Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe
Nero

No rain before Noah

Recommended Posts

My brother brought this up today and reminded me of a teaching the way had when I was a child (they still teach this). He said that before Noah - there was no rain. There was just dew? I know this is complete and utter bs. No plants or animals could survive on just dew! I don't even remember how they came to this conclusion. Does anyone else remember being taught this?

Edited by Nero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nero, from a NON SCHOLAR here, my Polish Catholic mother taught me that when I was about 3 years old. That IS in the Word. I would tell you, lemme find it, but you can find it yourself quick enough. lol. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I'm coming at this from a non biblical point of view. I mean there is literally no way that's true. Unless they are saying God decided to create evaporation at that exact moment during the flood.

I'll need to read it again just to see rottie but even if it is I won't be able to believe it.

Edited by Nero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It may be in the Bible but it is literally impossible to have dew with no water cycle in play.

Exactly! I was wondering how that could even be true. There would be no plants or animals or lakes or anything without rainfall.

Is it one of those non literal teachings or something that was messed up in translation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Is it one of those non literal teachings or something that was messed up in translation?"

....or maybe both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

waysider, waysider, waysider,.......THIS WAS NOT MESSED UP IN TRANSLATION! I LOVE YOU BUT I AM IN DISAGREEMENT WITH YOU STRONGLY RIGHT NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok, maybe not a messed up translation, but how about failure to understand what is written in context? Try this-

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2010/10/19/rain-before-flood

Okay, I will take a breather and read this later, but there is no freaking way you are NOT going to change my mind. HOWEVER... I will look at everything in the MORNING. Okie dokie? :knuddel: :knuddel: Good night Gracie for now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL, punctuation makes a big difference in how I might understand what you said about changing your mind or not. Really, it is not my intent to change anyone's mind. I really do not care, since it all happened before my time. That was one of those teachings I could never believe, and one which I never taught in all my years doing twigs and branches. It seemed to be a peculiar cherry picking of verses and contradicted everything I understood about science, life and God. Peace, take your time, and keep on keeping on.

Edited by HAPe4me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Say goodnight, Gracie."

"Goodnight, Gracie."

george-burns-gracie-allen.jpg

Edited by waysider

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheez Louise, I can't have 12-24 hours to respond to stuff?

It's not like I'm hardlinked to the messageboard....

================================================

Having reviewed the relevant verses in the KJV, NASB and NIV,

pending a review in the Hebrew,

I see no reason to think that description applied AFTER humans existed.

The explanation on the linked page was a good one, and I see no quarrel

with it...

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2010/10/19/rain-before-flood

If I were to toss out an opinion, I'd say this really wasn't worth dwelling

on as it's more to set the timeframe than to explain, but that it's a partial

comment on the founding of the water cycle. (Any self-sustaining cycle has to

begin SOMEWHERE and SOMEYIME, after which it can sustain itself.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheez Louise, I can't have 12-24 hours to respond to stuff?

It's not like I'm hardlinked to the messageboard....

ww You are a doll. I am half asleep, but I'll check your answer in the morning. LOLOLOL! Thanks for responding :knuddel: .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, I'm up for the day (barely) but gee WW, that's a lot of gobbly gook for someone with an unschooled mind (like me) to read. I'm getting the gist that they think that there was rain before the flood. well......... I'm still not convinced about that, but like you said, I guess we can agree to disagree on that one. :)/>/>/>

Ok I'm going to pull a waysider here, everybody sing along now. :)/>

Coming back to edit to say I will probably not be online all day. THERE IS A MOUSE IN MY HOUSE!!!! I JUST SAW IT AND IT RAN BEHIND THE STOVE!!!! IT CRAPPED ALL OVER MY SILVERWARE AND I'VE BEEN AFTER THIS DAMN THING FOR DAYS AND IT IS BEHIND MY STOVE NOW!!

I am going to get my pest bombs out and put them in every room and leave the house and have a neighbor babysit TJ. So I won't be back till later tonight.

Edited by RottieGrrrl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The short of what it said was that the single verse that said something on the

subject said rather clearly that "rain" wasn't happening back at the time it

addressed, when there was no "man" either.

Nothing says, suggests or implies that either state remained permanent.

"Man" was introduced a few verses later, and "rain" is not discussed.

Perhaps the thinking was that it was irrelevant-this not being a textbook

on science- or that only the stupid would actually sit down and try to

read that into the account.

Either way, I see the explanation of "and there continued to BE no rain

for thousands of years afterwards" to be a leap completely unsupported

by any verses. So, with no verse suggesting it, and science firmly on

the other side, the only reason to believe it is DOGMA- i.e. I was

taught this and my teacher can't make mistakes, so I believe it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay. First of all my neighbor cannot babysit TJ until 2pm, so that is why I am still in my house with my mouse. If I hadn't of screamed when I saw it TJ probably would have gone after it, but...

Okay, I reread the article a bit more thoroughly, and I understand a BIT more of what they are saying. I don't necessarily agree with it, but I do understand the viewpoint a bit more. Thanks for weighing in WW. :)

On the OTHER hand, what they were teaching at the offshoot I was attending, and what I BELIEVED for awhile, is that the devil spirits caused the flood and they are the ones in chains now. The offshoot I was going to taught that God was NOT the cause of ANY death, so therefore, according to the collective wisdom of the offshooter-wayferheads, the Angel of Death, was actually a devil spirt, as were the flood demons (excuse me, devil spirits) Which it wasn't until some guy I talked to (an ex-wayferhead) told me to be careful with that teaching cause he thought it was bad teaching.

So I'm wondering if the wayfers originally taught that, or if that was something that came later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well where the heck was i? i never heard any of this, but i did try to catch up on some zzzzzzz's "in residence"

the critical question is was there beer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the critical question is was there beer?

Wasn't one of the first thing Noah did when he landed was get drunk? I'm not meaning to be disrespectful either, who could blame him? But I DO remember, reading some CES stuff at the time, saying that that God would not have satan work for him as an agent for doing his will, and that made sense to me. It Also made me think that this must have been a wayfer teaching if CES was correcting this. Because this is certainly NOT a mainstream belief, it's like it has to be particular to the wayfers.

Coming back to add that they also taught that the devil spirits poked holes in the universe or something to cause the rain. Because the heavens are made all of water or something. It's been a long time since I've been there, but that was what they were teaching.

Edited by RottieGrrrl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Coming back to add that they also taught that the devil spirits poked holes in the universe or something to cause the rain. Because the heavens are made all of water or something. It's been a long time since I've been there, but that was what they were teaching.

I remember that. If I'm not mistaken, it was in the Advanced Class. E. Burton did a paper on it. He said the universe is inside a bubble, surrounded by a barrier called the firmament. Outside the bubble is nothing but water. (It's been a long time for me too so I'm not 100% sure on some of this.) The idea was that when Lucifer and God did battle for the throne of power, the war was so cataclysmic it broke a hole in the barrier and allowed huge amounts of water to escape. This was used to explain why comets are composed of frozen water.

Edited by waysider

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay thanks waysider. So it twas a wayfer teaching. Interesting theory, but...well...I don't know of anyone other than the wayfers who teaches this. As far as I know, that is. There could be though. But thanks for the input on that. Okay, off to bomb my house now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Coming back to add that they also taught that the devil spirits poked holes in the universe or something to cause the rain. Because the heavens are made all of water or something. It's been a long time since I've been there, but that was what they were teaching.

I remember that. If I'm not mistaken, it was in the Advanced Class. E. Burton did a paper on it. He said the universe is inside a bubble, surrounded by a barrier called the firmament. Outside the bubble is nothing but water. (It's been a long time for me too so I'm not 100% sure on some of this.) The idea was that when Lucifer and God did battle for the throne of power, the war was so cataclysmic it broke a hole in the barrier and allowed huge amounts of water to escape. This was used to explain why comets are composed of frozen water.

How can people of seemingly above average intelligence and rational thought come to such a conclusion? Does not this ancient, pre-scientific record ooze of mythic explanations for what is? I wonder what Ken Hamm has to say about this one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

E. Burton did a paper on it. He said the universe is inside a bubble, surrounded by a barrier called the firmament. Outside the bubble is nothing but water. (It's been a long time for me too so I'm not 100% sure on some of this.) The idea was that when Lucifer and God did battle for the throne of power, the war was so cataclysmic it broke a hole in the barrier and allowed huge amounts of water to escape. This was used to explain why comets are composed of frozen water.

Yeah, something like that, I vaguely remember. In the cataclysmic fight, the earth was torn apart and that's where we get the continents from.

I don't remember anything about comets.

With the space exploration that is currently going on, you do have to wonder how big this bubble must be with all the water outside it. How big is infinity?

I think there is serious risk here of taking something that is poetic or mythic (in the proper sense of myth) and making it into an absolute truth. TWI was very good at that. Taught about figures of speech but didn't actually recognise when they fell over one (unless it was blindly obvious), and therefore took the Noah and the rain story as a literal not a figurative or descriptive idea encapsulating a greater truth.

After all, VPW's knowledge of English and of English grammar was appalling. He didn't understand the plain English of what he was reading (if "plain English" is something that can be said of the Authorised Version (KJV)). He used it to bamboozle people - there are other more comprehensible versions available - RSV or NASB for example, both of which have a lot of research tools available - but that wouldn't have enabled him to flaunt his supposed knowledge as easily and he would have had to rework some of the "class material" that he pilfered.

So it's not surprising that he didn't understand figures of speech, or myths, any better than English grammar. In fact, it would be surprising if it were otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, something like that, I vaguely remember. In the cataclysmic fight, the earth was torn apart and that's where we get the continents from.

I don't remember anything about comets.

With the space exploration that is currently going on, you do have to wonder how big this bubble must be with all the water outside it. How big is infinity?

I think there is serious risk here of taking something that is poetic or mythic (in the proper sense of myth) and making it into an absolute truth. TWI was very good at that. Taught about figures of speech but didn't actually recognise when they fell over one (unless it was blindly obvious), and therefore took the Noah and the rain story as a literal not a figurative or descriptive idea encapsulating a greater truth.

After all, VPW's knowledge of English and of English grammar was appalling. He didn't understand the plain English of what he was reading (if "plain English" is something that can be said of the Authorised Version (KJV)). He used it to bamboozle people - there are other more comprehensible versions available - RSV or NASB for example, both of which have a lot of research tools available - but that wouldn't have enabled him to flaunt his supposed knowledge as easily and he would have had to rework some of the "class material" that he pilfered.

So it's not surprising that he didn't understand figures of speech, or myths, any better than English grammar. In fact, it would be surprising if it were otherwise.

Well said. The whole franchise was built upon the notion of "mathematical exactness and scientific precision" and "fits like a hand in a glove". This brand of "inerrancy" does great damage to the narrative, reducing it to propositions and bullet points and charts and footnotes that MUST agree with the modern mind, no matter how much of its life is lost in its dissection. In my opinion this is why Bullinger's oeuvre, no matter how sincere, was a fool's errand. Sincerity is no guarantee for truth.

Edited by Yanagisawa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...