Noah and the rainbow

[dies-l]

This is something that I've been thinking lately. In the Bible, if taken literally, it is said that God has given the rainbow as a sign of the covenant between the Lord and humanity which would last until the end.

My question is this: did the rainbow exist before being used as a sign by God? Did God use a thing and gave it a different meaning, or did He create it in that moment?

Also, how do you understand this story? Is it true, or is it a myth? I would like the opinions of all of you, if possible.

Blessings,

Emanuel

Is the flood story true? Yes. Is it a myth? Very likely yes. The two are not mutually exclusive.

I think what you are really asking is whether I believe that there was an event that occurred during the history of this planet in which the entire planet was flooded and the only survivors were the family of a man named Noah. And the answer to that is: I don't know, and it is really not all that important to me.

But, looking at the narrative for what it is, in the context of the flood story, the rainbow did not exist prior to the flood. The idea of the "rainbow" is that God, looking back on the destruction that He caused and that the fundamental problem of human sin had not been alleviated, God humbly set down his weapon of destruction (his bow) and made it a thing of beauty for humans to enjoy, rather than to fear.

Must I believe that the flood was an historical event to understand that God is both powerful enough to destroy His creation in a single act of rage and humble and merciful enough not to? I don't think so.

 

[shernren]

Gideon said to God, “If you will save Israel by my hand as you have promised—look, I will place a wool fleece on the threshing floor. If there is dew only on the fleece and all the ground is dry, then I will know that you will save Israel by my hand, as you said.” And that is what happened. Gideon rose early the next day; he squeezed the fleece and wrung out the dew—a bowlful of water.
(Judges 6:36-38)
​

Gideon: Oh well, God, since You have immersed both the ground and the fleece in water, I guess I'm not your man for Israel.
God: What are you saying? You yourself have seen that the ground is dry. There is absolutely no evidence that the ground was covered with water.
Gideon: But God, what You just did was supernatural, wasn't it?
God: Sure it was.
Gideon: So why should supernatural water leave the ground wet? Surely the ground could be immersed in supernatural water, and leave none of the evidence of being immersed in natural water.
God: But you see with your own eyes that the ground is dry!
Gideon: No, I see with my own eyes that the ground is now dry. I did not see with my own eyes that the ground was dry during the night. Therefore, it is not that I am rejecting Your evidence, God - I am just rejecting Your interpretation of the evidence.
God: But there is no other interpretation of the evidence that makes sense! If the ground is dry, how could it have been covered in water?
Gideon: Well, God, so You're saying that water would have left the ground wet, are You?
God: Yes, so -
Gideon: AH-HA! You're practicing methodological uniformitarianism!
God: Excuse Me?
Gideon: In other words, since water leaves the ground wet today, You are assuming that water would have left the ground wet last night. How do You know that? Maybe water leaves the ground wet at all times except during last night.
God: But you have no good reason to assume that it doesn't!
Gideon: It was a miracle, wasn't it? So science cannot tell me how the water of yesterday night would have left the ground. Anything could have happened.
God: Oh Gideon, that's not what you're really thinking, is it?
Gideon: What do You mean?
God: You think you're so open-minded, telling Me "anything could have happened" - when really you're thinking to yourself: "The only thing that could have happened is exactly what I believe happened, and any evidence to the contrary is simply not worth my time."

=========

Replace "ground" with "the planet Earth" and you'll see how ridiculous your position sounds, Jig.

And if you think I'm misrepresenting you, why don't you tell me just exactly how? It is the cheapest trick in the book to claim I am misrepresenting you but be completely unable to explain how my representation is any different from your beliefs - other than, of course, that my representation is openly ridiculous while yours is only covertly so.

 

[cubinity]

Replace "ground" with "the planet Earth" and you'll see how ridiculous your position sounds, Jig.

And if you think I'm misrepresenting you, why don't you tell me just exactly how? It is the cheapest trick in the book to claim I am misrepresenting you but be completely unable to explain how my representation is any different from your beliefs - other than, of course, that my representation is openly ridiculous while yours is only covertly so.

It sounds like you're mocking him. That isn't nice. You aren't mocking him, are you?

 

[Jig]

Gideon said to God, “If you will save Israel by my hand as you have promised—look, I will place a wool fleece on the threshing floor. If there is dew only on the fleece and all the ground is dry, then I will know that you will save Israel by my hand, as you said.” And that is what happened. Gideon rose early the next day; he squeezed the fleece and wrung out the dew—a bowlful of water.
(Judges 6:36-38)
​

Gideon: Oh well, God, since You have immersed both the ground and the fleece in water, I guess I'm not your man for Israel.
God: What are you saying? You yourself have seen that the ground is dry. There is absolutely no evidence that the ground was covered with water.
Gideon: But God, what You just did was supernatural, wasn't it?
God: Sure it was.
Gideon: So why should supernatural water leave the ground wet? Surely the ground could be immersed in supernatural water, and leave none of the evidence of being immersed in natural water.
God: But you see with your own eyes that the ground is dry!
Gideon: No, I see with my own eyes that the ground is now dry. I did not see with my own eyes that the ground was dry during the night. Therefore, it is not that I am rejecting Your evidence, God - I am just rejecting Your interpretation of the evidence.
God: But there is no other interpretation of the evidence that makes sense! If the ground is dry, how could it have been covered in water?
Gideon: Well, God, so You're saying that water would have left the ground wet, are You?
God: Yes, so -
Gideon: AH-HA! You're practicing methodological uniformitarianism!
God: Excuse Me?
Gideon: In other words, since water leaves the ground wet today, You are assuming that water would have left the ground wet last night. How do You know that? Maybe water leaves the ground wet at all times except during last night.
God: But you have no good reason to assume that it doesn't!
Gideon: It was a miracle, wasn't it? So science cannot tell me how the water of yesterday night would have left the ground. Anything could have happened.
God: Oh Gideon, that's not what you're really thinking, is it?
Gideon: What do You mean?
God: You think you're so open-minded, telling Me "anything could have happened" - when really you're thinking to yourself: "The only thing that could have happened is exactly what I believe happened, and any evidence to the contrary is simply not worth my time."

=========

Replace "ground" with "the planet Earth" and you'll see how ridiculous your position sounds, Jig.

And if you think I'm misrepresenting you, why don't you tell me just exactly how? It is the cheapest trick in the book to claim I am misrepresenting you but be completely unable to explain how my representation is any different from your beliefs - other than, of course, that my representation is openly ridiculous while yours is only covertly so.

I really did attempt to make sense of all this. However, I am completely confused as to what you "actually" think I believe. Do you think I believe God used supernatural water?

I do feel that you are misrepresenting my position still. So, I'll make you a deal since you want me to tell you exactly how. I have no problem clarifying my position.

List out what you feel my position entails. I will then answer bluntly the reason why this is true or false. And, yes, I will be detailed.

This is your chance to better understand my position instead of ridiculing it.

 

[Jig]

The issue is that the layers in Lake Suigetsu are observed to be uniform, because you're claiming that their uniformity is an "assumption", whereas the uniformity is actually what we see, directly, with our own eyes.

You are not understanding what I am telling you. I am not talking about the WHAT, I am talking about the HOW. Of course I am not suggesting that you are assuming that these layers are stacked on top of each other. That is observed in the present. How they all got there is a completely different story. A story that involves assuming a process you were not around to directly observe.

Introducing philosophical mumbo-jumbo about methodological uniformitarianism and presuppositions is just an attempt to distract from the simple and obvious: the layers are uniform, and we can count them.

What we observe in the present and how that physical evidence got that way are two different things. You obviously do not know what uniformitarianism entails. It deals with a process. This has absolutely nothing to do with what the layers currently look like. The two questions are: how did it get that way and how long did it take it to get that way. Both require making assumptions because you are dealing with a historical event that can not be repeated or directly observed.

What is your explanation for all these correlations, if its not by chance?

Cheers

I have already addressed this.

 

[JVPITER]

You are not understanding what I am telling you. I am not talking about the WHAT, I am talking about the HOW. Of course I am not suggesting that you are assuming that these layers are stacked on top of each other. That is observed in the present. How they all got there is a completely different story. A story that involves assuming a process you were not around to directly observe.

What we observe in the present and how that physical evidence got that way are two different things. You obviously do not know what uniformitarianism entails. It deals with a process. This has absolutely nothing to do with what the layers currently look like. The two questions are: how did it get that way and how long did it take it to get that way. Both require making assumptions because you are dealing with a historical event that can not be repeated or directly observed.

What is your explanation for all these correlations, if its not by chance?

I have already addressed this.

You did not address this. You keep talking about the assumptions/presuppositions I am making, that somehow make these layers look annual even though they're not (according to you).

I keep asking you specifically what those assumptions are, and you keep ducking the question.


So, fine, you agree the Lake Suigetsu layers are uniform in the present. We observe them forming today: a dark layer rich in organics like pollen and leaves that forms in the summer, and a lighter layer that forms in the winter. We observed the same pair of layers forming last year, and the year before that. In fact, core samples show there are well over 30,000 pairs of layers, all uniform in appearance, each dark layer being rich in organics from summers past.

If all these layers are annual, then we would expect them to have a uniform appearance with dark and light layers -- and they do.

If all these layers are annual, then we would expect the percentage of C14 in the layers to halve every 5700 layers -- and it does.

If the half-life of C14 really is 5700 years, and has been so for tens of thousands of years, we would expect the C14 percentage in ancient trees to also halve every 5700th annual growth ring -- and it does.

If the half-life of C14 really is 5700 years, and has been so for tens of thousands of years, we would expect the C14 percentage in ancient corals to also halve every 5700th annual growth ring -- and it does.


So the uniform, annual nature of the Lake Suigetsu layers is not simply assumed -- it is confirmed by multiple independent observations.


So I ask again, what specifically are the assumptions that make these layers appear to be annual (even though they're not, according to you)?

And specifically what different assumptions do you use to explain the correlation between the seasons, the lake layers, the C14 decay rate, tree rings and coral growth rings, such that you can explain why they all line up?

Looking forward to your response.

Cheers

 

[cubinity]

You are not understanding what I am telling you. I am not talking about the WHAT, I am talking about the HOW. Of course I am not suggesting that you are assuming that these layers are stacked on top of each other. That is observed in the present. How they all got there is a completely different story. A story that involves assuming a process you were not around to directly observe.

What we observe in the present and how that physical evidence got that way are two different things. You obviously do not know what uniformitarianism entails. It deals with a process. This has absolutely nothing to do with what the layers currently look like. The two questions are: how did it get that way and how long did it take it to get that way. Both require making assumptions because you are dealing with a historical event that can not be repeated or directly observed.

I have already addressed this.

So, you are accusing God of being deceptive and just making it look like those trees, and layers, and all the other evidence, have been there for eons when in actuality He just thought it would be fun to make then look like that, you know, to throw us all for a funny little loop. Okay...

 

[Jig]

You did not address this. You keep talking about the assumptions/presuppositions I am making, that somehow make these layers look annual even though they're not (according to you).

These layers cannot "look" annual - regardless if they are annual or not. They just look like layers. The term 'annual' is purely a descriptive adjective that is applied subjectively after interpretation occurs.

I keep asking you specifically what those assumptions are, and you keep ducking the question.

I responded by asking if you honestly didn't know what your presuppositions were. Because if you do (and I am sure you are smart enough to know you do), then why should I waste my time listing them out? Besides, you would be the best person to elaborate on your personal philosophies, not me. I hold completely different presuppositions.

I challenge you to list your assumptions.

So, fine, you agree the Lake Suigetsu layers are uniform in the present. We observe them forming today: a dark layer rich in organics like pollen and leaves that forms in the summer, and a lighter layer that forms in the winter. We observed the same pair of layers forming last year, and the year before that. In fact, core samples show there are well over 30,000 pairs of layers, all uniform in appearance, each dark layer being rich in organics from summers past.

Do we see layers at Lake Suigetsu forming annually today? From the brief research I did I was unable to find verification for this.

If all these layers are annual, then we would expect them to have a uniform appearance with dark and light layers -- and they do.

If all these layers are annual, then we would expect the percentage of C14 in the layers to halve every 5700 layers -- and it does.

If the half-life of C14 really is 5700 years, and has been so for tens of thousands of years, we would expect the C14 percentage in ancient trees to also halve every 5700th annual growth ring -- and it does.

If the half-life of C14 really is 5700 years, and has been so for tens of thousands of years, we would expect the C14 percentage in ancient corals to also halve every 5700th annual growth ring -- and it does.

If all the physical evidence was interpreted using the same set of presuppositions, regardless of method used to determine dates or process, we would expect that all the conclusions would be similar - and they are!

So I ask again, what specifically are the assumptions that make these layers appear to be annual (even though they're not, according to you)?

And specifically what different assumptions do you use to explain the correlation between the seasons, the lake layers, the C14 decay rate, tree rings and coral growth rings, such that you can explain why they all line up?

Looking forward to your response.

Cheers

I assume the history told in the Bible is correct.

 

[Jig]

So, you are accusing God of being deceptive and just making it look like those trees, and layers, and all the other evidence, have been there for eons when in actuality He just thought it would be fun to make then look like that, you know, to throw us all for a funny little loop. Okay...

Age is subjective.

 

[shernren]

Do you think I believe God used supernatural water?

You may not put it in so many words but that is the effective impact of the argument up to now. Just following the Lake Suigetsu discussion up to now, it looks effectively like this:

JUPITER: How did the Flood form 30,000 undisturbed layers at the bottom of Lake Suigetsu? (#19)

Jig: You are just applying your own presuppositions and philosophical worldviews. (#22)

JUPITER: The layers are finely formed, look the same as those being formed today, and have been C14 dated and found to match with completely independent phenomena. (#25)

Jig: Your interpretation is based on the assumption of uniformitarianism. (#30)

JUPITER: The layers are observed to be uniform, but you are assuming that they are formed by a non-uniform process. (#31)

Jig: You did not observe the process by which these layers were formed, and you are presupposing uniformitarianism. (#35)

JUPITER: You have no other explanation for all these correlations, do you? (#39)

Jig: You don't understand what I am telling you. You obviously have no idea what uniformitarianism entails. (#45)
​

Frankly the tenor of the conversation up to now has been completely unpromising. (I mean the serious one you are having with JUPITER, of course; I know full well that humor is almost always laughed with when it favors you and derisively condemned when it doesn't.) But how about I ask you two very simple questions? I already know the answer to one of them (I can quote it almost word-for-word from post #23), and I suspect I know the answer to the second. So let me ask you:

1. Do you have any clue what sort of geological evidence you would expect the Flood to leave?

2. Do you have any clue what sort of physical processes during the Flood could have left the layers at the bottom of Lake Suigetsu?

"A tree is judged by its fruit," said Jesus. I await yours.

 

[shernren]

So, you are accusing God of being deceptive and just making it look like those trees, and layers, and all the other evidence, have been there for eons when in actuality He just thought it would be fun to make then look like that, you know, to throw us all for a funny little loop. Okay...

Well, I don't quite think that argument is right. God can do anything He wants, you know - even throw us all for a loop with (literally) tons upon tons of evidence. It wouldn't be deceptive of Him. It's not like He actually boomed from the heavens that the layers are so-and-so years old. (Yes, Jig, I actually accept that! )

But it would still render us very skeptical of any other historical evidence - even evidence of the Resurrection; why might He not be joshing around with us there also? - and that is a fair point to make.

 

[JVPITER]

If all the physical evidence was interpreted using the same set of presuppositions, regardless of method used to determine dates or process, we would expect that all the conclusions would be similar - and they are!

Shernren has done a fine job summarising our conversation (#50) and I too would be keen to see your response to the 2 questions at the end of that post.

Regarding your comment quoted above, I just want to point out how utterly silly it is ... really. The scientific measurements we are referring to regarding Lake Suigetsu are very simple ones: counting layers, and measuring C14 concentrations. Do our presuppositions change the way we count layers? Will your presuppositions mean that you can count a different number of layers than me, or anyone else? Please do think about this carefully!

Cheers

 

[cubinity]

Age is subjective.

Milk literally sprayed out my nose.

 

[shernren]

Milk literally sprayed out my nose.

Hey, age is just a number, right?

 

[dies-l]

These layers cannot "look" annual - regardless if they are annual or not. They just look like layers. The term 'annual' is purely a descriptive adjective that is applied subjectively after interpretation occurs.


I responded by asking if you honestly didn't know what your presuppositions were. Because if you do (and I am sure you are smart enough to know you do), then why should I waste my time listing them out? Besides, you would be the best person to elaborate on your personal philosophies, not me. I hold completely different presuppositions.

I challenge you to list your assumptions.

Do we see layers at Lake Suigetsu forming annually today? From the brief research I did I was unable to find verification for this.



If all the physical evidence was interpreted using the same set of presuppositions, regardless of method used to determine dates or process, we would expect that all the conclusions would be similar - and they are!

I assume the history told in the Bible is correct.

Your assumption seems to be that "Old Earth" theories are based on presuppositions that are not generated by evidence, but are merely assumptions. Essentially, you are accusing those of us who see the earth as billions of years old of circular reasoning. But, I don't think you are really understanding the argument here.

The premise here is this: If scientists observe that each year, there is a new layer of sedimentary material in a given place and that the annual layering is a predictable and regular occurrence while the scientists are observing the process, then this is very strong evidence that, if similar layering existed prior to the direct observation of scientists, this too followed the same regular and predictable pattern. So, if the evidence points to an annual layering process, and there exist x number of layers, it is not a mere assumption or presuppostion to say that the layering process has been going on for x number years.

Otherwise, you would have to dismiss any scientific procedure that attempts to determine past unknown events using currently available evidence. So, next time you are on a criminal jury, I will expect that your vote will be "not guilty", especially if the prosecution relies upon any type of forensic evidence ("There is no way that we can conclude that the victim was shot in the chest, just because there is a hole in his chest and back, directly across from each other, that said holes are about the size of a hole typically made by a bullet shot by the gun found at the scene, that there are traces of gunpowder in the vicinity of each said hole, and that the shell found not far from the scene is the type typically shot by said gun. This is all based on assumptions and presuppositions -- the police just want to believe that the victim was shot and are injecting that conclusion into their interpretation of the evidence.").

 

[Jig]

Milk literally sprayed out my nose.

It is subjective to call the Earth either old or young. Both terms are not objective.

What we observe is a "mature" Earth. Not necessarily an "aged" Earth. Just look at Adam and Eve. Both were mature in form, but neither was old in actuality.

 

[Jig]

1. Do you have any clue what sort of geological evidence you would expect the Flood to leave?

2. Do you have any clue what sort of physical processes during the Flood could have left the layers at the bottom of Lake Suigetsu?

I did not witness the Noahic Flood. I can assume a couple of things from what is written in the Biblical text, but I can not give many specific details concerning geology or what we should find. It is certainly not repeatable. JVPITER, therefore, is also ignorant to what evidence such an event would leave behind geologically. He can only assume.

One of the few specifics is that the text says that a vast amount of creatures were drowned. I would suspect that we would find millions of dead plants and animals buried around the Earth, even on top of mountains.

We do.

As for your second question, I am not saying the Noahic Flood caused the layers to form on the bottom of Lake Suigetsu. JVPITER keeps saying that these so-called annual layers are still being laid down today but I can not find any evidence for this. But that's immaterial to are conversation anyway.

All I am suggesting is that he must use presuppositions and philosophical assumptions to come to the conclusion that ALL these layers were laid down annually. He is assuming a process that is essentially unchanging. This may not necessarily be true.

 

[Jig]

Well, I don't quite think that argument is right. God can do anything He wants, you know - even throw us all for a loop with (literally) tons upon tons of evidence. It wouldn't be deceptive of Him. It's not like He actually boomed from the heavens that the layers are so-and-so years old. (Yes, Jig, I actually accept that! )

But it would still render us very skeptical of any other historical evidence - even evidence of the Resurrection; why might He not be joshing around with us there also? - and that is a fair point to make.

I do not believe God is deceiving us. He told us exactly how He did it. We are deceiving ourselves by rejecting His divine revelation and witness. Many are assuming that a purely natural process formed the Universe, the Earth and its organisms - this is contrary to Scripture.

 

[cubinity]

It is deceptive that we can watch rings form in a tree, and see how long they take to form, and then count the number of rings in a given tree, only to conclude a date that conflicts with reality just because God thought it would be neat to build trees "mature" with rings demonstrating their life experiences.

If God was just making "mature" trees, and not trying to deceive us, there would not be rings representing seasons that never took place. jm2c.

 

[dies-l]

If God created the universe 6,000 years ago with the appearance of the maturity of a universe that was billions of years old, that would not necessarily be dishonest. However, it would be foolish to disregard the apparent properties that are linked to the maturing of that universe.

Thus, if it appears that the various living species seem to evolve by natural selection, it would be foolish to assume that, just because God had already built billions of years of the effects of natural selection into his new creation, we can simply dismiss the process. Likewise, it would be wrong to assume that, just because we can see light from a star that is millions of light years away, even though the light from that star was created as though it had already traveled most of the distance to Earth, the star is not really millions of light years away or that light really does not travel at a prescribed speed.

The point is that the benefit of science, when it all comes down to it, is not to answer the question "how did we get here?" Rather, it is to answer the question "how does our universe operate?". So, if natural selection reveals important details about how life on Earth operates and can help us to better understand how to deal with real problems that we face today, then it matters little whether or not God created all life 6,000 years ago with the appearance of having evolved by natural selection or if life really did evolve by natural selection over millions or billions of years.

As a Christian, I believe that God created the universe and all that is in it. As an intelligent human being who can honestly look at the scientific evidence, I believe that the universe appears to billions of years old. The most logical way to reconcile these two beliefs is to say that God has been creating the universe for billions of years. However, if several thousand years ago, God created the universe with the appearance of billions of years of age built right in, who am I to criticize God? But, in the end, it doesn't really matter; neither my faith in God nor my ability to understand and apply the scientific evidence to the issues of today is impacted.