Subject: when did it rain for the first time? |
Bible Note: NOSAJROB Note: Thanks for your reply, bjanko. However, your arguement is an argument from silence. Not mine as rain is menioned in Genesis 2:5. BJANKO It is? Please show us. I see where the ABSENCE of rain is mentioned, but none of my Bibles mentions the presence of rain in Gen. 2:5. NOSAJROB It tells us in fact the reason ("for" by the way is a purpose statemen) rain was needed, and when God sent it. It was needed for growth of herbs, and sent when God had created man. BJANKO Again, this is quite odd. My Bible simply says that rain was ABSENT from the earth and it says that, at that time, a mist provided the moisture for the plants. The Bible does NOT say rain was sent when God had created man. You are arguing from silence (i.e., from something which is NOT in the text). NOSAJROB That is the way it seems. BJANKO "Seems"? Strange statement for someone who claims that he is not arguing from silence, but rather from solid "facts" which are supposedly in the text. NOSAJROB No where does it say that it never rained until the flood. Does it? That is the assuption so many make. BJANKO Neither does it say that it rained from the beginning and neither does it say that the rain of the flood was nothing new. The text mentions two items EXPLICITLY: 1.) rain's absence; 2.) how the rain's purpose was temporarily fulfilled by a mist that rose from the ground. That's what the text EXPLICITLY says. Claiming that the text says there was rain is an argument from silence. The text is SILENT about the existence of rain at that time. The text does say -- EXPLICITLY -- that rain's purpose was fulfilled another way (mist) and so it is not an argument from silence to say that there was no rain. It cannot be argued dogmatically either way, I believe, because it is one of the less clear passages of Scripture; but there is certainly more basis IN THE TEXT for postulating the ABSENCE of rain rather than its PRESENCE. Please note that the only way to postulate rain's PRESENCE is NOT from the text, but by bringing in the PRESUPPOSITIONS of science. I think Scripture is a sufficient witness for these things. Scientific presuppositions distort the text. |