Re: [asa] rainbow covenant

From: Christine Smith <>
Date: Thu Oct 11 2007 - 11:05:51 EDT

Hello all,

It has always seemed to me that there had to be some
historical roots in Noah's flood; thus, I've tended
toward the historical local flood interpretation (#2).
But, I could see a case being made for #1.

Regardless, I think the meaning of the rainbow
covenant goes beyond the particular context of a
flood. I see it as a promise that God will never
(again?) use natural laws and natural phenomenon to
reign whole-scale destruction on the world (or what
seemed to Noah to be the world, at the time) as
punishment. Thus, it speaks to the larger questions
that we all ask when a major natural catastrophe
strikes--why did this happen? Why didn't God stop it?
Was God angry with us?

I suppose if the same story were written in this day
and age, the same convenant might look something like
"Never again will I use a hurricane (or tsunami) to
punish the world". (And no, I am not arguing that God
was angry w/ or punishing New Orleans or Asia)

In Christ,

--- George Murphy <> wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Merv" <>
> To: <>
> Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 8:15 AM
> Subject: [asa] rainbow covenant
> >
> > I just enjoyed watching the movie "Evan Almighty"
> last night with the
> > youth group. For anyone willing to understand the
> entertainment genre for
> > what it is (i.e. stop expecting only serious
> theology and serious
> > science), it makes for an enjoyable time complete
> with theatrics aimed at
> > Junior highers.
> >
> > It did provoke at least one serious reflection for
> me though: If the
> > flood was a localized event (as most here seem
> solidly convinced of), then
> > what is the meaning of God's promise that such an
> event will never happen
> > again? Doesn't such a promise become nonsensical
> as applied to floods in
> > general? I'd love to see responses to this if any
> of you have one.
> There are (at least) 2 ways of arguing that "Noah's
> flood" was local.
> 1) There is no evidence for a worldwide flood a few
> thousand years ago but
> there were large but local floods, especially in
> Mesopotamia. These were
> one of the sources for the biblical story of a
> non-historical global flood.
> 2) The biblical account can be read as a story of
> an historical local
> flood - e.g., the statements that "all flesh" will
> be destroyed &c are
> simply hyperbole.
> Of course there can be combinations of elements of
> both views but these are
> really distinct approaches. IMO the 1st is most
> likely. I.e., God's
> statement that he will destroy "all flesh" means
> just that (in the context
> on the story) & not "lots of flesh." But the story
> is not an historical
> narrative, even though there are some historical
> roots to it.
> & with this view, the rainbow covenent means what it
> says - God won't
> destroy the whole world with a flood again.
> Shalom
> George
> To unsubscribe, send a message to
> with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the
> message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Oct 11 11:07:03 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Oct 11 2007 - 11:07:03 EDT