, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
:Your statement only argues for a separate article on biblical sig, and "actual" definition.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 17:56, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
==Not seen before the Great Flood==
I'm marking this as needing a citation:
:This explanation, however, is dubious as it fails to explain why rainbows were never seen before the end of the great flood.
I intend to remove it eventually if the citation is not forthcoming. Mind you, I am ''not'' addressing the issue of factuality. I'm just saying this can't stay in as an unsupported assertion. I want to know " who says so."
I don't think Genesis 13-17 do not say this. They refer to a new ''meaning'' of the rainbow, not to the rainbow as a new ''phenomenon.'' It's like giving someone a present: the thing ''existed'' before it was given, but it acquires a new meaning to donor and recipient after it is given.
Of course, if there is a standard Bible commentary that says "this means that before the Flood, there were no rainbows; rain existed before the flood and sunlight existed before the flood, but the result of sunlight shining on water droplets was different before and after the flood," it should be cited. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:27, 28 March 2007 (EDT)