It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bible say it use to not rain??? Please help

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 22 2005 @ 03:38 AM
link   
I heard it somewhere that before that on earth it use to not rain? Does anyone know what this is about? If I remember correct it was stated that petrafied trees were found containg no rings or something meaning they were ageless or something which was directly related to rain?

I might have messed that all up since I can not remember to well. So please let me know what I am trying to think of.

Also if this is true why does it rain now?




posted on Oct, 22 2005 @ 11:23 PM
link   
The First Rain ,,,,,,,,,,


In The First Book of the bible it tells that the rain never fell from the Sky till the rain that came that destroyed the first Earth,

Sin was so bad that God did not want anything to do with it, so he looked till he found a man that still feared God. HE told Noah to build a ark and Noah said Why, It has never rain and you want a ark built?

God said Yes, Build a ark for me because He was going to destroy all life on the on the earth. So Noah starting working on the ark that God wanted him to build, and It took him 120 years to finish the ark.

You do know the rest of the story RIGHT...



posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 01:46 AM
link   
Japike,

If you’re interested in that sort of thing I have two excellent web sites for you to examine. The first link takes you to a web site titled, “Reasons to Believe”. This organization is run by a man named, “Dr. Hugh Ross” he has the following credentials:

www.reasons.org...

B.Sc. (1967) in Physics, University of British Columbia
Ma.Sc. (1968) in Astronomy, University of Toronto
Ph.D. (1973) in Astronomy, University of Toronto
I’ve met Dr. Ross personally and found him to be a man of tremendous intellect and humility. This is a rare combination indeed! He proposes an old Earth theory that ties in well with the Bible.

The second link will take you to a man named, “Dr. Kent Hovind” he has a ton of young Earth information that also fits well with the Bible.
www.drdino.com...

Both of these men propose theories as to the Earths rainless condition prior to the flood. I’ll warn you; these sites have hundreds of hours of information on them! Videos, articles, scientific studies and the like.

In Christ,
James



posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 02:10 AM
link   
Look up Genesis 2:5-6--

And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.



posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 03:55 AM
link   
So we're to believe that mist sufficed for the plants to grow? What a load of nonsense. These plants were created days before the sun was, hence there was no light, and apparently just mist but no rain. I'd love to see you guys make some plants grow using absolutly no light, no rain, but just a little mist.



posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 04:14 AM
link   
Thanks for the info guys and links Mr Machine

Oh also how did Noah know how to build the Ark?


I am gonna dig into those links when I get home. I am in deed curious about this a lot of stuff makes for sense when I dig a lil deeper. Sometimes I feel cursed by questioning everything :Z ie God,religion etc

As far as light for plants what about mushrooms and underwater plants?

Ya know weird stuff like that may not make sense but you ever look at some simple stuff around you. Take a watermelon seed for example small brown seed right give it dirt and water thats it and it grows huge and creates sugars,red colored insides and thick green skin. Sounds stupid but it seems like magic to me! Just when I thought man was good by making a computer or some fancy synthetic drug for diesese I would like to see a syhthetic watermelon made alchemical if you will heh,.

Anyone agree?

[edit on 23-10-2005 by japike]

[edit on 23-10-2005 by japike]



posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby
So we're to believe that mist sufficed for the plants to grow? What a load of nonsense. These plants were created days before the sun was, hence there was no light, and apparently just mist but no rain. I'd love to see you guys make some plants grow using absolutly no light, no rain, but just a little mist.


Actually the plants were created on the third day, the sun on the fourth. For what it's worth, the first thing God created was light.

Besides, who says God can't sustain plants without the sun?



posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 11:41 AM
link   
Amethyst/


Besides, who says God can't sustain plants without the sun?



"In the beginning God created Heaven and the earth" (Gen. 1:1).


[quote
The First Day of Creation.

And God said, let there be light: and there was light... And God called the light day, and the darkness he called night.
And the evening and the morning were the first day. This was the first "day" of the world. The first act of the formative creation of God was the creation of light.

"And God said, let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness... "(Gen. 1:3-5).

It may seem strange that light could appear and that day and night could follow one another from the first day of creation when the sun and other heavenly luminaries did not yet exist.
This gave an excuse for the atheists of the eighteenth century (Voltaire, the encyclopedists and others) to mock the Holy Bible. These poor men did not suspect that their ignorant mockery would turn back against them.

Light, by its nature, is entirely independent of the sun (fire, electricity). Light, but not all of it, was concentrated in the heavenly luminaries only later, at the will of God

LAW OF GOD
IX
helen



posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 12:00 PM
link   
all we know that before the plants were around it had not rained

and the noahs flood was a rain

Between there we have no information on perciptition, and thus it would only be an assumption that it did not rain during that time



posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by japike
If I remember correct it was stated that petrafied trees were found containg no rings or something meaning they were ageless or something which was directly related to rain?


Not all trees have rings, so this is only interesting depending on the type of tree.


Originally posted by japike
Also if this is true why does it rain now?


It rains now for the same reason it has rained for ages. Water evaporates and rises where the atmosphere is cooler, so it condenses again and falls. There is no credible evidence for a literal interpretation of Genesis so I wouldn't get too hung up on it. It may not have even been meant as a literal story when it was written, but instead a symbolic story of the life of man.



posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 02:52 PM
link   
Japike,

The building of Noah’s Ark is one of the greatest proofs of God’s existence. God Himself instructed Noah on how to build the Ark. These instructions are in the Bible and give strong evidence to the Bible’s supernatural authority. I watched a television show a few years ago that discussed the building of the Ark and one point that never left me was the comments made by a major ship builder in America. According to this man and several others the dimensions of the Ark were the same as a modern day warship.

I forget which ship he mentioned but the dimensions were very important as they allowed a ship of this size to float efficiently. Google Noah’s Ark and I’m sure you’ll find out some fascinating information on that ship. The Bible is full of valid scientific evidence that is still being confirmed to this very day. Contrary to the people who try to say otherwise the Bible is without error when it comes to the science found within its pages. The only, “errors” found within the Bible are those taken out of proper context or misunderstood.


In Christ,

James



posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 02:52 PM
link   
One of the theories on the great flood is that water was suspended in the heavens which also allowed for the long life of the patriarchs in the bible to live such a long age since there was less radiation from the sun coming to the surface.

That water was unleshed during noahs flood.

Tho that still does not prevent the possibility of rain before the noah's flood. THe simplest explinations is that there WAS a word for rain used. If rain never existed, no one would have developed a simple word to explain the phenomonon of water falling from the heavens = rain

[edit on 10/23/2005 by Jehosephat]



posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amethyst
For what it's worth, the first thing God created was light.


so?



Besides, who says God can't sustain plants without the sun?


if you can tell me how he sustained plant life without the sun i'd like to know, as the only source of photosynthesis plants outside get is from the sun.


Originally posted by helen670
Light, by its nature, is entirely independent of the sun (fire, electricity).


correct me if i'm wrong but 'electricity' isn't 'light'. also electricity wasn't on the list of what god created, we created it. so we're left with fire that's totally independent from the sun, have you managed to grow a plant next to a fire and seen that it can photosynthesise from the light given off by a fire successfully?



posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby



Besides, who says God can't sustain plants without the sun?


if you can tell me how he sustained plant life without the sun i'd like to know, as the only source of photosynthesis plants outside get is from the sun.



Well, this is GOD we're talking about, remember?


Light was created before the sun was. The sun is *a* source of light, not THE source. Besides which, creation DID take place in SIX LITERAL DAYS, so a day without the sun wouldn't have hurt them, I'd think.

Yes, the creation account is a literal account, not symbolic, not mythical.



posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amethyst
Yes, the creation account is a literal account, not symbolic, not mythical.


How do you know this?

I've always thought about it symbolically...



posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by AkashicWanderer

Originally posted by Amethyst
Yes, the creation account is a literal account, not symbolic, not mythical.


How do you know this?

I've always thought about it symbolically...


You have to use the context of the texts to figure taht is is a litteral account of History.

The Bible is the written record of salvation history. God's focus in this inspired and inerrant record is to help us humans see the Lord's amazing grace. His love is evident in creation as he prepares a world fit for life and full of life for his children, Adam and Eve. This gracious love is evident in the garden after the fall as the Lord calls Adam and Eve to repentance and promises to send One who would crush Satan's head.

All the rest of Scripture unfolds God's intervention in human history to fulfill that promise and send one to rescue us from sin and Satan. Jesus is that One promised, the Seed of the woman but not of man. As the apostle declared, "The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil's work" (1 John 3:8).

That is why the "boring parts" of Genesis 5 and 11 you have the geneoloy, and also in the first chapter of the gospel of matthew. You start from Adam and Eve and all the decendants to Noah, and then to Abraham to David and soloman, and then finally many years later you ahve Mary who gives birth to Jesus.

The Old testement is about how Jesus Christ came to us. And that is why it is a litteral account of what has a happened, and not figurative.



posted on Oct, 24 2005 @ 04:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby
if you can tell me how he sustained plant life without the sun i'd like to know, as the only source of photosynthesis plants outside get is from the sun.



Originally posted by Amethyst
Well, this is GOD we're talking about, remember?



i don't care if it's god we're talking about, that's not a reason, i'd like you to explain to me how plants can survive without the aid of the sun. sure you might be able to grow some dope in your room under a powerful bulb, maybe even some UV light, but obviously there was no electricity back then.



Light was created before the sun was. The sun is *a* source of light, not THE source. Besides which, creation DID take place in SIX LITERAL DAYS, so a day without the sun wouldn't have hurt them, I'd think.


what is 'THE source' of light then?

well plants survive at night, and there is only minimal light from the stars. however, without the sun there also, even at night, earth wouldn't be able to sustain night, it'd just be frozen by the cold of space.

[edit on 24-10-2005 by shaunybaby]



posted on Oct, 24 2005 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jehosephat
You have to use the context of the texts to figure taht is is a litteral account of History.

The Bible is the written record of salvation history. God's focus in this inspired and inerrant record is to help us humans see the Lord's amazing grace.


Is this written in the bible, or is it personal assumption?




His love is evident in creation as he prepares a world fit for life and full of life for his children, Adam and Eve.


How do you know this story is not symbolical?


This gracious love is evident in the garden after the fall as the Lord calls Adam and Eve to repentance and promises to send One who would crush Satan's head.


I rest my case...


All the rest of Scripture unfolds God's intervention in human history to fulfill that promise and send one to rescue us from sin and Satan. Jesus is that One promised, the Seed of the woman but not of man. As the apostle declared, "The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil's work" (1 John 3:8).


Which could all be symbolical?


The Old testement is about how Jesus Christ came to us. And that is why it is a litteral account of what has a happened, and not figurative.


I still don't see how you came to that conclusion. First of all we must use external (not the bible) evidence to see if the bible must be taken literally or not.

This is because any evidence you present in the form of written word from the bible, could in itself be symbolical, and not proof of the words being literal. (For example a fictional book that contains a story. Just because the book itself is made to seem very real, does not change its genre.)

Saying that the bible should be taken literally because it has stories in it also has little weight.



posted on Oct, 24 2005 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jehosephat
You have to use the context of the texts to figure taht is is a litteral account of History.

The Bible is the written record of salvation history. God's focus in this inspired and inerrant record is to help us humans see the Lord's amazing grace.


Is this written in the bible, or is it personal assumption?


His love is evident in creation as he prepares a world fit for life and full of life for his children, Adam and Eve.


How do you know this story is not symbolical?


This gracious love is evident in the garden after the fall as the Lord calls Adam and Eve to repentance and promises to send One who would crush Satan's head.


I rest my case...


All the rest of Scripture unfolds God's intervention in human history to fulfill that promise and send one to rescue us from sin and Satan. Jesus is that One promised, the Seed of the woman but not of man. As the apostle declared, "The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil's work" (1 John 3:8).


Which could all be symbolical?


The Old testement is about how Jesus Christ came to us. And that is why it is a litteral account of what has a happened, and not figurative.


I still don't see how you came to that conclusion. First of all we must use external (not the bible) evidence to see if the bible must be taken literally or not.

This is because any evidence you present in the form of written word from the bible, could in itself be symbolical, and not proof of the words being literal. (For example a fictional book that contains a story. Just because the book itself is made to seem very real, does not change its genre.)

Saying that the bible should be taken literally because it has stories in it also has little weight.



posted on Oct, 24 2005 @ 07:47 PM
link   
There has not been any external evidance to contradict the bible.

The word “Torah” comes from the Hebrew root Hey|Reish|Hey, which means “to teach.” The Torah contains the basis and history of Judaism and from it are derived all of the laws that Jews follow today. The Torah is comprised of two components: The Written Torah and the Oral Torah. According to Jewish learning, they were both delivered to Moses at Mount Sinai. The Written Torah is comprised of the Five Books of Moses.

You forget that the bible is largely a historical text. There is details that are covered like the age of the patriarchs and the geneology that makes no sense if it was purely symbolic. Are ytou saying all the Jewish laws covered in Numbers and Duteronomy are just there for show, and guidlines? and have no meaning beyond that?

you cannot pick and choose which parts you want to follow in the bible and then say whatever you don't want to follow is a parable.

Taht is why context is so imporatant when you study the bible. You need to know the culture and the surrounding land and factions of the time to understand why Abraham traveled so far. Or why Jeruselam was such focal point, or even how the Hellenisation fo the world helped spread the word of the gospel with the early christian church




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join