Fake News Debunked: Looks like Joshua didn't stop the sun

[blü 2]

In Joshua 10, my RSV says ─

12 Then spoke Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD gave the Amorites over to the men of Israel; and he said in the sight of Israel,

"Sun, stand thou still at Gibeon,
and thou Moon in the valley of Aijalon."
13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed,
until the nation took vengeance on their enemies.​

Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The sun stayed in the midst of heaven, and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day.​

With the format indicated, it may be that the relevant words are a quote from the Book of Jashar; but that's hard to check because the Book of Jashar has apparently been out of print for a couple of millennia. But the author of Joshua make his own take clear: 'the sun stayed in the midst of heaven' for an extra day'.

I see from >this report< that a scientific paper (Colin Humphreys, Graeme Waddington. "Solar eclipse of 1207 BC helps to date pharaohs". Astronomy & Geophysics, 2017; 58 (5)) offers another explanation:

"Modern English translations, which follow the King James translation of 1611, usually interpret this text to mean that the sun and moon stopped moving," said Humphreys [...]. "But going back to the original Hebrew text, we determined that an alternative meaning could be that the sun and moon just stopped doing what they normally do: they stopped shining. In this context, the Hebrew words could be referring to a solar eclipse, when the moon passes between the earth and the sun, and the sun appears to stop shining. This interpretation is supported by the fact that the Hebrew word translated 'stand still' has the same root as a Babylonian word used in ancient astronomical texts to describe eclipses."​

In the text the sun 'stood still', translating (in Strong's transliteration) danam which, says Strong, means ─

to be dumb; by implication, to be astonished, to stop; also to perish:—cease, be cut down (off), forbear, hold peace, quiet self, rest, be silent, keep (put to) silence, be (stand) still, tarry, wait.​

The moon however 'stopped': amad, meaning (Strong) ─

to stand, in various relations (literal and figurative, intransitive and transitive):—abide (behind), appoint, arise, cease, confirm, continue, dwell, be employed, endure, establish, leave, make, ordain, be (over), place, (be) present (self), raise up, remain, repair, serve, set (forth, over, -tle, up), (make to, make to be at a, with-) stand (by, fast, firm, still, up), (be at a) stay (up), tarry.​

A lot of these will suit the idea that the moon covered the sun for a period of time.

And if that's right, as seems plausible, then Joshua stuck it to the Amorites on the afternoon of 30 October 1207 BCE (astronomical calendar), just one day short of Halloween, since that's the date of the only eclipse that seems to fit.

So the argument can now be made: an A for Jashar, but an F for the author of Joshua.

It brings to mind how sour Wordsworth and, separately, Keats were that the rainbow was explained as a prism effect instead of a glorious mystery. Another bit of magic falls out of the sky ...

 

[Profound Realization]

In Joshua 10, my RSV says ─

12 Then spoke Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD gave the Amorites over to the men of Israel; and he said in the sight of Israel,

"Sun, stand thou still at Gibeon,
and thou Moon in the valley of Aijalon."
13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed,
until the nation took vengeance on their enemies.​

Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The sun stayed in the midst of heaven, and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day.​

With the format indicated, it may be that the relevant words are a quote from the Book of Jashar; but that's hard to check because the Book of Jashar has apparently been out of print for a couple of millennia. But the author of Joshua make his own take clear: 'the sun stayed in the midst of heaven' for an extra day'.

I see from >this report< that a scientific paper (Colin Humphreys, Graeme Waddington. "Solar eclipse of 1207 BC helps to date pharaohs". Astronomy & Geophysics, 2017; 58 (5)) offers another explanation:

"Modern English translations, which follow the King James translation of 1611, usually interpret this text to mean that the sun and moon stopped moving," said Humphreys [...]. "But going back to the original Hebrew text, we determined that an alternative meaning could be that the sun and moon just stopped doing what they normally do: they stopped shining. In this context, the Hebrew words could be referring to a solar eclipse, when the moon passes between the earth and the sun, and the sun appears to stop shining. This interpretation is supported by the fact that the Hebrew word translated 'stand still' has the same root as a Babylonian word used in ancient astronomical texts to describe eclipses."​

In the text the sun 'stood still', translating (in Strong's transliteration) danam which, says Strong, means ─

to be dumb; by implication, to be astonished, to stop; also to perish:—cease, be cut down (off), forbear, hold peace, quiet self, rest, be silent, keep (put to) silence, be (stand) still, tarry, wait.​

The moon however 'stopped': amad, meaning (Strong) ─

to stand, in various relations (literal and figurative, intransitive and transitive):—abide (behind), appoint, arise, cease, confirm, continue, dwell, be employed, endure, establish, leave, make, ordain, be (over), place, (be) present (self), raise up, remain, repair, serve, set (forth, over, -tle, up), (make to, make to be at a, with-) stand (by, fast, firm, still, up), (be at a) stay (up), tarry.​

A lot of these will suit the idea that the moon covered the sun for a period of time.

And if that's right, as seems plausible, then Joshua stuck it to the Amorites on the afternoon of 30 October 1207 BCE (astronomical calendar), just one day short of Halloween, since that's the date of the only eclipse that seems to fit.

So the argument can now be made: an A for Jashar, but an F for the author of Joshua.

It brings to mind how sour Wordsworth and, separately, Keats were that the rainbow was explained as a prism effect instead of a glorious mystery. Another bit of magic falls out of the sky ...

Why it matters what Joshua may have done in the past really doesn't amount to any fruit in today. It's surprising at how much critical thinking, effort and arguing has been put into this over the years by "scholars" and people. There is also nothing appealing about destroying, conquering, other humans. (Well, to many in their current nature there is.)

Any fruit that I would find of profit is that it is referring to meditation in very old and ancient language and symbolism. The conscious and subconscious mind standing still (stillness of mind) followed by the destroying of internal enemies whether it be of bad thoughts, negative emotions, whatever of poor mental structuring. (Murdering what the mind gives birth to.)

 

[Grandliseur]

the Book of Jashar has apparently been out of print for a couple of millennia.

You're funny.

This interpretation is supported by the fact that the Hebrew word translated 'stand still' has the same root as a Babylonian word used in ancient astronomical texts to describe eclipses."

Thank you for the study.

And if that's right, as seems plausible, then Joshua stuck it to the Amorites on the afternoon of 30 October 1207 BCE (astronomical calendar), just one day short of Halloween, since that's the date of the only eclipse that seems to fit.

This interpretation is unacceptable, but then I am a Bible thump-er. In my book, my beliefs, Israel went out of Egypt in 1513 BCE, if memory serves.

While I have no suggestion as to what happened, the thing is, I don't need to know what and how it happened to know it did. My faith that God can do anything he wants to - is assured. I still appreciate the study you did and the words you researched.

Another bit of magic falls out of the sky ...

Things a person, a being, does - are not magic. What is the common claim: (Clarke's three laws - Wikipedia)

1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

God's technology is beyond our ability to fathom. In this then, if the sun stood still for about a day, what happened may not be possible to explain now, that does not negate God's abilities. This act is exactly the kind one would expect of a being that is Almighty.

But, you have the right to disagree, and believers have the right to agree with scripture.
----------
If you should like to see what some others say, please look here, also look at page 34. (just insert a four in the weblink on the page)
But, you might think it a waste of your time. Still, you might have fun:
The Day the Sun Stood Still--Joshua's Long Day ....Page 35

Archaeology:
Archeology Proves Bible History Accurate ....Page 34

 

[Grandliseur]

It brings to mind how sour Wordsworth and, separately, Keats were that the rainbow was explained as a prism effect instead of a glorious mystery. Another bit of magic falls out of the sky .

Sorry for posting again, but the subject differs.

Here again, you attack a Biblical point but totally ignore what this same account says about the matter. If you attack it, then for the purpose of being rational, you have to accept what it says for the reasons behind it - and that you totally ignore. A shame really.

You might not even understand what your own ignorance in this case is about?! I doubt it. Too bad. It's like when a person complains about these apples his mother bought, when they in fact were onions.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

I thought it was interesting. It reminds me of the theory that Jonah being in the belly of the whale for three days referred to Jonah floating in the direction of the whale constellation for three days and then the current taking him in the opposite direction.

 

[blü 2]

This interpretation [of the date in 1207 BCE] is unacceptable, but then I am a Bible thump-er. In my book, my beliefs, Israel went out of Egypt in 1513 BCE, if memory serves.

This is where I keep failing to understand religion.

On the one hand we have an argument carefully reasoned from text, astronomy and calculation, which gives a well-founded date in falsifiable form.

On the other hand we have a tale of magic that, properly read, is most likely a mistranslation anyway.

Why would you, as a person able to reason, prefer the latter?

While I have no suggestion as to what happened, the thing is, I don't need to know what and how it happened to know it did. My faith that God can do anything he wants to - is assured.

What would stop God from wanting an eclipse at the moment of battle (or more accurately, having the battle at the moment of an eclipse), from having Jashar make an accurate report of that event, and from having the author of Joshua not recognize it as a description of an astronomical phenomenon ─ while still preserving Jashar's text so that this would ultimately not be a problem?

Note too that the author of Joshua believes that the universe is geocentric, so that to prolong a day you stop the sun in its orbit rather than the earth in its rotation. If you prefer his version, are you not declaring that you believe the universe is geocentric?

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

But only if one assumes the subject believes in magic in the first place.

Since we have no authenticated evidence of magic, of altering reality independently of the rules of physics, by wishing (or magic words, or wands, or spells, or potions &c), why would we think magic was real instead of being (as Clarke suggests) ignorance?

God's technology is beyond our ability to fathom.

So, you say, God is Clarke's superscientist, and not magic at all?

If so, tell me: why would anyone want to worship a superscientist? Admire her, or appreciate her achievements, sure, but also set out to understand the technology and take control of it ourselves, no?

The Day the Sun Stood Still--Joshua's Long Day ....Page 35

Velikovsky? Gimme a break!

 

[blü 2]

Here again, you attack a Biblical point but totally ignore what this same account says about the matter.

What same account? I recall no rainbows in Joshua.

If you're referring to the rainbow in the story of Noah's flood, the flood story exists in writing (in Sumerian, in the tales of Gilgamesh / Bilgames) by 2000 BCE, some 500 years before the first mention of Yahweh. (There the rainbow takes the form of the lapis lazuli beads of Belet-Ili's necklace: "Oh gods, let these great beads in this necklace of mine / make me remember these days, and never forget them." (tr. Andrew George))

 

[blü 2]

I thought it was interesting. It reminds me of the theory that Jonah being in the belly of the whale for three days referred to Jonah floating in the direction of the whale constellation for three days and then the current taking him in the opposite direction.

Not familiar with that report. But it's not fanciful to think that there may be a real event behind a good tall story, even though a good tall story is anyway its own reward.

 

[Grandliseur]

astronomy and calculation, which gives a well-founded date in falsifiable form.

Do you really believe that any celestial event that we know of could make the sun and moon appear to stand still for nearly a whole day? No eclipse would do this. If no known event would do this, we are left with that which is unknown.

As to the date, it is a simple matter of calculation based on Biblical data.

Note too that the author of Joshua believes that the universe is geocentric, so that to prolong a day you stop the sun in its orbit rather than the earth in its rotation.

I don't think I am qualified to state what Joshua believed or not. I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't know anything about the solar system that we take for granted, but saying I know this is just not true. Even today, we use these sunrise sunset terms commonly, though we know what really happens.

In this the important thing is not what Joshua believed happened. If, however, he observed the sun standing overhead his location for an extra near day, that remains true. What happened to cause this is an entirely different question. Just because I cannot answer it, you cannot explain it - does not mean that Joshua lied.

Of course, from your paradigm, I can see that you will find this totally invented fiction. That is reasonable from your point of view. I have said it before, and here it comes again, Bible believers and atheists do not live in the same reality. While I accept science and our solar system, our universe with galaxies - as shown by science, I also accept that God can do whatever he wants. It seems to amuse him to give the wise ones of our world - headaches.

no authenticated evidence of magic

I am never speaking of God and magic in the same sentence. (except that I did here ) You think to use that concept continually. I hope it doesn't come back to bite your tail feathers later.

o, you say, God is Clarke's superscientist, and not magic at all?

God only works with science through his power and applied knowledge. There is no magic.

Velikovsky? Gimme a break!

I take no stance for - supporting - what was said on that page. I just thought it would be fun to read, a different opinion.
All I have on Joshua's day of miracle - is that God made it happen. Sorry about that.
In these things, I know that from a human standpoint, what happened shouldn't have been possible. So, we are back here to faith in God. This faith is based on other matters, but remains.

The question is, is this miracle any less that saying that God created the universe; and, yet, this universe of immense size and content, organized in galaxies and solar systems, ecosystems, - you all believe came to be on 'its' own -- surely, you surmise things thus happening that are more difficult than Joshua's miracle.

In a sense, you have anti-faith (having a huge faith in your beliefs) while I have faith (having a huge faith in God) That is what it boils down to in the end. It would have been nice if things were more transparent for all. In this instance, at least, I don't blame you for disbelieving.

God and the devil both are having fun with their play-things, confusing the hell out of us at times. They are probably having a lot of fun with us. Must be fun to create problems for us we just cannot get our heads around.

Both the atheist and the creationist believe themselves the most rational, the ones that are right. Truly funny.

Sometimes, a game of chess is better than these discussions. However, that too is passè.

 

[Grandliseur]

What same account? I recall no rainbows in Joshua.

If you're referring to the rainbow in the story of Noah's flood, the flood story exists in writing (in Sumerian, in the tales of Gilgamesh / Bilgames) by 2000 BCE, some 500 years before the first mention of Yahweh. (There the rainbow takes the form of the lapis lazuli beads of Belet-Ili's necklace: "Oh gods, let these great beads in this necklace of mine / make me remember these days, and never forget them." (tr. Andrew George))

OK.

Let me briefly explain. The attack on the rainbow has nothing to do with physics or of light going through a kind of prism.
The Biblical claim is that before the deluge it didn't rain on the earth. The earth was watered by mist rising from the earth. This is why there was no rainbow until the flood. After the deluge, the earth's systems had been thus changed so that now we had rain clouds, rain, and therefore rainbows.

The reason for no rain was the claim that we had a canopy enveloping the entire earth and making its temperatures somewhat warm from pole to pole. While Evolutionist claim the warm temperatures were due to other matters, (your problem, I don't need to explain what is claimed by others).

The fact of the matter is that the following is claimed by scientists:

Tiny Fossils Reveal Warm Antarctic Past
Researchers think Antarctica served as animals' interstate
Alaska -- once hot enough for palm trees?​

Believers who accept the Genesis account believes that this canopy caused the warm climate before the deluge even in the extreme north and south.

Thus, we accept the no rain before the deluge claim. Thus, no rainbows had nothing to do with the prism effect, but with no rain. When it doesn't rain, it is hard to have rainbows. Or, what do you think. Do you have rainbows where you are without rain?

 

[blü 2]

Do you really believe that any celestial event that we know of could make the sun and moon appear to stand still for nearly a whole day? No eclipse would do this. If no know event would do this, we are left with that which is unknown.

No we're not. We have a choice of (a) verified true story (b) untrue folk tale, and in this case (c) misunderstanding of an original report.

We know it's not a verified true tale. If the earth had ceased its rotation, giving the impression that the sun had ceased moving across the sky, the result would have been total catastrophe world wide. The speed of rotation at the equator is about 1037 mph. The momentum of the oceans would flood huge tracts of land, buildings, topsoil, rivers, mountains, would be flung eastward at various speeds dependent on longitude, and no survivor would be left in ignorance that some appalling event had happened. So we can say unconditionally, not (a).

And since the evidence points to (c), a misreading of what Jashar wrote, we can prefer it to (b).

I don't think I am qualified to state what Joshua believed or not.

Joshua isn't important here. Jashar and the author of Joshua are the relevant parties, and we know (unless the latter mistranscribed the former) what they said.

Of course, from your paradigm, I can see that you will find this totally invented fiction.

A good call.

Bible believers and atheists do not live in the same reality.

There's only one reality and we all live in it. The question is the basis on which we enquire into the nature and qualities of reality. Many people, regardless of their views about religion, think the reliable way to do this is to interrogate reality by research, using reasoned enquiry, of which scientific method is a subset.

Others are happy with stories. That seems to me to show a lack of appetite for what is true.

I am never speaking of God and magic in the same sentence.
[...]
God only works with science through his power and applied knowledge. There is no magic.

Then it follows that God is a superscientist and we can reasonably seek to acquire God's knowledge and apply it ourselves.

Bringing me back to my question, Why worship a superscientist?

And when we in turn create universes, and assuming they bring forth at least one kind of intelligent life, should we demand to be worshiped in turn?

surely, you surmise things thus happening that are more difficult than Joshua's miracle.

That's why we employ reasoned enquiry, arguing honestly from examinable evidence, to discover what is true in reality.

In a sense, you have anti-faith (having a huge faith in your beliefs) while I have faith (having a huge faith in God)

I think we're asking different questions, and thus arriving at different views. I ask, What's true in reality? and I reason about the best way of finding out. (Fortunately for me I have giants on whose shoulders I can stand.)

But you ask something else ─ I leave it to you to phrase it ─ and thus you take a different path.

Both the atheist and the creationist believe themselves the most rational, the ones that are right.

But I can express my views in falsifiable terms, and if those views are duly falsified, I can live with the consequences and proceed accordingly.

For the creationist, reality is the Enemy, the place where contradictions not only occur but can be objectively demonstrated.

 

[blü 2]

This is why there was no rainbow until the flood.

The earth and its water cycle existed for billions of years before genus Homo evolved. The Noah's flood story accordingly (a) is not a correct statement about reality, nor even a possible one, and (b) is copied from an earlier Mesopotamian tale, as I mentioned.

 

[Grandliseur]

No we're not. We have a choice of (a) verified true story (b) untrue folk tale, and in this case (c) misunderstanding of an original report.

We know it's not a verified true tale. If the earth had ceased its rotation, giving the impression that the sun had ceased moving across the sky, the result would have been total catastrophe world wide. The speed of rotation at the equator is about 1037 mph. The momentum of the oceans would flood huge tracts of land, buildings, topsoil, rivers, mountains, would be flung eastward at various speeds dependent on longitude, and no survivor would be left in ignorance that some appalling event had happened. So we can say unconditionally, not (a).

And since the evidence points to (c), a misreading of what Jashar wrote, we can prefer it to (b).
Joshua isn't important here. Jashar and the author of Joshua are the relevant parties, and we know (unless the latter mistranscribed the former) what they said.
A good call.
There's only one reality and we all live in it. The question is the basis on which we enquire into the nature and qualities of reality. Many people, regardless of their views about religion, think the reliable way to do this is to interrogate reality by research, using reasoned enquiry, of which scientific method is a subset.

Others are happy with stories. That seems to me to show a lack of appetite for what is true.
Then it follows that God is a superscientist and we can reasonably seek to acquire God's knowledge and apply it ourselves.

Bringing me back to my question, Why worship a superscientist?

And when we in turn create universes, and assuming they bring forth at least one kind of intelligent life, should we demand to be worshiped in turn?

That's why we employ reasoned enquiry, arguing honestly from examinable evidence, to discover what is true in reality.

I think we're asking different questions, and thus arriving at different views. I ask, What's true in reality? and I reason about the best way of finding out. (Fortunately for me I have giants on whose shoulders I can stand.)

But you ask something else ─ I leave it to you to phrase it ─ and thus you take a different path.
But I can express my views in falsifiable terms, and if those views are duly falsified, I can live with the consequences and proceed accordingly.

For the creationist, reality is the Enemy, the place where contradictions not only occur but can be objectively demonstrated.

I think what can be said about the subjects here, have been.

If God is demanded by atheists to demonstrate that he is God, what better way of doing it than by making something happen that none can explain, or fathom without having directly observed what happened.
Of course, then this happens as you demonstrated with your arguments. And, in this question about Joshua's sun, I seem to be the one with egg on my face.

So, please remember this for the future:

For it is written: “I will make the wisdom of the wise [men] perish, and the intelligence of the intellectual [men] I will shove aside."​

If I could be asked to explain all things of God's - he wouldn't be God. You take those words as a mechanism of escapism, perhaps. I take them as proof that our perceived reality is not the same.

 

[Grandliseur]

The earth and its water cycle existed for billions of years before genus Homo evolved. The Noah's flood story accordingly (a) is not a correct statement about reality, nor even a possible one, and (b) is copied from an earlier Mesopotamian tale, as I mentioned.

See! You dismiss this, but you cannot challenge the physics of the Bible and talking about the prism effect when a sound reason is given for this not having happened. That you don't believe the reason behind it is entirely another problem.

Again, our realities are different.

 

[blü 2]

If God is demanded by atheists to demonstrate that he is God, what better way of doing it than by making something happen that none can explain, or fathom without having directly observed what happened.

But if God is the smart old bird portrayed in [his] billing then [he] knows better than to demonstrate [his] existence with folk tales that won't withstand examination.

Or else [he] isn't very smart.

Or else [he] not only doesn't exist, but doesn't even have a coherent definition that would allow [him] to be a potential part of reality.

 

[blü 2]

See! You dismiss this

Yes, for cause shown, not on a whim.

but you cannot challenge the physics of the Bible and talking about the prism effect when a sound reason is given for this not having happened.

A sound reason? See my previous post.

 

[Grandliseur]

Yes, for cause shown, not on a whim.
A sound reason? See my previous post.

That is not being rational. You cannot attack an account on the principles of physics when this account demonstrates a different reality. In that case, you should attack the account itself, not the physics you did attack.

Your disbelief in the last instance does not justify such an attack on the grounds of bad physics. That is just not how logic works.
This one is your bad.

 

[blü 2]

That is not being rational. You cannot attack an account on the principles of physics when this account demonstrates a different reality. In that case, you should attack the account itself, not the physics you did attack.

That's like saying I can't deny the existence of unicorns just because no one's ever seen one. Absence of evidence, in the case of unicorns and in the case of gods, is strong evidence of absence.

But not only is there no evidence of gods, there's no coherent definition of a god such that if we found a candidate we could determine whether it were a god or not.

That's to say, it's not just a case of no gods, it's a case of those people who talk about gods being unable to show that they're talking about anything with objective existence at all. Whereas should I meet a unicorn and have a virgin handy ...

 

[blü 2]

There is also nothing appealing about destroying, conquering, other humans.

But these ancient documents are priceless insights into the Bronze Age mind.

And although we're 32 centuries down the track, there are still people around who want to believe those texts literally. So it's good to shine a bit of the Enlightenment on the question.

Any fruit that I would find of profit is that it is referring to meditation in very old and ancient language and symbolism. The conscious and subconscious mind standing still (stillness of mind) followed by the destroying of internal enemies whether it be of bad thoughts, negative emotions, whatever of poor mental structuring.

Well, that's certainly one possible take; though since I find history interesting in itself, it's not what I'd choose.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Not familiar with that report. But it's not fanciful to think that there may be a real event behind a good tall story, even though a good tall story is anyway its own reward.

I think I saw it on Beasts of the Bible on Animal Planet. Not sure.

Do you really believe that any celestial event that we know of could make the sun and moon appear to stand still for nearly a whole day? No eclipse would do this.

Do you know how a planet's worth of inhabitants can stay on the planet if it stood "still"?

Even today, we use these sunrise sunset terms commonly, though we know what really happens.

Well, most people do.

I also accept that God can do whatever he wants

Why are His powers more inconsistent than a badly written superhero?

The Biblical claim is that before the deluge it didn't rain on the earth. The earth was watered by mist rising from the earth. This is why there was no rainbow until the flood.

Like these don't exist in biblical times?

If God is demanded by atheists to demonstrate that he is God, what better way of doing it than by making something happen that none can explain, or fathom without having directly observed what happened.

But none of us were alive back then. With our improved assessment and analytical techniques, God should repeat the "experiment". It's not like He can't. Gideon, IIRC, had God jumping through several hoops to prove He was God. Was that just a one-off thing?

So, please remember this for the future:
For it is written: “I will make the wisdom of the wise [men] perish, and the intelligence of the intellectual [men] I will shove aside."

"I will ensure people are stupid, which apparently is the only way to attract them."

The God of Truth is afraid of people who want the Truth. Weird.

Again, our realities are different.

You're the one thinking you live in a reality where rainbows can't exist without rain despite everyone on the planet having experienced it most likely.