Rev. David Rives — Water Cycle in the Bible

It was starting out to be a quiet morning, but then the Drool-o-tron™ jolted us with its sirens and flashing lights. The blinking letters of its wall display said WorldNetDaily (WND). Our computer was locked onto WND’s presentation of the latest video by the brilliant and articulate leader of David Rives Ministries.

Because we’ve been recently slimed by WND’s re-postings of the rev’s older videos, we’ve learned to be skeptical, but our skepticism vanished when we saw WND’s headline: Is hydrologic cycle mentioned in Bible?

We haven’t posted about that before. But we’ve learned that WND changes its headlines for repeat postings, so we looked at the actual title of the rev’s video — What scientific principle are these verses referring to? We haven’t posted about that video before.

Everyone learns about the water cycle, often before high school. You remember — water evaporates, then it condenses in the atmosphere and falls as rain, which flows into rivers, lakes, and oceans, and then the cycle repeats. According to Wikipedia:

Up to the time of the Renaissance, it was thought that precipitation alone was insufficient to feed rivers, for a complete water cycle, and that underground water pushing upwards from the oceans were the main contributors to river water. Bartholomew of England held this view (1240 CE), as did Leonardo da Vinci (1500 CE) and Athanasius Kircher (1644 CE).

The first published thinker to assert that rainfall alone was sufficient for the maintenance of rivers was Bernard Palissy (1580 CE), who is often credited as the “discoverer” of the modern theory of the water cycle. Palissy’s theories were not tested scientifically until 1674, in a study commonly attributed to Pierre Perrault. Even so, these beliefs were not accepted in mainstream science until early nineteenth century.

Because the water cycle has only recently been understood, we were curious to see what the rev had to say. He quotes a few ambiguous verses which are scattered throughout the bible, including this one which seems to be the best, from Ecclesiastes 1:7. It’s the King James Version, of course:

All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again.

The rev tells his drooling fans that there’s a pattern revealed by those verses. The bible has always been saying what we’ve only recently figured out. Yes, everything worth knowing is in the bible. Isn’t that wonderful?

The rev isn’t wearing one of his bible-boy suits — just a blazer without a necktie — but he’s still the cutest rev you’ve ever seen! The video is his usual 90-second presentation — before the commercial. Go ahead, click over to WND and watch it. And be amazed!

As we always do with the rev’s videos, we dedicate the comments section for your use as an Intellectual Free Fire Zone. You know the rules. Okay, the comments are open. Go for it!

Copyright © 2015. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

10 responses to “Rev. David Rives — Water Cycle in the Bible

  1. Amazing, isn’t it? Those who look to the Bible for all of their scientific knowledge never seem to figure out exactly what the Bible means until science has already figured it out. It’s as if you need science to figure out Bible meaning.
    There’s iron(y) in those words.

  2. Charles Deetz ;)

    Did the bible explain what happens when all that water goes down the toilet? We get to drink it again.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMUd42n0jXc

  3. The water cycle presents an interesting question for creationists, a variation of the “Chicken or Egg” riddle, the one which the Omphalos Hypothesis addresses.

    When the world was created in its modern form, we had the rivers flowing to the seas, as if they had traveled from their headwaters, we had clouds in the skies as if there had been evaporation, there was humidity in the air, there was salt in the ocean. All of the water cycle was created as if it had a prior history. Or, if not, how did it begin. (BTW, Genesis 2 says that there was no rain in Eden, but there were rivers circling it, and there were mists, signs of the mature water cycle.)

  4. When she first saw the headline, Olivia was in no doubt that our Curmudgeon must be implicated in the story: Florida Man Arrested For Having Sex With An Alligator

    But it turned out, on perusal, that the story was even worse than that: the perpetrator was–gasp!–one “Rupert Darwin”!

    Was this final proof that Klinghoffer had been right all along in asserting that there is no depravity of which a Darwinist was not capable?!

    …Nope! Scopes to the rescue! The whole story is bunkum: Darwin’s Revenge

  5. Anybody have a quick-and-easy suggestion for adding a “count-up clock” for a “Days/hours/minutes since YEC Lie Exposed” to a WordPress page?

  6. Megalonyx claims: “When she first saw the headline, Olivia was in no doubt that our Curmudgeon must be implicated in the story: Florida Man Arrested For Having Sex With An Alligator.”

    I shall not mention the numerous emergency calls neighbors have made to the local police over the years claiming that Megalonyx was having unnatural relations with a stalk of bananas in his back yard. But the police say they can do nothing, because there’s no law that protects bananas from such abuse.

  7. Gary complains: “….. until science has already figured it out.”
    That’s because mankind lacks the genius of god and hence is not capable of properly understanding his divine word. Checkmate, sketpic.

  8. Since this is a FFZ, I’ll do what ~99.9% of anti-evolution activists do, and ignore Rives altogether. For fun I like to take political polls, even the one dimensional (left-right) ones that I find fundamentally flawed. In this one:

    http://www.people-press.org/quiz/political-typology/

    I come out as a “business conservative.” Of most interest is that my group has a higher % than the general public (~80% vs ~60%) that claim that it is not necessary to believe in God to be moral and have good values. While still surprising, it is consistent with my experience, in that most people I know personally are more religious (in terms of beliefs and practices) than I am and more politically liberal in terms of economics, defense, crime, etc.

  9. D’Oh, I meant “~99.9 of critics of ID/creationism.” In fact this is the only site I follow that mentions him. Maybe if he debates some Discoveroid will I pay attention.

  10. I enjoyed the add below the video when I viewed it. Liberty Law School. The tagline is “Study Law From A Biblical Worldview Scholarships Available Apply Now!” What might that law be like? Slavery is OK or stoning for punishment? Anybody got any ideas?