Why are there so many songs about rainbows? I don't know Kermit, but one thing's for certain, that whole rainbow thing sure has me stymied too - and I'm not even the least bit worried about lovers and dreamers!
I mean it's one thing to say that a single man managed in times of antiquity to build a structure big and sturdy enough to not only withstand 40 days and nights of rain and another year or so of floating, but to also house the genetic grandparents of every living land-creature. Even granting that Noah took in small and immature creatures and that God helped him pull off the miracles of barricading the meat-eaters from the vegetarians, dealing with waste management, and the feeding of everyone and everything on board throughout a year at sea, it still seems rather... - well good thing we're granting miracles! (I intend to go into more depth on scientific problems with the Ark story in a future post)
But as a matter of fact, many cultures have similar flood stories. The Hindus tell of a man named Manu who was spared by a global flood because he was a righteous man, Native Americans have a longstanding flood tradition, and a flood story even exists in Greek mythology. The likelihood of an ancient flood or floods, global or otherwise, is a possibility I won't entirely discount. It certainly has made its way into the folklore of many traditions.
That said, I do take issue with the Biblical rendition of the flood story, the account of the rainbow:
Genesis 9:11-16
"I establish my covenant with you: Never again will all life be destroyed by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth.”
And God said, “This is the sign of the covenant I am making between me and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all generations to come: I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth. Whenever I bring clouds over the earth and the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life. Whenever the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures of every kind on the earth."
We're supposed to believe that this is the origin of rainbows. That God created something new and called it a rainbow, to mark the fulfillment of his new covenant. It's a great tale - if you live in a time in history when scientific knowledge is limited. The earth is flat and thunder and lightening are supernatural power shows from the hand of the divine. It's anyone's guess as to how or why anything exists. Of course God painted a rainbow in the sky. Who's going to suggest otherwise?
No one but modern scientists, of course. Today there is nothing in nature that defies scientific explanation, and the lovely rainbow is no exception. Far from a random art piece, we understand the rainbow to be a refraction of light through droplets of water. All light is split into a spectrum of colours which not only accounts for our ability to see fruit and flowers in various shades of colours, but also accounts for the colours we see in the clouds when the sun shines through the droplets of water in the air.
This creates a problem. Was there no rain before the flood? No clouds? No humidity in the air?
Indeed, some Christian scientists have attempted to demonstrate that this was the case. They propose that prior to the flood water had been supplied to the earth through waters found beneath the earth. The creation account in Genesis 2, they argue, talks of the streams coming up from the ground to water the land. And so there was no need of rain.
Perhaps. And yet... What about waterfalls? Surely we cannot be made to believe that the earth was flat and that all water flowed on the same level. Anyone who stood by the spray of a waterfall - or even white-water for that matter would've seen a rainbow. Or what about oil mixed with water while baking bread? Would the slick of oil not have diffused the light waves to create a rainbow if the light struck the bowl in the right way? In fact, some translations translate the "streams" of Genesis 2 as "mists" - mists would certainly refract sunlight, no?
I throw this question open for discussion and would love to hear from theists and atheists alike on this one. If the Biblical story is true, how is it possible that in some 900-plus years light didn't refract to create a rainbow? Is it reasonable to assume that God created the rainbow as a sign of covenant? If you believe this is the case, how do you explain it? Is it possible that we are trying to force mythology into science in order to maintain it as fact?
Somebody thought of it and someone believed it,
But look what it's done so far.
So we've been told and some choose to believe it.
But I know they're wrong, wait and see.
Someday we'll find it.
The rainbow connection...
He did not necessarily "make the (first) rainbow" as a sign of the covenant; he "made the covenant" and appointed the rainbow to signify it. Often, signs were ascribed to other covenants when they were made.
ReplyDeleteGenesis uses a literary style which is not scientific to make a point which is not about natural sciences.