The reason I ask this question is because it shows the lack of thinking ability you must form in order to believe odd teachings. As a witness I was taught that rainbows are a sign from God to show us that he would not kill everyone in a flood ever again. If this were true it would be reasonable to then conclude that God alone makes rainbows appear. But we know that nobody would (well most everyone) argue this because we all know how rainbows are formed. If you don't know, well I just feel bad for you. The point is that you cannot have it both ways. Either God forms all rainbows as a sign from heaven, (and we know what the bible says about signs from heaven) or he doesn't. If we know exactly why rainbows really form, because of science, and it can be tested and then shown as fact (just turn your hose on and let it mist into the air for a second), then why would someone hold on to something that makes no sense at all just because they really want to 'believe' that it is true. I think this way of thinking is due to only wanting to believe because they think that it is virtuous to do so. "If it doesn't make sense now it will make sense someday. It will be revealed to us in time." That is the way you are able to sweep wrong and silly ideas under the rug and keep 'believing' still. There are many more questions to consider, all silly, all just as hard to swallow. Truth cannot destroy truth, one is right and one is wrong. If something that you have definite facts on now and you can prove it without question then you might have to ask yourself "am I really in the 'truth'"?

the bible says that he gave the rainbow to mankind as a sign that he will never destroy the world by water.

A sign to acknowledge that homosexuality naturally occurs as a part of creation, maybe.

Rainbows are a sign that light truly is refracted through raindrops.

Yes indeed. Genesis Chapter 9: vs. 12-17 tells us: “And God added: “This is the sign of the covenant that I am giving between me and YOU and every living soul that is with YOU, for the generations to time indefinite. My rainbow I do give in the cloud, and it must serve as a sign of the covenant between me and the earth. And it shall occur that when I bring a cloud over the earth, then the rainbow will certainly appear in the cloud. And I shall certainly remember my covenant which is between me and YOU and every living soul among all flesh; and no more will the waters become a deluge to bring all flesh to ruin. And the rainbow must occur in the cloud, and I shall certainly see it to remember the covenant to time indefinite between God and every living soul among all flesh that is upon the earth.” And God repeated to Noah: “This is the sign of the covenant that I do establish”.

I've read Bib's answer as well as Perry's. Perry is pretty sharp, but perhaps he left a point unclarified. He'll correct me if i'm wrong in pointing out what i THINK he meant. Perry was not saying that Jehovah puts every rainbow in the sky as a specific sign or that he sets each one there to remind us of the Noachian Covenant. The first rainbow appeared as a result of the passing flood. Jehovah used it as a sign of his covenant and stated that every rainbow thereafter should serve as a reminder. So, as we understand it, the next time you see a rainbow, it doesn't mean that God has made a special effort to place it there. In fact, a given rainbow will vary greatly depending on the observer's vantage point. Jehovah, in his wisdom gave great significance to a common occurance so as to remind us that he will never again deluge the whole earth. We take God's word for what it is, not neglecting his reminders nor reading more into it than he has told us.

Rainbows have its explanation in physics. There are others dogmatic explanations for them......so read both and take your pick.

How the hell did the wrong answer get rated up and the right answers get rated down? What the hell is going on in some people's minds.....Ray is right, it's light refracted through raindrops.

To a believer everything is a sign from god

RAINBOW A semicircular bow, or arc, exhibiting a spectrum of colors; a visible sign of Jehovah’s covenant promise that ‘no more would all flesh be cut off by waters of a deluge, and no more would there occur a deluge to bring the earth to ruin.’ (Ge 9:11-16) There is no separate Hebrew word for rainbow, so the normal word for “bow” (with which to shoot arrows) is used in the Bible.—Eze 1:28. Complicated theories and formulas are used to explain the formation of a rainbow. Basically, it seems that as white light enters a raindrop it is refracted and dispersed into different colors, the drop acting like a tiny prism. Each color strikes the inner surface of the drop and is reflected back at a different and specific angle. Thus an observer sees a bow with all seven colors of the spectrum (from the inside of the arc outward: violet, indigo, blue, green, yellow, orange, and red), though these may blend so that only four or five are clear. Sometimes a larger and less distinct “secondary” bow is formed with the colors reversed. Scientists are still studying the rainbow. Carl B. Boyer observes: “Within a raindrop the interaction of light energy with matter is so intimate that one is led directly to quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity. . . . Although much is known about the production of the rainbow, little has been learned about its perception.”—The Rainbow, From Myth to Mathematics, 1959, pp. 320, 321. The first Biblical reference to a rainbow is in the account of the covenant God made with Noah and his offspring after the Flood survivors came out of the ark. (Ge 9:8-17; Isa 54:9, 10) This splendid sight of itself would have been reassuring and an indication of peace to Noah and his family. Many opinions have been offered as to whether this was the first time humans saw a rainbow. Some commentators have held that rainbows had been seen before and that God’s ‘giving’ the rainbow at this time was really a ‘giving’ of special meaning or significance to a previously existing phenomenon. Many of those holding this view believe that the Flood was only local or did not substantially change the atmosphere. Nevertheless, this is the first mention of a rainbow, and if a rainbow had been seen earlier, there would have been no real force in God’s making it an outstanding sign of his covenant. It would have been commonplace, and not a significant marker of a change, of something new. The Bible does not describe the degree of clarity of the atmosphere just prior to the Flood. But apparently atmospheric conditions were such that, until a change came about when “the floodgates of the heavens were opened” (Ge 7:11), no others before Noah and his family had seen a rainbow. Even today, atmospheric conditions affect whether a rainbow can be seen or not. The glory, beauty, and peacefulness of a rainbow that appears after a storm are drawn upon in Biblical descriptions of God and his throne. In Ezekiel’s vision of God, the prophet saw “something like the appearance of the bow that occurs in a cloud mass on the day of a pouring rain.” This emphasized “the glory of Jehovah.” (Eze 1:28) Similarly, John saw Jehovah’s throne of splendor, and ‘round about it there was a rainbow like an emerald in appearance.’ The restful emerald-green color of the rainbow would have suggested composure and serenity to John, and appropriately so since Jehovah is the master of every situation, a glorious Ruler. (Re 4:3) John also saw an angel with ‘a rainbow upon his head’ (Re 10:1), which may suggest that he was a special representative of “the God of peace.”—Php 4:9.

Rainbows are light refracting... usually off water... most commonly when light shines through rain (when the air is still moist, after the clouds break). Each one, isn't necessarily a sign. However, there's no reason they need to be so beautiful. I believe the effect is intended to be evidence of God. Like the northern lights, the expanse of the cosmos, a beautiful lightning storm or sunset, the smell of flowers and berries, or the divine inspiration of lasagna. In this way "even the rocks cry out" declaring God's existance.

the rainbow is a remembrance back in noah's days, god said that every time u see a rainbow he's promises that the world will not be flooded again.

It's a sign from God indicating that He really does like Gay People!

Yes, that it has just rained and there are still drops in the air that refract light.

Ofcourse rainbows are a physical phenomena, i know nobody who would deny that. Light refracting by entering and leaving the raindrops with a different density than air, we've had it all in physics-class haven't we? but does that leave out the posibility of it being a sign? seahorse already hinted a bit, but i've heard a theory that gives a full explanation. Who knows, but I think it's interesting: WARNING to evolutionists: following content is extremely fantastic and creationistic! I advise you just to listen to this as a fantasy, cause it obviously doesn't fit evolution-theory, and it's not ment to. (and ofcourse anything contradicting evolution is fantasy) It's just playing with thoughts and theories. So lets say God created the heavens and the earth as in genesis. Assuming there really was water above the atmosphere (it clearly says there was water and then the atmosphere was created seperating the water above it from that below it), and assuming there were deep pockets of water in the earths crust ("and the vaults of the deep broke open") that would leave far less water IN the atmosphere and far less surface water. That changes the climate models a bit :P. As i've heard it water vapor in the sky forms droplets around cosmic ray particles and lots of these drops together form clouds, which rain out and then re-vaporate to restart the cycle. Now suppose this layer of water was actually in place above the atmosphere. That would mean far less cosmic rays would enter the atmosphere, because water blocks them. Also there is a strong possibility that there is (far) less water in the air. Overall this adds up to: little to no clouds forming, which means: no rain. Along comes the flood: the water above the atmosphere comes crashing down, the water from the vaults squirts up as well forming a huge fountain, and together with the super-atmospheric water creates an immense downpour, note: for the first time in earths history. So the earth, flatter then, was covered with water, then by the opening of the vaults tectonic plates shift forming mountains and trenches letting the water into the trenches and land form on the mountains. Voila: the world as it is today. Lots of water AND lots of watervapor AND lots of cosmic rays: result: clouds, result: rain! Imagine Noah: he's never seen rain before, and last time he saw it it destroyed the entire earth. And guess what, drops are falling on his head: "AAAAAH NOT AGAIN!!!!" Along comes God comforting Noah saying He will NEVER flood the earth again, and as a sign of it He shows the never before witnessed rainbow, to keep remembering the 'traumatized' Noah that rain from now on is the normal cycle of water on the new earth. Besides: the water above atmosphere is gone, the water in earths crust is largely gone, so God would have to get a huge ice-meteor or something to create a new flood, and with all the tectonics already formed He'd have to mop it all up for dry land to be recreated, and that would be far too messy.. so obviously: He's not doing it again. so, there is a fantastic (< literal sense of the word) explanation. It doesn't fit evolution, but it fits the bible as far as i can tell :P.

God has created everything. Even the ability to create scientific experiments. The reason things can be done in such a precise way in nature is bc God created it to be that way. Things aren't just going to decided for themselves to form a rainbow after rain. Rain cannot think for it self and neither can the sun light. However God can control what it does and does not do. I believe the rainbow is his symbol of a promise that he made many years ago to never cause a disasterous flood again. (Such as the one Noah had to build his Ark for.) But this is just what I believe. Please do not bash me for it, I do not bash any of you for your beliefs.

&gt; Since the flood of Noah’s day was some 4,300 years ago, > are we to believe that > some trees now standing, like the bristlecone pine that is > said to be 4,600 > years old, survived that event intact? > The possibility cannot be > entirely dismissed. However, in > view of the enormity of the Flood and the destructive > effect of water, it seems > rather unlikely. (Compare Psalm 104:6-8.) This, too, adds > to the doubtfulness of > the accuracy of tree-ring dating methods. > But does not the Bible say that > soon after the flood a > dove released by Noah returned with an “olive leaf > freshly plucked in its bill”? > Where did it get that if the tree had not survived the > Flood?—Gen. 8:11. > Some commentators claim that > unquestionably olive trees > and others survived the Flood intact. To prove that these > trees can survive > under water, they have even cited two ancient writers, > Theophrastus and Pliny > the Elder, as reportedly seeing living olive trees > submerged beneath the Red > Sea. But is that correct? > Theophrastus, sometimes called > the Father of Botany, was a > Greek philosopher and naturalist of the third and fourth > centuries B.C.E. His > most prominent surviving work includes Enquiry > into Plants. > When describing the Red Sea it also says: “But there are > plants in the sea, > which they call ‘bay’ and ‘olive.’” > The plant called “olive” that > he goes on to describe is > not the real olive tree at all but, it is believed, the > white mangrove. This > latter plant does indeed grow, as he says, > “in”—though not, as commentators have > wrongly implied, under—the water. Theophrastus’ > standard for describing > plants was the shape of their leaves. Thus he may have used > the term “olive” to > describe the plant he was here referring to because its > leaf structure was > similar to that of the natural olive. > Several centuries later, Pliny > the Elder, the Roman, > depended on Theophrastus for his information, repeating the > earlier writer. > Pliny, it is said, “had neither the temperament for > original investigation, nor > the leisure necessary for the purpose.”—The > Encyclopædia > Britannica, 11th Ed., under “Pliny.” > Therefore, we must conclude that > neither of those ancient > writers was speaking of genuine olive trees growing under > the waters of the Red Sea. > Well, if it appears unlikely that whole trees survived the > Flood, how else could tree life have continued? Modern > experiments with flooding give us some indications. > For example, scientists have found that seeds of > certain plants and trees survive being submerged in water > up to thirty months. > Additionally, it should be noted that the extent of > disastrous effects that > various environmental stresses have on seedlings and > cuttings is not fully > understood. An authority, Jacob Levitt of the University of > Missouri, notes: > > “It must be admitted that despite the great deal of > information accumulated by investigators of freezing, > drought, and heat > stresses, neither the mechanism of the stress injury nor > that of the stress > resistance is fully understood. In the case of other > stresses [including what he > calls ‘flooding injury’] even less is known.” > Emphasizing this unknown factor > is the Russian work > Wintering of Plants by I. M. > Vasil’yev (1956): > > “Excessive water in itself is not harmful . . . > in the event of flooding during the winter or early spring > thaws before growth > starts and respiration is comparatively weak—plants may > remain a long time under > water without any visible harmful aftereffects because > their oxygen requirement > is small and can be completely covered by the oxygen from > the water surrounding > the plants, especially if it is flowing.” > All such evidence is admittedly limited. But does it not > show the tremendous potential that various tree seeds, > seedlings and cuttings have to survive flooding? > Of course, after the Flood, once trees and other plant > life started to grow again, many would grow quickly. Teak > reaches a height of > sixty feet in only fifteen years and musanga may be eighty > feet in fourteen > years. Tiny Krakatau island, laid bare by a volcanic > eruption in 1883, was, less > than fifty years later, reforested similar to the rest of > the surrounding > Malayan region. As for the olive leaf carried by the dove > to Noah, it could have > been taken from a fairly young sprout that came up after > the flood. > ....................................................................................................................................................... > When Noah was commanded to take the animals into the ark, Jehovah told him: > “As for you, take for yourself every sort of food that is > eaten; and you must > gather it to yourself, and it must serve as food for you > and for them,” again > seemingly having reference to food from the vegetable > kingdom for the humans and > the animals taken into the ark. (Ge 6:21) After the Flood, > Jehovah allowed man > to add flesh to his diet, saying: “Every moving animal > that is alive may serve > as food for you. As in the case of green vegetation, I do > give it all to you. > Only flesh with its soul—its blood—you must not > eat.”—Ge > 9:3, 4. >

Yes the rainbow is a promise from god! his promice that he will never cause another flood like that of noah's day!

Or a sign of water vapor in the air?! ;-)

+5. Yes God said after the flood that He would hang His bow in the sky after rain to remind Him never to destroy the entire earth by water. What is interesting is that it never rained on earth before the flood.