Flood terminologies in the antiquities

[Harel13]

One, is that were one to actually study the metrology and mathematical astronomy of the Mesopotamians and Egyptians ( A notoriously difficult topic ), they would begin to see that every single span of time, length, size, etc listed in the Biblical flood narrative, comes directly out of the calculations associated with new moon and eclipses ( floods ), all of which I have gone through the trouble of compiling from the ground up

While that may be true, it's also possible that the reverse is correct: based on primitive, perhaps incomplete versions of the early stories of mankind, the Sumerians, Babylonians and Egyptians took their names for various measurements. The Torah, though later in writing, simply came to correct the mistakes. Therefore, to say that necessarily the rabbis had no understanding of the cultures around them would be incorrect. Rather, they came to clarify the true meanings of those original stories, instead of allowing the world to continue passing them off as mere astro-metronomical calculations.

I'm in the middle of reading a book called Barzilai, originally written in German as Barslai, by Ahron Marcus. It's a perspective on the origins and psychology of the Hebrew language. While I have no doubt that modern linguistical scholars will disagree with him on much of what he says, simply because they do not believe that Hebrew is an original language but merely an evolution of other Semitic languages, he still presents remarkable arguments in favor of the wisdom that came with the development of the Hebrew language. Some of the subjects he covers are similar to what we have here: Is the Bible based on old teachings of other cultures or does the Bible present the true form of that knowledge while other cultures misinterpreted that knowledge? He argues in favor of the latter and the same goes for Hebrew when compared to other Semitic languages and other languages in general. It's a religiously-correct perspective to be sure, but he backs this is up with smart arguments and not merely 'CAUSE GOD SAID SO...

 

[Rival]

Is the Bible based on old teachings of other cultures or does the Bible present the true form of that knowledge while other cultures misinterpreted that knowledge? He argues in favour of the former

?

 

[Harel13]

?

Thanks.

 

[Onoma]

Some of the subjects he covers are similar to what we have here: Is the Bible based on old teachings of other cultures or does the Bible present the true form of that knowledge while other cultures misinterpreted that knowledge? He argues in favor of the latter and the same goes for Hebrew when compared to other Semitic languages and other languages in general.

It's a great question, and I'd say the most obvious answer is found in the fact that Hebrew takes it's base set from Egyptian Hieratic ( Priestly text ) which is what priests used in their astronomy calculations ( Also the majority of Egyptian religious and mathematical texts are written in Hieratic )

 

[Onoma]

it's also possible that the reverse is correct: based on primitive, perhaps incomplete versions of the early stories of mankind, the Sumerians, Babylonians and Egyptians took their names for various measurements.

Hmmm, I'd have to disagree for the simple reason that Mesopotamian and Egyptian systems of metrology are actually designed for the purpose of rigorous dimensional analysis and are not just randomly named or conjured up from thin air or mythologies, but I intend to cover that as the thread goes on

 

[Onoma]

Well, he never denied that abubu could mean storm. He wrote that he was of the opinion that abubu meant cyclone. However, he didn't believe that the Epic version had anything to do with the Biblical version. Stories of divine wrath are common in many cultures. Other than that, there are vast differences between the two stories.

Right. So one of the things about interpreting Mesopotamian literature is that it is rife with sobriquet ( Nicknames ), duel and triple meanings, peculiar wordplays ( Almost like puns ), changes in literary styles with time, use of mathematics in formatting texts ( A type of formatting found retained in things like a Sefer Torah ), phonetic decay, etc. The literature is admittedly, complex, and boring by many peoples' standards

The use of different cuneiform words and phrases used to to refer to one particular thing can easily confuse someone who would study, for example, only terms that have been translated as " flood " or " deluge ", but not the mathematics or literary traditions of exegesis of the tables of observations which are just simple datasets - times and positions of " gods " ( Planets and stars ) and the underlying peculiar mathematics they applied in dimensional analysis, plus a host of other related topics ( Which I hope to cover bit by bit in this thread )

For me personally, it didn't make sense to leave out the study of the other things, mainly for the reason that " floods " ( New moons and eclipses ) as well as other " signs in the sky " are the focus of a majority of the cuneiform texts we have .( These are divided into various types of omen, dealing with anything from rainbows to constellations, and generally the list grows rather large and convoluted as the advent of astrology appears under Assyrian, Babylonian and then Hellenistic rule, and with it the creation of endless types of priests,... but astrology is generally not something the Akkadians and Sumerians were concerned with )

It's not like seeing the obvious connection between the modern word " Phone " and the ancient Greek " φωνη - phone " ( Voice, a sound, etc ), one really has to take a long time studying the literature to really get insight ( I mean years and years, personally I have spent 9 years, 7 days a week, and it is still a struggle )

Plus, there's the fact that there are so few qualified cuneiformists in the world, ( About 100, iirc ) and a ridiculous amount of texts sitting around waiting to be translated and deciphered ( The British Museum alone has over 10,000 texts waiting to be translated ), there are quite possibly many discoveries that have yet to be made

I myself, feel I have made some rather astonishing discoveries I'd like to share, after basing my studies on those of Hilprecht, Friberg, Neugebauer, Oppert, Newton, and other academics, but this will require some looking under the hood of math, science and metrology history, and I want to first establish that there is a concrete literary basis for the Biblical flood narrative, by taking a philological approach first

 

[Onoma]

So when I invoke philology, I should clarify some things

One is that in the time we are looking at ( Generally 4,000 BC to 200 AD ) life itself was quite different

This was a time when language, belief, measurement, math and science were fairly intimately intertwined, the modern " Hindu-Arabic " numerals didn't exist, and literature and it's content were not something that was accessible to everyone who looked at a text. This is for a variety of reasons, most of which involved the physical protection of the tablets themselves, or the use of " hidden " meanings ( For example a fraction 1/6, we'll see in text also as " secret ", because this is a fraction rather useful for astronomy calculations ). " Encryption " and hiding information in literature itself dates to Mesopotamia ( Could span a thread by itself, most interesting )

This gradually " entwinement " fell out of consistency, ( I would estimate roughly 200 AD when the use of cuneiform basically died out ), although many more recent well known mathematicians and astronomers were also considered theologians ( Newton, as an example, wrote far more on the Bible than he did on science or math ) and it was really only until the advent of modern physics where we find a general separation of theology from mathematics ( Although afaik, more mathematicians believe in God or are agnostic than physicists, there are some great quotes from various mathematicians on God ), yet mathematical physics is the underlying foundation of the systems of metrology used for dimensional analysis ( So the academic view the Greeks were the first to have theories about mathematics is flawed )

Where we generally credit the Greeks with being the first to formulate axioms in written form, we ignore the underlying design of the Mesopotamian and Egyptian systems of metrology and the unique methods of calculation, ( Which I will show requires the use of complex mathematical and math theory ) and the two distinct literary traditions concerning mathematical astronomy and literature where Egyptians and Mesopotamians are concerned :

~ Egyptians left us scant literature on mathematical astronomy. Virtually nothing ( Supposedly ). The Egyptian priests tended to use oral teaching to transmit information ( The basis of Oral Torah - teaching ), and this required being able to memorize some rather simple calculation methods that were derived from analysis of ephemerides ( Tables of observations of various astronomical phenomena ) which had been compiled over large spans of time, averaged and analyzed, etc. Not just ephemerides, but tables of things like fractions, square and cube roots, so on and so forth.

~ Mesopotamians, on the other hand, left us volumes and volumes of written information, completely opposite to the Egyptians, with a large amount of tablets being maintained purely by serendipity ( Attempts to burn libraries of cuneiform tablets resulted in the clay being hardened, " fired ", and thus preserved )

Both had rigorous methods of metrology and conventions of metrology that served as a foundation for general life, but for one ( Egyptian ) it was hardly preserved in written form, and many Greek mathematicians studied under Egyptian priests ( Plato under the Egyptian Horite priest Sechnuphis for 13 years, as an example ) and then transmitted the information via written method which we tend to associate with the appearance of axioms and general math theory

I guess my point here is that understanding the phrasing and terminology of ancient literature requires a multidisciplinary approach, which is a rarity

Linguists usually have no concern for mathematics, mathematicians no regard for history, theologians no regard for science, scientists no interest in religion, and so on and so-forth, and I feel this is precisely the reason the Bible has remained a piece of literature that is largely confusing to the general reader

 

[Onoma]

Before getting to Egyptian, I wanted to include a few more examples of the phrasing from cuneiform texts to help illustrate that " floods " in ancient literature are not as cut and dry a topic as most have been led to believe ( I assume merely from sheer academic bias ), so here they are ( I can provide many more examples if requested, but I feel this should be enough )

 

[The Anointed]

Over 2,000 years before George Smith’s discovery of the deluge tablets in Iraq, there existed an account of the Chaldean [pre-Babylonian] flood myth. Berosus, an ancient Chaldean historian living in the time of Alexander the Great in the 4th century B.C.E, relayed to the Greeks the antiquity of his peoples deluge myth in the following words: “After the death of Ardates, his son Xisuthrus reigned eighteen sari. In his time happened a great deluge; the history of which is thus described.

The deity Cronos appeared to him in a vision, and warned him that upon the fifteenth day of the month Daesius there would be a flood, by which mankind be destroyed. He therefore enjoined him to write a history of the beginning, procedure, and conclusion of all things, and to bury it in the city of the sun at Sippara; and to build a vessel, and take with him into it his friends and relations; and to convey on board everything necessary to sustain life, together with all the different animals, [In the area of his known world] both birds and quadrupeds, and trust himself fearlessly to the deep.

Having asked the Deity whither he was to sail, he was answered, “To the Gods;” upon which he offered up a prayer for the good of mankind. He then obeyed the divine admonition and built a vessel five stadia in length, and two in breadth. Into this he put everything which he had prepared, and last of all conveyed into it his wife, his children and his friends. After the flood had been upon the earth, and was in time abated, Xisuthrus sent out birds from the vessel; which finding no food, nor any place whereupon they might rest their feet, returned to him again. After an interval of some days, he sent them forth a second time; and they now returned with their feet tinged with mud. He made a trial a third time with these birds; but they returned to him no more: from whence he judged that the surface of the earth had appeared above the waters.

He therefore made an opening in the vessel, and upon looking out found that it was stranded upon the side of some mountains; upon which he immediately quitted it with his wife, his children, and the pilot. Xisuhrus then paid his adoration to the earth: and having constructed an altar, offered sacrifices to the Gods.”

It should be noted that the account of the deluge relayed in the tablets discovered by George Smith differ only very slightly from Berosus’ account, which differs only slightly from the story handed down by the Chaldean, Abraham, whose father ‘Terah’ was High Priest in the temple of the Chaldean city of Ur.

The flood of Noah didn’t come as a surprise. It had been preached on for four generations. Something strange happened when Enoch was 65, from which time “He walked with God.” Enoch was given a prophecy that as long as his firstborn son ‘Methuselah’ was alive, the judgement of the flood would be withheld, but as soon as he died, the flood would be sent forth.

Enoch named his firstborn to reflect this prophecy. The name Methuselah comes from two roots: muth, a root that means death, and from shalach, which means ‘To Bring’ or ‘To Send Forth.’ Thus, the name Methuselah signifies, ‘His Death Shall Bring.’ And, indeed, in the year that Methuselah died, the flood came.

Remembering that Abraham was the son of Terah the High priest of the temple in the Chaldean city of Ur, and he was, according to the erroneous Roman OT, 58 when Noah died, the question is now asked, could the Chaldean name ‘Arsates’ mean, ‘When he dies it will happen? And could the name ‘Xisuthrus’ have the same meaning as that of the name ‘Noah’, which is, “One who brings relief or comfort?”

The Chaldean month of Daesius, is the 2nd month, which corresponds with the biblical account that it was in the second month that the flood came. But there is a two-day discrepancy: the biblical account is the 17th day, [See Genesis 7: 11.] whereas the other is the 15th day.

These three flood accounts are so similar it becomes obvious that they originated from the one source. Another interesting similarity between the Chaldean deluge story and the one as handed down through the Hebrew, is that before the flood, people lived extraordinary long lives until the god/gods declared that man shall no longer live past a restricted age limit. This signifies that the floods of both cultures mark the same transition in the history of the world, that being, the birth of the modern world.

The more that I am forced to look at the flood accounts, the more I am convinced that some catastrophic event occurred 4,500 years ago, which caused worldwide devastating floods and tsunamis, of which the more accurate account of the flood that devastated the civilized world of that day, can be found in the Hebrew culture that came down from the Chaldean Abraham, and his family, whose language and racial religion have remained intact for over 4,000 years.

Good News Bible, Catholic Study Edition Genesis 7: 11-12; When Noah was 600 years old, on the seventeenth day of the second month all the outlets of the vast body of water beneath the earth burst open, all the floodgates of the sky were opened, 12and rain fell on the earth for forty days and nights.

Scientists have long suspected there was a lot of water beneath our feet, but this may be the first direct evidence that a vast reservoir of water is locked inside the mantle’s “transitional zone.” The significance: If just 1 percent of the “transitional zone” is made up of water, researchers say, it would triple the amount of water on the Earth’s surface.

One assumption is that all ice contained on land has drained to the sea and not held in continental lakes or rivers. Once all ice is melted and added to the global oceans our seas would rise by 216 feet as compared to the current level.

If just one percent of the weight of mantle rock located in the transition zone is H2O, that would be equivalent to nearly three times the amount of water in our oceans. The findings, published in the journal Science, will aid scientists in understanding how the earth formed, what its current composition and inner workings are and how much water is trapped in mantle rock.

Scientific researchers today, have absolutely no idea of just how much water is locked up in the transitional Zone, and yet they believe that if just 1 percent of the “transitional zone” is made up of water, it would triple the amount of water on the Earth’s surface. But if in the future it is discovered that much more than 1 percent of the “transitional zone” is made up of water, what then

Psalms 104: 5; You have set the earth firmly on its foundations, and it will never be moved. You placed the ocean over it like a robe, and the water covered the mountains. When you rebuked the waters, they fled; they rushed away when they heard your shout of command. They flowed over the mountains and into the valleys, to the place you had made for them. You set a boundary they can never pass, to keep them from covering the earth again.

 

[Onoma]

Mmm, yes, I am aware of so-called " regional floods " and the proposal that they were the basis for the flood myth, but unfortunately, Mesopotamian literature doesn't bear this to be the truth

For one, there are two entirely types of phrasing / words used to refer to things like seasonal flooding VS " floods " that were new moons / eclipses ( One type is reserved solely for literature regarding astronomy ) and the literature associated with astronomy calculations / rituals is considered its own separate corpus from that which describes and details seasonal floods, etc

I've also read about the supposed " hidden water " in Earth's crust that was proposed to the source of the " flood epics ", but again, this conveniently ignores actual literature of the day in an attempt to add gravitas to the literal interpretation of a story that isn't literal ( In the sense of it being an actual flood )

As far as Chaldean accounts...... Chaldeans are perhaps best known for being astronomer / mathematicians that kept detailed records of new moon and eclipse cycles like the Saros cycle ( Among other phenomena ) and to assume their literature refers to an actual flood is to completely ignore literary tradition and basic history

In his L'Immortalité de l'âme chez les Chaldéens, Jules Oppert notes that the given timespan of the lineage from Adam to Noah is actually taken from Chaldean calculations found in ephemerides detailing new moon and eclipses

 

[Rise]

A technical question which may not be appropriate in this thread: How is one to understand Genesis 9:11-17?

• 11 And I will establish My covenant with you, and never again will all flesh be cut off by the flood waters, and there will never again be a flood to destroy the earth."
  12 And God said: "This is the sign of the covenant, which I am placing between Me and between you, and between every living soul that is with you, for everlasting generations.
  13 My rainbow I have placed in the cloud, and it shall be for a sign of a covenant between Myself and the earth.
  14 And it shall come to pass, when I cause clouds to come upon the earth, that the rainbow will appear in the cloud.
  15 And I will remember My covenant, which is between Me and between you and between every living creature among all flesh, and the water will no longer become a flood to destroy all flesh.
  16 And the rainbow shall be in the cloud, and I will see it, to remember the everlasting covenant between God and between every living creature among all flesh, which is on the earth."
  17 And God said to Noah: "This is the sign of the covenant that I have set up, between Myself and between all flesh that is on the earth."

Was the appearance of the rainbow, following the flood survived by Noah and the inhabitants of the ark, the first in history or was it not the first but affirmed as the sign of the covenant between God and Noah?

(By analogy, I compare the rainbow to a wedding ring. Restating my question in terms of that analogy, I'm asking: Did a ring pre-exist the wedding and become a "wedding ring" as a consequence of the wedding vows? Or was there no ring before the wedding, but a wedding ring first appeared in the wedding?)

The reason for my question is because I think there are people who believe that the rainbow after the flood was the first rainbow in the history of the world.

I don't see any logic in concluding that rainbows existed prior to the flood exactly as they do today.
Otherwise there would be no way to differentiate God's post flood rainbow from the prior situation (Being either no rainbow, or different types of rainbows).
Which would then make it meaningless as a sign of His covenant because you could never look up in the sky and say "ah, there it is, that one is God's rainbow, the sign of His promise to us, the one that never existed before He established His new Covenant with mankind".
Even the language of Him "placing" the rainbow implies something new which wasn't there before.

Without that, you'd be basically saying that God just pointed to something that already existed and said "I'm giving that a new meaning".
But the problem with that is that we don't see modeled anywhere in Scripture with regards to memorials, or signs, or convenants.
There's always something new which is created, or a new observance or ritual that is instituted, or a sacrifice that is performed, to commemorate or mark something new of significance.
It's never merely just re-purposing something that already exists, as it exists, without any alteration, and claiming it has a new meaning now. Even unhewn stone altars people erected as a memorial involved moving and stacking stones together in a way that they otherwise were not prior to your intervention. They didn't just point to a stone on the ground and proclaim "this stone now represents something new", without even doing so much as moving it or changing it's orientation.

It could be as simple as assembling unhewn rocks into the shape of an altar or as complex as building the tabernacle. It could be a one time or short term ritual performed, or a new yearly feast observance instituted. Or a sacrifice performed.

Covenants in the Bible are always seen to be established by some kind of new action, new creation, and/or sacrifice. Without exception. It is never established merely by pointing to something that already exists. The later would be inappropriate as a representation of the covenant because it does not as accurately represent what a covenant is. A covenant is both the creation of something new, and the creation of something that is suppose to last and not be broken.


I would also ask:
What is your motivation for needing to conclude that the rainbow must have existed prior to the flood? Is it because you can't imagine how scientifically that could happen? Well, there are possibilities. Creation scientists have proposed some ways that could have happened.

There is Biblical support for the idea that rain as we know it didn't even exist prior to the flood, but waters misted up from underground rivers or aquifers. With those shattered by the flood, the water being dumped on the surface, the creation of vast oceans and vast dry places instead of a more even distribution of water, and temperate differentials being introduced across the globe that weren't there previously, you could create conditions that allow for cloud and rain formation where likely it did not exist before. Or, at the very least, rain happening in a manner which had never existed before.

There's also the possibility that the nature of the atmosphere was different prior to the flood. We do know that prehistoric atmosphere levels were twice as dense as they are today. There's a lot of potential ways that atmosphere could have been different than it is today which perhaps could have also had an effect on the creation of rainbows in the sky. A situation that wouldn't have been altered until the flood's catastrophic altering of the world's climate and ecology.

Some speculate things like water or ice canopies over the earth which were destroyed with the flood, but others don't believe this is a viable explanation. And I don't think you need to rely on explanations like that in order to have rainbows appear only after the flood.

I think the reason God could point to the rainbow as a sign of His new covenant with mankind is precisely because it had never existed before.
And furthermore, and more importantly perhaps, I think the reason God could point to this sign as assurance that He would never flood the earth again is because the rainbow's existance was proof that the conditions of the earth were not such that you could ever have a worldwide flood anymore.

The reason why? Because if the flood was caused by runaway subduction of the crust shattering into today's tectonic plates, thereby releasing all the water trapped under the crust (which then shot up high into the atmosphere and fell down as rain over the whole world), permanently altering the climate and landscape in a way that could never be reversed by natural processes, then it would be impossible for a worldwide flood to ever happen again because the method of what caused the original flood had already been spent and used up.
And the rainbow was the result of that new altering landscape and climate. So as long as that rainbow exists then it means that the conditions will never exist on earth to again cause a worldwide flood.

That is precisely why people falsely conclude today that a worldwide flood could never have happened in the past: Because they are trying to figure out how a world wide flood could happen under the environmental conditions as they currently exist. They are ignoring the fact that the Bible tells us the conditions were different prior to the flood. You didn't have mountain peaks as high as today, or valleys as low as today (the oceans). You didn't have most of the world's water trapped in oceans that are exposed to the air. You had most of the world's water trapped under the crust under high pressure, which somehow burst causing a tectonic rift to ripple around the earth's crust, breaking apart the landmass and throwing all that water up into the air. Most of which then settled onto the surface permanently after raining down.

 

[Onoma]

Oh, here's a good example from Classic Babylonian literature, from the Enuma Anu Enlil series

 

[exchemist]

A technical question which may not be appropriate in this thread: How is one to understand Genesis 9:11-17?

• 11 And I will establish My covenant with you, and never again will all flesh be cut off by the flood waters, and there will never again be a flood to destroy the earth."
  12 And God said: "This is the sign of the covenant, which I am placing between Me and between you, and between every living soul that is with you, for everlasting generations.
  13 My rainbow I have placed in the cloud, and it shall be for a sign of a covenant between Myself and the earth.
  14 And it shall come to pass, when I cause clouds to come upon the earth, that the rainbow will appear in the cloud.
  15 And I will remember My covenant, which is between Me and between you and between every living creature among all flesh, and the water will no longer become a flood to destroy all flesh.
  16 And the rainbow shall be in the cloud, and I will see it, to remember the everlasting covenant between God and between every living creature among all flesh, which is on the earth."
  17 And God said to Noah: "This is the sign of the covenant that I have set up, between Myself and between all flesh that is on the earth."

Was the appearance of the rainbow, following the flood survived by Noah and the inhabitants of the ark, the first in history or was it not the first but affirmed as the sign of the covenant between God and Noah?

(By analogy, I compare the rainbow to a wedding ring. Restating my question in terms of that analogy, I'm asking: Did a ring pre-exist the wedding and become a "wedding ring" as a consequence of the wedding vows? Or was there no ring before the wedding, but a wedding ring first appeared in the wedding?)

The reason for my question is because I think there are people who believe that the rainbow after the flood was the first rainbow in the history of the world.

Yes, obviously that would be scientifically illiterate, since we know perfectly well how rainbows arise through refraction.
As with the Creation and Garden of Eden stories, the Flood story clearly needs to be seen allegorically.

I must say I have always rather struggled with this, though I suppose the theme of renewing humanity could be seen as a foretelling of the later renewal in the NT. Perhaps the authors, knowing the flood myth was part of the culture of the area already (cf. Gilgamesh), decided it could not be ignored, so the best way to accommodate it was to re-purpose it with a monotheistic Jewish moral lesson about the power of God ind his covenant with the descendants of Noah.

Amy other theories?

 

[exchemist]

I don't see any logic in concluding that rainbows existed prior to the flood exactly as they do today.
Otherwise there would be no way to differentiate God's post flood rainbow from any other type of rainbow.
Which would then make it meaningless as a sign of his covenant because you could never look up in the sky and say "ah, there it is, that one is God's rainbow, the sign of His promise to us, the one that never existed before He established His new Covenant with mankind".
Even the language of Him "placing" the rainbow implies something new which wasn't there before.

Without that, you'd be basically saying that God just pointed to something that already existed and said "I'm giving that a new meaning".
But we don't see modeled anywhere in Scripture with regards to memorials, or signs, or convenants.

There's always a new creation or observance brought in to commemorate or mark something of significance.
It's never merely just re-purposing something that exists, as it exists, without alteration, and claiming it has a new meaning now.

It could be as simple as assembling unhewn rocks into the shape of an altar or as complex as building the tabernacle. It could be a new feast observed or a new ritual undertaken.

Covenants are seen to be established by some kind of new action and/or sacrifice, not merely pointing to something that already exists. That would be illogical as it does not represent what a covenant is which is the creation of something new.


I would also ask:
What is your motivation for needing to conclude that the rainbow must have existed prior to the flood? Is it because you can't imagine how scientifically that could happen? Well, there are possibilities. Creation scientists have proposed some ways that could have happened.

There is Biblical support for the idea that rain as we know it didn't even exist prior to the flood, but waters misted up from underground rivers or aquifers. With those shattered by the flood, the water being dumped on the surface, the creation of vast oceans and vast dry places instead of a more even distribution of water, and temperate differentials being introduced across the globe that weren't there previously, you could create conditions that allow for cloud and rain formation where likely it did not exist before. Or, at the very least, rain happening in a manner which had never existed before.

There's also the possibility that the nature of the atmosphere was different prior to the flood. We do know that prehistoric atmosphere levels were twice as dense as they are today. There's a lot of potential ways that atmosphere could have been different than it is today which perhaps could have also had an effect on the creation of rainbows in the sky. A situation that wouldn't have been altered until the flood's catastrophic altering of the world's climate and ecology.

Some speculate things like water or ice canopies over the earth which were destroyed with the flood, but others don't believe this is a viable explanation. And I don't think you need to rely on explanations like that in order to have rainbows appear only after the flood.

I think the reason God could point to the rainbow as a sign of His new covenant with mankind is precisely because it had never existed before.
And furthermore, and more importantly perhaps, I think the reason God could point to this sign as assurance that He would never flood the earth again is because the rainbow's existance was proof that the conditions of the earth were not such that you could ever have a worldwide flood anymore.

The reason why? Because if the flood was caused by runaway subduction of the crust shattering into today's tectonic plates, thereby releasing all the water trapped under the crust (which then shot up high into the atmosphere and fell down as rain over the whole world), permanently altering the climate and landscape in a way that could never be reversed by natural processes, then it would be impossible for a worldwide flood to ever happen again because the method of what caused the original flood had already been spent and used up.
And the rainbow was the result of that new altering landscape and climate. So as long as that rainbow exists then it means that the conditions will never exist on earth to again cause a worldwide flood.

That is precisely why people falsely conclude today that a worldwide flood could never have happened in the past: Because they are trying to figure out how a world wide flood could happen under the environmental conditions as they currently exist. They are ignoring the fact that the Bible tells us the conditions were different prior to the flood. You didn't have mountain peaks as high as today, or valleys as low as today (the oecans). You didn't have most of the world's water trapped in oceans that are exposed to the air. You had most of the world's water trapped under the crust under high pressure, which somehow burst causing a tectonic rift to ripple around the earth's crust, breaking apart the landmass and throwing all that water up into the air. Most of which then settled onto the surface permanently after raining down.

There are no "creation scientists".

 

[Onoma]

Right, so " rainbows "

These are considered common omen in Babylonian texts and are associated with " crowns " on the gods ( Like the moon, Venus, etc ) which are in turn associated to eclipses ( An eclipse is

a " crowning " )

A good book to start with this ( I feel aimed at the layman ) is

Babylonian Omen Without Special Title

A few screenshots

----------------------

These types of phrasings are rather rampant in the Book of Revelation, including " being clothed with the sun and/ moon "

All common phrasings

 

[Rise]

There are no "creation scientists".

Your belief is false.
Creation scientists - creation.com

 

[Terry Sampson]

the Flood story clearly needs to be seen allegorically

Any other theories?

I propose "a game" of trivial pursuit. D'ya wanna play?

Given the generally accepted "scientific understanding" of the essential nature and requirements of rainbows, what would conditions on earth have to have been like in order to sustain the pre-Flood plant and animal lifeforms of Noah's "day" AND no rainbow anywhere until after God "placed" one in the sky after the Flood?

 

[exchemist]

I propose "a game" of trivial pursuit.

Given the generally accepted "scientific understanding" of the essential nature and requirements of rainbows, what would conditions on earth have to have been like in order to sustain the pre-Flood plant and animal lifeforms of Noah's "day" AND no rainbow anywhere until after God "placed" one in the sky after the Flood?

It seems to me no rainbow would have to mean either never any rain, or else no visible light from the sun. (If the sun's light had a different spectral composition, you would still get a rainbow, but the colours would be different.) None of these makes any sense.

Or, anticipating Dad's probable gambit in this scenario, the laws of physics would have had to be different, such that no refraction and reflection occurred. Which would screw up the rest of physics and biochemistry making the earth and life impossible, most likely.

But you know this........

 

[Onoma]

Unfortunately, Terry, I can't go there as I don't believe Noah was a real person, but rather based on a real role ( that of a priest ) and don't believe that the flood as it is presented by a majority of people was a real flood, but rather based on a real convention of literature belonging to those same priests

 

[Terry Sampson]

But you know this........

"Know this", more or less, but I'm kinda curious how far some folks will go in order to maintain a worldview.