If Genesis is to be believed, there was a period of time before the flood where rainbows did not occur. This must mean god altered the laws of optics, refraction, and what not to produce rainbows.
Clearly antediluvian spectrometry would have been disrupted. If the flood had happened much later, the cover of Dark Side of the Moon would have been incomprehensible.
Would anyone in bible times have noticed such a change?
I don’t interpret the Bible literally, but my version of the Bible, the NIV, says nothing about the post-flood rainbow being the first ever:
[Genesis 9:12-13]
There’s nothing there that says, “Look! For the first time ever, I’m putting an arc of prismatic colors across the sky! Pretty cool, eh?”
Since the OP is asking about contrafactual situations, let’s move this to IMHO.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
I’m going to stop you right there. There are a ton of things in the Bible that if taken literally don’t align with science as we understand it now. This isn’t anywhere close to a clever gotcha. Yawn.
We know very little about weather and climate conditions before the Flood, and most of what we think we know is educated guesswork.
There is one passage that indicates that it MAY have never rained before the Flood; instead, there might have been a more or less continual mist.
“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” (Genesis 2:5, 6).
On the other hand, as this passage makes clear, this was at some point during the 6-day process, before Adam was actually created. How long those conditions continued is something that we can’t realistically even guess at.
Genesis is not to be believed.
There’s the first stumbling block. Belief in the literal truth of Genesis isn’t universal even among Christians.
The theory that it had never rained before the Flood has already been mentioned.
…or just never set up a situation where the sun was shining at the correct angle with moisture in the air…
Well, they certainly noticed the post-Flood rainbow and that world-destroying deluge… if you believe that happened at all.
I’ve heard fundamentalist Evangelicals claim that it never rained until the flood - citing Genesis 2:5-6 as being the state of play up to that point, that is:
So I guess some sort of divinely-managed water cycle that doesn’t involve clouds and rain after the plants have transpired water vapour - maybe all the water vapour condenses on the sky dome at night and trickles back down to the edge of the earth disc before morning.
And what about light that had started its journey thousands or millions of years ago? In mid-flight, the characteristics of the light beam was altered.
I once posed this question to Rabbi Dr. Israel Scharfman, head of Los Angeles’ Kosher Overseers, an orthodox Jewish organization that certified Kosher food plants. Dr. Scharfman frequently told me that he “loved science!” and thought it confirmed the biblical accounts, always. When pressed, after some thought time, he said, “Of course – that’s the only logical conclusion. All over the Universe, all light changed. It was G-d’s will.”
Very few Skittles.
There’s a lot of fundamentalists out there that since the first mention of a rainbow was after the flood, and it was a special one as well, meant that it was the first rainbow.
Note that Genesis 2:5 (during the “2nd” creation week) mentions that there wasn’t rain yet but there were mists. So some take that as no rain pre-flood.
One explanation I heard explaining why rainbows didn’t occur before that was that it didn’t rain! The rivers around the Garden of Eden and environs provided all the moisture needed for the vegetation and animals.
This, of course, just leads to a long line of special explanations.
Didn’t the oceans evaporate some water and then rain? Um, no oceans.
Where did the non-evolving oceanic fish live before the flood? Um, small pools of salt water?
And the basking sharks, they lived in small pools? Um, God can make stuff happen.
(Eventually all such arguments end with that last bit. So don’t bother asking how these rivers managed to flow without rain.)
Another silly let’s-bash-the-Bible thread. When you consider that only about half of even Evangelical Christians believe in Biblical literalism, and Evangelicals make up a bit more than a quarter of all US Christians, the OP is accusing a very small percentage of Christians of having stupid anti-scientific beliefs.
I fail to see how this is so perennially entertaining.
it would have looked like any other work of fiction
Giving the rise of the number of people with anti-scientific beliefs, it’s not entertaining, it’s scary.
I think the rational folk need to be aware of what’s going on, the arguments being used, and methods to refute them. Education more than entertainment although a lot of folk, esp. here, enjoy education.
Hang on, the central conceit of Christianity is every bit as nonsensically unscientific as the flood and the creation story and that is believed by pretty much every mainstream Christian.
I think you are right to question the entertainment value though, it is more concerning than entertaining.
Yet this tiny minority (according to you) has managed to suppress the teaching of evolution and other scientific facts in the US. Their pernicious influence is far out of proportion to their numbers.
As has been said, it’s not entertaining, it’s scary.
How interesting can heaven be if angels had to come to earth to find babes to score with?
And there are some 225,000,000 Christians in the U.S. Mayhap one day some genius will formulate a question that logically sends 100% of them into NOMAD-esque cognitive dissonance mode,* a magic bullet, if you will.
Until the arrival of that blessed Day of Days, 12.5% strikes me as a worthy target for a pretty magical bullet. I’m not ready to proclaim the OP as having achieved even 12.5% magic bullet status; I’m just suggesting that incrementalism is not without its practical virtues.
*(from which they would emerge physically unscathed, of course, not a haphazard agglomeration of charred semiconductors, crumpled panels of Mylar-coated plywood, and twisted sheets of aluminum)
The rainbow was originally Ishtar’s necklace.