# "The Sun Stood Still": Joshua's "Long Day"?



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

The so-called “long day” recorded in Joshua 10:12-14 has generated much discussion among Bible scholars. Before Copernicus’ heliocentric solar system gained acceptance, it was argued that the sun and moon’s orbit was halted. Martin Luther, for example, reportedly denounced Copernicus and declared, “I believe the Holy Scriptures, for Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, not the earth” (Luther, _Table Talk_, pp. 358-59; cf. Calvin, _Genesis_, p. 61). With the advent of modern astronomy and science, however, serious objections were raised against this interpretation. Students of Scripture were forced to re-examine and re-interpret this miracle in a way consistent with the biblical text, the theology of Scripture, and the findings of modern science. The following interpretations have been advanced:

*I. The earth’s rotation was altered (Archer, Patten, Rimmer, Torrey).*

After Copernicus’ views gained acceptance, scholars interpreted Joshua’s language as phenomenal. The biblical writers described heavenly phenomena as it appeared to them, much like we still speak today of the “rising” and “setting” of the sun. Thus, the miracle actually involved a cessation or retardation of the earth’s rotation (Archer, p. 161). Some advocates of this position have alleged scientific evidence for an altered axis rotation of the earth (Patten, pp. 172-98) and for a missing solar day (Rimmer, pp. 281-83; Torrey, p. 54). The sudden stoppage or gradual decrease in the earth’s rotation, however, would cause cataclysmic damage upon the earth, as well as significant disturbances in the solar system. Certainly God’s omnipotence could have overruled or suspended physical laws, but some question whether the text demands “a miracle of such gigantic proportions” (Ramm, p. 108).

*II. Joshua’s language was figurative (Boling, Fay, Longacre).*

The Bible often employs the language of cataclysmic celestial phenomena in order to describe God’s intervention on behalf of his people (Isaiah 13:10; 24:23; Ezekiel 32:7; Joel 2:10, 31; 3:15; Habakkuk 3:11; Matthew 24:29; Mark 13:24; Luke 21:25; Acts 2:20; Revelation 6:12). And heavenly bodies are elsewhere employed figuratively as Israel’s allies in battle (Judges 5:20). In light of this, some argue that Joshua was simply praying for God’s help in battle through the use of highly figurative language (Fay, p. 97). A variation of this view, points out that in the ancient Near East the simultaneous appearance of the sun and moon in the sky was viewed as a good omen. Hence, Joshua is praying for a visible sign of victory (Boling, p. 284). But it is unlikely that Joshua would have followed an ancient superstition which viewed the sun and moon as deities. Moreover, the language of verse 13— “so the sun stood still, and the moon stopped”—does not appear as poetic hyperbole, but as narrative commentary. Acknowledging this problem, Longacre accuses the author of Joshua of misreading a poetic expression from the Book of Jasher and interpreting it as phenomenal miracle (p. 351). Finally, it should be noted that the use of celestial phenomena in poetic literature to describe divine intervention does not preclude all literal occurrence of such phenomena, but may in fact be based upon previous phenomenal miracles.

*III. The day merely seemed long (Keil & Delitzsch). *

Keil and Delitzsch have suggested that God miraculously enabled the Israelites to accomplish two-day’s work in the space of one day. They point out that “When we are not in circumstances to measure the length of the day by the clock, it is very easy to mistake its actual length, especially in the midst of the pressure of business or work” (p. 110). But this position fails to account for the language of Joshua’s prayer (v. 12) and the inspired interpretation of God’s answer (v. 13).

*IV. The daylight was refracted (Bush, Jamieson, Short).*

A few authors understand the miracle as optical and allude to the phenomenon of light refraction. George Bush argues that “the light of the sun and moon was supernaturally prolonged by the operation of the same laws of refraction and reflection that ordinarily cause the sun to appear above the horizon when he is in reality below it” (Bush, p. 119). But the duration of the miracle (v. 13) would call for an incredible bending of light! Furthermore, this view, like the former, is not based upon the language of the text. 

*V. The sun was darkened by solar eclipse (Wilson).*

Comparing the biblical terminology with that used in Babylonian astronomical texts, Robert D. Wilson has argued that Joshua’s prayer should be translated, “Be eclipsed, O sun, in Gibeon, and thou moon in the valley of Aijalon!” (Wilson, pp. 61-65). Thus, the miracle entailed a solar eclipse that darkened the sky and terrified the enemy. The linguistic parallels between the Hebrew and Babylonian texts lend validity to this view. But Wilson’s strained exegesis of the last phrase in verse 13, and the absence of any scientific confirmation of a total solar eclipse at the time of this battle casts doubt upon this interpretation. 

*VI. The sun was darkened by a hailstorm (Blair, Davis, Kaiser, Maunders, Rea). *

Since the “then” introducing verse 12 does not necessarily indicate temporal sequence, it is possible that the hailstorm of verse 11 was actually the answer to Joshua’s prayer. The Hebrew words translated “stood still” and “stopped” may refer to the cessation of brightness, rather than the cessation of movement (cf. Hab 3:11). The language of verse 13 may be phenomenal and simply mean that the sun was not seen to traverse the sky as usual. Having traveled through the night in order to catch the enemy by surprise (v. 9), Joshua called for an extension of darkness rather than light. As John Rea observes, “God answered above all that Joshua could ask or think by sending not only the desired shade to refresh His army but also a devastating hailstorm to crush and delay His enemies” (p. 218). So, as Maunders argues, the real miracle “was that Joshua had spoken, not in prayer or supplication, but in command, as if all Nature was at his disposal; and the Lord had hearkened and had, as it were, obeyed a human voice: an anticipation of the time when a greater Joshua should command even the winds and the sea, and they should obey Him (Mt 8:23-27).” (Maunders, p. 448). 

I presently lean toward the hailstorm view. If this is the correct interpretation, then we should rename the miracle, as Kaiser suggests, “Joshua’s long night.” Nevertheless, I believe the first view is consistent with the text and God's omnipotence. 

I'm curious to know what view others on the PB hold and why. 

Your servant,


----------



## Theognome

*VII. God knows mechanical law better than man will ever hope to, so we will never understand it (Theognome).*

I've had this argument here before. To try to define the miraculous in particular terms that mere man can define under his understanding of mechanical law is presumptuous at best. God does not need to explain His knowledge of the workings of the universe, and science will never proceed to a point where it can define the miraculous. For mankind to be able to do so, man would need comprehensive knowledge of mechanical law- something which man, in his finitude, will never attain. In short, it is a fools discussion, for only a fool would state what God has done through His infinite knowledge.

Theognome


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

Theognome said:


> *VII. God knows mechanical law better than man will ever hope to, so we will never understand it (Theognome).*
> 
> I've had this argument here before. To try to define the miraculous in particular terms that mere man can define under his understanding of mechanical law is presumptuous at best. God does not need to explain His knowledge of the workings of the universe, and science will never proceed to a point where it can define the miraculous. For mankind to be able to do so, man would need comprehensive knowledge of mechanical law- something which man, in his finitude, will never attain. In short, it is a fools discussion, for only a fool would state what God has done through His infinite knowledge.
> 
> Theognome



Hey Bill,

First, I agree that the account describes a special divine intervention that contravened the normal pattern of providence (i.e., a supernatural miracle). Positions #1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 all entail a miracle of some sort and are held by Bible-believing supernaturalists. Second, though the views above attempt to account for secondary causes (to varying degrees), none claims to provide a complete scientific account of all the physics involved in the miracle. Third, the hailstorm view, towards which I presently lean, demands a significant miracle. Joshua cries out to God to stop the sun from shining, and God responds beyond his expectations not only blocking out the sun but sending a hailstorm to route Joshua's enemies. As Maunders suggests, the real miracle 
was that Joshua had spoken, not in prayer or supplication, but in command, as if all Nature was at his disposal; and the Lord had hearkened and had, as it were, obeyed a human voice: an anticipation of the time when a greater Joshua should command even the winds and the sea, and they should obey Him (Mt 8:23-27).” (Maunders, “The Battle of Beth-Horon,” _International Standard Bible Encyclopedia _[1939], 1:448). ​Fourth, as I said above, I believe the first view is consistent with the text and God's omnipotence. If all of creation presently holds together by the word of the Lord, then certainly divine omnipotence could have overruled or suspended physical laws _as we presently understand them_. 

Just curious to see what views might be represented on the PB and the reasons why folk hold them. 

Blessings,


----------



## Theognome

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Hey Bill,
> 
> First, I agree that the account describes a special divine intervention that contravened the normal pattern of providence (i.e., a supernatural miracle). Positions #1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 all entail a miracle of some sort and are held by Bible-believing supernaturalists. Second, though the views above attempt to account for secondary causes (to varying degrees), none claims to provide a complete scientific account of all the physics involved in the miracle. Third, the hailstorm view, towards which I presently lean, demands a significant miracle. Joshua cries out to God to stop the sun from shining, and God responds beyond his expectations not only blocking out the sun but sending a hailstorm to route Joshua's enemies. As Maunders suggests, the real miracle
> was that Joshua had spoken, not in prayer or supplication, but in command, as if all Nature was at his disposal; and the Lord had hearkened and had, as it were, obeyed a human voice: an anticipation of the time when a greater Joshua should command even the winds and the sea, and they should obey Him (Mt 8:23-27).” (Maunders, “The Battle of Beth-Horon,” _International Standard Bible Encyclopedia _[1939], 1:448). ​Fourth, as I said above, I believe the first view is consistent with the text and God's omnipotence. If all of creation presently holds together by the word of the Lord, then certainly divine omnipotence could have overruled or suspended physical laws _as we presently understand them_.
> 
> Just curious to see what views might be represented on the PB and the reasons why folk hold them.
> 
> Blessings,



Views 1 through 6 are nothing more than higher criticism and an attempt to justify man's knowledge before the world- your defense of the principles behind them likely betray a similar position. Calling any of the presented constructs consistent with the text is akin to calling Darwinism consistent with Genesis 1. 

Since the Bible isn't a document that attempts to make 'scientific' explanations of supernatural phenomenon described therein, attempts to do so betray unbelief at best and damnable heresy at worst. Remember that although God's Word makes no attempt to justify itself through science, it does address the subject-

*John 1:1-5 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of Men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.*

*Psalm 119:17-19 Deal bountifully with Your servant, that I may live and keep Your word. Open my eyes, that I may see wondrous things from Your law. I am a stranger in the earth, do not hide Your commandments from me.*

*Psalm 8:3-5 When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, the moon and the stars, which You have ordained, What is man that You are mindful of him, and the son of man that you visit him? For You have made him a little lower than the angels, and You have crowned him with glory and honor.*

Notice how these passages (and there are more, of course) require faith in God and His working of nature (or beyond our understanding of nature) as opposed to inviting man to attempt to unravel the mystery of His inner workings? It doesn't matter what miraculous work of God is the topic- the long day, parting of the Red Sea, various miracles of Christ... they are miracles. Man will _never_ know how God has done such things- else they would not be miracles. 

So I could not disagree with you more. Attempting to define the miraculous works of God in man-centered terms is nothing more than an intellectual exercise in tomfoolery. In addition, to state a belief in the miraculous and in the same breath attempt to determine how the miraculous particularly occurs is a singular case of being double-tongued. If you actually believe that the account describes a special divine intervention that contravened the normal pattern of providence as you stated, that should be the end of the conversation.

Theognome


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

Theognome said:


> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Bill,
> 
> First, I agree that the account describes a special divine intervention that contravened the normal pattern of providence (i.e., a supernatural miracle). Positions #1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 all entail a miracle of some sort and are held by Bible-believing supernaturalists. Second, though the views above attempt to account for secondary causes (to varying degrees), none claims to provide a complete scientific account of all the physics involved in the miracle. Third, the hailstorm view, towards which I presently lean, demands a significant miracle. Joshua cries out to God to stop the sun from shining, and God responds beyond his expectations not only blocking out the sun but sending a hailstorm to route Joshua's enemies. As Maunders suggests, the real miracle was that Joshua had spoken, not in prayer or supplication, but in command, as if all Nature was at his disposal; and the Lord had hearkened and had, as it were, obeyed a human voice: an anticipation of the time when a greater Joshua should command even the winds and the sea, and they should obey Him (Mt 8:23-27).” (Maunders, “The Battle of Beth-Horon,” _International Standard Bible Encyclopedia _[1939], 1:448). ​Fourth, as I said above, I believe the first view is consistent with the text and God's omnipotence. If all of creation presently holds together by the word of the Lord, then certainly divine omnipotence could have overruled or suspended physical laws _as we presently understand them_.
> 
> Just curious to see what views might be represented on the PB and the reasons why folk hold them.
> 
> Blessings,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Views 1 through 6 are nothing more than higher criticism and an attempt to justify man's knowledge before the world- your defense of the principles behind them likely betray a similar position. Calling any of the presented constructs consistent with the text is akin to calling Darwinism consistent with Genesis 1.
> 
> Since the Bible isn't a document that attempts to make 'scientific' explanations of supernatural phenomenon described therein, attempts to do so betray unbelief at best and damnable heresy at worst. Remember that although God's Word makes no attempt to justify itself through science, it does address the subject-
> 
> *John 1:1-5 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of Men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.*
> 
> *Psalm 119:17-19 Deal bountifully with Your servant, that I may live and keep Your word. Open my eyes, that I may see wondrous things from Your law. I am a stranger in the earth, do not hide Your commandments from me.*
> 
> *Psalm 8:3-5 When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, the moon and the stars, which You have ordained, What is man that You are mindful of him, and the son of man that you visit him? For You have made him a little lower than the angels, and You have crowned him with glory and honor.*
> 
> Notice how these passages (and there are more, of course) require faith in God and His working of nature (or beyond our understanding of nature) as opposed to inviting man to attempt to unravel the mystery of His inner workings? It doesn't matter what miraculous work of God is the topic- the long day, parting of the Red Sea, various miracles of Christ... they are miracles. Man will _never_ know how God has done such things- else they would not be miracles.
> 
> So I could not disagree with you more. Attempting to define the miraculous works of God in man-centered terms is nothing more than an intellectual exercise in tomfoolery. In addition, to state a belief in the miraculous and in the same breath attempt to determine how the miraculous particularly occurs is a singular case of being double-tongued. If you actually believe that the account describes a special divine intervention that contravened the normal pattern of providence as you stated, that should be the end of the conversation.
> 
> Theognome
Click to expand...


Brother,

I would suggest that you slow down and reflect more carefully on what those scholars are doing who have posited the various views I listed above. With the exception of view #2, all the other views are affirming a miracle of some sort. None of them are trying to explain _how God contravened the laws of physics and performed the miracle_. They are simply trying to identify what the miracle itself was, according to the text. Since Copernicus, we now know that the miracle was not the cessation of the sun moving across the sky in a geocentric universe. So it's not inappropriate for exegetes, like Dr. Wilson former professor of OT at Princeton and devout student of the Bible, to suggest other scenarios based on plausible interpretations of the text. Once again, these scholars are not trying to tell us _how God did something_. They're simply trying to discern _what God did_. Big difference!

Sincerely yours,

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Theognome

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Brother,
> 
> I would suggest that you slow down and reflect more carefully on what those scholars are doing who have posited the various views I listed above.



Speed is not an issue, actually. What these scholars are doing is quite obvious.



Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> With the exception of view #2, all the other views are affirming a miracle of some sort. None of them are trying to explain _how God contravened the laws of physics and performed the miracle_. They are simply trying to identify what the miracle itself was, according to the text.



Really? I've also never heard an Antinomian fellow state that he doesn't affirm God's law, either.



Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Since Copernicus, we now know that the miracle was not the cessation of the sun moving across the sky in a geocentric universe.



Ahh, yes... the infallible Copernicus. Since he has declared comprehensive knowledge of mechanical law, he cannot be defied by something so insignificant as an omnipotent God. God must work within our knowledge of mechanical law, after all.



Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> So it's not inappropriate for exegetes, like Dr. Wilson former professor of OT at Princeton and devout student of the Bible, to suggest other scenarios based on plausible interpretations of the text.



Titles, degrees and academic positions do not render one free from biblical error- or do you consider such folk to be as infallible as Copernicus?



Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Once again, these scholars are not trying to tell us _how God did something_. They're simply trying to discern _what God did_. Big difference!



You've made it quite clear that the very premises of what these fellows are 'trying to discern' is based on the supremacy of the knowledge of man and not the sovereignty of God. So I'm more than willing to call a spade a spade and state that it's nonsense. 

Theognome

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## panta dokimazete

I actually had a discussion with some atheists around this subject - my assertion is that God put a bubble of "slow time" around the battle - thus the events within would seem to precede at normal time while any external frames of reference (ie, the movement of the Sun) would appear to freeze to the internal observer.


----------



## LawrenceU

I have no problem at all saying that the sun stopped in the sky. If God created this world he could have stopped the earth's orbit, rotation, and the movement of every other celestial body in the universe and had no damage at all. Come on man, he is God. Nothing is impossible for him.


----------



## sotzo

I sure am glad Jesus was patient with Thomas when he asked to *see* for himself. And Gideon was not deemed a heretic and accused as "putting His God to the test"...God was gracious and gave him a sign. I think we in Reformed circles covertly flash the Romans 1 card even to our fellow brethren..."what, you want to delve deeper into the passage? well, you're doing nothing more than suppressing the truth in unrighteousness!". There is a delving that is rooted in sin and a delving that is rooted in faith.

I lean toward the hailstorm view as being the miracle described based on the text's construction not being chronoloical. Indeed, the sun did not traverse the sky (to the observer on the ground, it stopped its normal course)...the hail that is described would have blotted it out.


----------



## py3ak

> With the advent of modern astronomy and science, however, serious objections were raised against this interpretation. Students of Scripture were forced to re-examine and re-interpret this miracle in a way consistent with the biblical text, the theology of Scripture, and the findings of modern science.



You're not _forced_ to do that. If what you held was consistent with the Biblical text, then there was no real need for re-examination or re-interpretation.



> Some advocates of this position have alleged *scientific evidence* for an altered axis rotation of the earth (Patten, pp. 172-98) and for a missing solar day (Rimmer, pp. 281-83; Torrey, p. 54). The sudden stoppage or gradual decrease in the earth’s rotation, however, *would cause* cataclysmic damage upon the earth, as well as significant disturbances in the solar system. Certainly God’s omnipotence could have overruled or suspended physical laws, but some question whether the text demands “a *miracle of such gigantic proportions*” (Ramm, p. 108).



It's interesting how there is almost always some "evidence" for a position people want to hold. It's also interesting that people want to argue as though they could know _what_ a miracle would entail. How can anyone presume to speak about what the results of a miracle would be? And then there can be a question about the _proportions_ of the miracle the text calls for? Who comes up with this stuff? "Well, if we read the text this way it only calls for a _minor_ bending of the laws of physics...." If that's meant to preserve the credibility of Biblical revelation in the hearts of unbelieving fools, I think it's a self-defeating strategy. "We're only asking you to believe that God did miracles of _minor_ proportions!" 



> But the duration of the miracle (v. 13) would call for an incredible bending of light! Furthermore, this view, like the former, is not based upon the language of the text.


Isn't the whole point that it's rather incredible if it had not been authored by the Holy Spirit? I don't see any need from the text, as you point out, to think that the mechanics of the miracle involved an abnormal refraction of light, but really arguing that it boggles the mind for light to be refracted _that far_ is more than a little absurd: it boggles the mind that the sun would stop its motion: so what? God evidently does not cringe from boggling our minds as much as we do.

Evidently the real question in the text is one of translation, to which I will not presume to speak (namely, whether it was a long day or a long night). Debates about the _mechanics_ are all very well, but are all in fact speculative. We don't know how God made the waters of the Jordan stand up in an heap; we don't know how Christ turned water into wine. But we confess that God is able to work not only by but also above and without and against means. When He does so, investigation into second causes is necessarily quite fruitless: they weren't there. And given some of the absurd statements of scholars above, it is rather hard not to get the impression that the driving motivation is either unbelief or the desire for respectability before an unbelieving world. But if I don't believe I might as well stop wasting my time trying to reinterpret the Bible; if we believe, and therefore speak, logic would require those who do not believe to hold their tongues! And the desire for respectability is equally absurd: the opinions of fools are strictly irrelevant, and in matters of Biblical revelation, every unbeliever is a fool.


----------



## TimV

> Isn't the whole point that it's rather incredible if it had not been authored by the Holy Spirit? I don't see any need from the text, as you point out, to think that the mechanics of the miracle involved an abnormal refraction of light, but really arguing that it boggles the mind for light to be refracted that far is more than a little absurd: it boggles the mind that the sun would stop its motion: so what? God evidently does not cringe from boggling our minds as much as we do.



Exactly.


----------



## lynnie

Trying to remember where I read about it, but there are ancient legends among some indigenous people groups about a long day/night. It was not a local apparition but globally observed.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Luther was right.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

py3ak said:


> Isn't the whole point that it's rather incredible if it had not been authored by the Holy Spirit? I don't see any need from the text, as you point out, to think that the mechanics of the miracle involved an abnormal refraction of light, but really arguing that it boggles the mind for light to be refracted _that far_ is more than a little absurd: it boggles the mind that the sun would stop its motion: so what? God evidently does not cringe from boggling our minds as much as we do.
> 
> Evidently the real question in the text is one of translation, to which I will not presume to speak (namely, whether it was a long day or a long night). Debates about the _mechanics_ are all very well, but are all in fact speculative. We don't know how God made the waters of the Jordan stand up in an heap; we don't know how Christ turned water into wine. But we confess that God is able to work not only by but also above and without and against means. When He does so, investigation into second causes is necessarily quite fruitless: they weren't there. And given some of the absurd statements of scholars above, it is rather hard not to get the impression that the driving motivation is either unbelief or the desire for respectability before an unbelieving world. But if I don't believe I might as well stop wasting my time trying to reinterpret the Bible; if we believe, and therefore speak, logic would require those who do not believe to hold their tongues! And the desire for respectability is equally absurd: the opinions of fools are strictly irrelevant, and in matters of Biblical revelation, every unbeliever is a fool.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ruben,
> 
> I share your commitment to the authority of Scripture and a belief that nothing is too hard for the Lord. I have to confess, however, that I get the impression from interacting with some folk on this board that if anyone suggests an interpretation that doesn't agree with Luther or Calvin, he's _ipso facto_ treated with suspicion. My 11 year old son is learning about the universe. He's learned that the earth revolves around the sun not the sun around the earth (as it "appears"). Consequently, when he says, "Dad, when the Bible speaks of the sun standing still in the sky, what does that mean?" I could respond, "Shut up and believe the Bible." Or, I could explain that the Scripture writers often employed phenomenal language (i.e., the language of appearance). Then I would suggest several scenarios that would all involve a miracle, but not one that required the earth to take center stage in the solar system while the sun assumed a position in a fixed orbit around the earth. I believe God could have refracted the light. I believe God could have stopped the rotation of the earth. I believe that it could have been an eclipse. I believe it may have been a supernaturally sent hail storm in response to Joshua's prayer. All of these are possible scenarios for the event described in Joshua 10. And I disagree that everyone who would dare to suggest such a scenario is by default an unbeliever or driven by a desire for respectability--unless, of course, you have the miraculous ability to read the hearts of men!
Click to expand...


----------



## Mushroom

All motion is relative to the observer. To the observer on the Earth, the Sun revolves around the Earth. Yes, the solar system is a larger system than that of the Earth's, and for observing the interaction of the planets, a heliocentric system is necessary. But for the Israelites standing on the Earth, the Sun *does* move across the sky, and God *can* make it stand still for as long as He so desires. All these 'explanations' are just so much compromise so as not to offend, or avoid the derision of, the world.

And I don't need a doctorate to figure that out.


----------



## etexas




----------



## CharlieJ

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> I have to confess, however, that I get the impression from interacting with some folk on this board that if anyone suggests an interpretation that doesn't agree with Luther or Calvin, he's _ipso facto_ treated with suspicion.



Calvin or Van Til on this board, I should think. Thanks for your post, Dr. Bob. Before now I had only heard I and IV. I'm not immediately impressed by the others, except possibly the hailstorm. It's interesting, though, to see the proposed solutions, especially from masters of Hebrew K&D. I'll keep this post in mind when I get to translating through that portion of Joshua.


----------



## Confessor

py3ak said:


> Evidently the real question in the text is one of translation, to which I will not presume to speak (namely, whether it was a long day or a long night). Debates about the mechanics are all very well, but are all in fact speculative. We don't know how God made the waters of the Jordan stand up in an heap; we don't know how Christ turned water into wine. But we confess that God is able to work not only by but also above and without and against means.



But we do know _that_ God made the waters of the Jordan stand up, and we do know _that_ Christ turned water into wine. And if the Bible says that some miracle occurred and is not absolutely explicit of what this miracle was, it's not somehow sinful or _unbelieving_ (what an accusation!) to attempt to discern the _identity_ of this miracle.

The point I'm trying to make is that it is possible to go too far in speculating, but it's not as if any speculation is too far. In my aforementioned example it would go too far to attempt to discern _how_ Christ converted water to wine -- if we are acting as if we must know how it occurred in order to accept the passage in the first place -- but it would not be too far to simply discern _that_ He did. Likewise, it is not wrong at all to understand _what_ miracle God performed. We are not saying, "Well, I have to know exhaustively what this miracle of stopping the sun is before I will accept the biblical account"; rather, we are saying, "I wonder how to _identify_ the miracle which God's Word is speaking of, and which _I already accept as truthful prior to understanding it completely_."

It is not wrong to ask questions about the correct interpretation of a passage, and I am honestly surprised that so many people are questioning Dr. Gonzales's faith in trying to discern what God's Word entails on this matter. _He is not suspending the truthfulness of the passage; he is suspending the interpretation of the passage_. If you think he is trying to make the Bible "more presentable" to unbelievers by compromising its authority because he gives credence to the heliocentric view of the universe, even when he accepts the 1st option as biblical and orthodox, then I have to say that you are mistaken.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

Brad said:


> All motion is relative to the observer. To the observer on the Earth, the Sun revolves around the Earth. Yes, the solar system is a larger system than that of the Earth's, and for observing the interaction of the planets, a heliocentric system is necessary. But for the Israelites standing on the Earth, the Sun *does* move across the sky, and God *can* make it stand still for as long as He so desires. All these 'explanations' are just so much compromise so as not to offend, or avoid the derision of, the world.
> 
> And I don't need a doctorate to figure that out.



Brad,

If you'll read carefully what I've written in the previous posts, you'll see that I agree with phenomenological language. That is, I believe the ancient Israelite described phenomenon according to its appearance and that such an explanation is perfectly accurate and appropriate. So yes, relative to a stationary observer on the surface of the earth, the sun really does move across the sky. And yes, you don't need a doctorate to know that. 

But, from the perspective of a Hubble telescope, the sun does not revolve around the earth. What's wrong or heretical with suggesting, as some do, that *from that perspective* the earth's rotation stopped for a day? 

Thanks for your input.


----------



## Mushroom

> But, from the perspective of a Hubble telescope, the sun does not revolve around the earth.


But Dr. Bob, from the Hubble telescope, the Earth revolves around the _Hubble telescope_. By observing the relational movements of heavenly bodies we can deduce mathematically that from the surface of the Sun the Earth revolves around it, that from the surface of the Moon the Earth revolves around it, that from the surface of Jupiter it's moons revolve around it, that from the center of the Milky Way, the Solar system revolves around it, etc. & etc. & etc.

The only pertinent perspective here is that of those who observed the Sun stopping in the sky. You say it had to be the stopping of the Earth's rotation based on what? The speculation is pointless... God could stop the motion of every molecule in the universe except those He wanted to be moving at the time of that battle. And prevent any cataclysm that man may predict would result.


> What's wrong or heretical with suggesting, as some do, that from that perspective the earth's rotation stopped for a day?


Whatever else others have suggested, I have not stated it was heretical, only that it is pointless and usually motivated by a desire to integrate the 'evidences' of modern atheistic theories with scripture.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Confessor said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evidently the real question in the text is one of translation, to which I will not presume to speak (namely, whether it was a long day or a long night). Debates about the mechanics are all very well, but are all in fact speculative. We don't know how God made the waters of the Jordan stand up in an heap; we don't know how Christ turned water into wine. But we confess that God is able to work not only by but also above and without and against means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But we do know _that_ God made the waters of the Jordan stand up, and we do know _that_ Christ turned water into wine. And if the Bible says that some miracle occurred and is not absolutely explicit of what this miracle was, it's not somehow sinful or _unbelieving_ (what an accusation!) to attempt to discern the _identity_ of this miracle.
> 
> The point I'm trying to make is that it is possible to go too far in speculating, but it's not as if any speculation is too far. In my aforementioned example it would go too far to attempt to discern _how_ Christ converted water to wine -- if we are acting as if we must know how it occurred in order to accept the passage in the first place -- but it would not be too far to simply discern _that_ He did. Likewise, it is not wrong at all to understand _what_ miracle God performed. We are not saying, "Well, I have to know exhaustively what this miracle of stopping the sun is before I will accept the biblical account"; rather, we are saying, "I wonder how to _identify_ the miracle which God's Word is speaking of, and which _I already accept as truthful prior to understanding it completely_."
> 
> It is not wrong to ask questions about the correct interpretation of a passage, and I am honestly surprised that so many people are questioning Dr. Gonzales's faith in trying to discern what God's Word entails on this matter. _He is not suspending the truthfulness of the passage; he is suspending the interpretation of the passage_. If you think he is trying to make the Bible "more presentable" to unbelievers by compromising its authority because he gives credence to the heliocentric view of the universe, even when he accepts the 1st option as biblical and orthodox, then I have to say that you are mistaken.
Click to expand...


So I guess the question is, when do you allow a scientific view dictate to you what the Bible means in a certain place? When it becomes the dominate view?

Also to be fair, Calvin/Luther et. al knew about phenomenological language; they however did not treat this passage as such an example.

CT


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

Brad said:


> only that it is pointless and usually motivated by a desire to integrate the 'evidences' of modern atheistic theories with scripture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess that doesn't leave much room for Christian scientists. Any discussion concerning the universe that is not _ad terrestrium_ is "pointless and usually motivated by a desire to integrate the 'evidences' of modern atheistic theories with Scripture." Wow! Would you have been in favor of burning Galileo and Copernicus at the stake?
> 
> Actually, I doubt you would be in favor of their execution or opposed to scientific endeavors carried on by Christian scientists. But I don't understand why there are some on this board who object when Bible believing Christians suggest how the miracle in Joshua 10 might have appeared from a non-terrestrial perspective. No one is trying to cram such an interpretation down your throat. If you prefer not wasting your time reading such theories, then at least have the decency not to impugn the motives of Christians who have an interest in science and believe all science must harmonize with Scripture (even if we presently don't have the explanation) with desires to lay God's truth on the altar of atheistic theories.
Click to expand...


----------



## Confessor

ChristianTrader said:


> So I guess the question is, when do you allow a scientific view dictate to you what the Bible means in a certain place? When it becomes the dominate view?
> 
> Also to be fair, Calvin/Luther et. al knew about phenomenological language; they however did not treat this passage as such an example.
> 
> CT



The question should first be, Are we allowed to interpret passages in discerning _what_ miracles may or may not have occurred? After this, when determining the mechanics of the miracle, or determining whether or not that would be a fruitful endeavor, we can approach the question of scientific findings and the Bible.

As for an answer to the question you posed pertinent to this specific topic, Copernican findings are actually quite irrelevant. Motion by its nature is relative, and it therefore makes no sense to speak of heliocentrism as the "correct" view, because the only way it can be the correct view is if motion is absolute, which it is not. Heliocentrism only makes sense if we _arbitrarily_ choose the sun to be our reference point, and such a view cannot therefore be imposed on anyone else choosing a different arbitrary reference point.

Seeing as this choice (i.e., of the sun as reference point) makes astronomical equations much more palatable and less complicated, it makes sense to assume the sun as a reference point when doing such equations. Yet using the earth as a reference point makes things very easy to understand because we simply ask others to imagine that in their eyes -- i.e. phenomenological language.

So, my answer is that if we assume our reference point to be the earth, yes, the sun really did stop moving across the sky. If we assume it to be the sun, then yes, the earth really did stop rotating. No matter what reference point from which we choose to look at the situation, the end result is that some observer on the earth saw something which appeared to be the sun stopping. And that is all that matters. Thus, Copernicanism, insofar as it relies on an arbitrary reference point, cannot possibly be used to tell someone else that their arbitrary reference point is _wrong_, and therefore any interpretation is valid insofar as it understands that, given the observer's reference point, the sun stopped _according to his perception_.

Since I live on the earth, I usually use that as my reference point, but I keep in mind that it is arbitrary. (This is an extremely fun point to argue if anyone brings up heliocentrism and how "stupid" past peoples were.)


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

ChristianTrader said:


> So I guess the question is, when do you allow a scientific view dictate to you what the Bible means in a certain place? When it becomes the dominate view? Also to be fair, Calvin/Luther et. al knew about phenomenological language; they however did not treat this passage as such an example. CT
> 
> 
> 
> Brother,
> 
> Good questions. And you're correct, Luther and Calvin were aware of phenomenological language. I can sympathize with their initial skepticism of claims made by men like Galileo and Copernicus. But we don't have the luxury of excusing ourselves. I think science has confirmed the heliocentric nature of our solar system.
> 
> So to answer your questions, I'm not opposed to allowing scientific observations of the world around me influence my exegesis provided that the observations are built on sound presuppositions and accurate beyond a reasonable doubt. After all, creation is general revelation and we should expect it to be consistent with special revelation. I think, however, we should be slow and cautious in revisiting traditional interpretations because of the claims of modern science. We should question the presuppositions underlying such claims to see whether they're consistent with biblical principle.
> 
> For example, I'm still a young-earth guy. I believe the most natural reading of Genesis 1 and the biblical chronology suggests a young earth and a creation that took place in six periods corresponding to six 24-hour solar days. I'm fully aware of the claims of geologists and astronomers regarding the old age of the earth and universe. But I think much of their evidence is based on presuppositions that may not be true. Consequently, I'm not ready to embrace a less plausible interpretation of the biblical data (as did men like Charles Hodge, B. B. Warfield, E. J. Young, Meredith Kline, etc.) when there are still unanswered questions. Remember, we can use telescopes and space ships to confirm the theory of Copernicus. We do not, however, possess the technology for time travel. Therefore, I think an old birthday for the universe and earth remains unconfirmed. Accordingly, I'll stick with the more plausible interpretation of six literal days and age of somewhere in the neighborhood of 8 to 10 thousand years for the earth.
> 
> Your servant,
> 
> -----Added 2/22/2009 at 03:56:18 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> Confessor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Motion by its nature is relative, and it therefore makes no sense to speak of heliocentrism as the "correct" view, because the only way it can be the correct view is if motion is absolute, which it is not. Heliocentrism only makes sense if we _arbitrarily_ choose the sun to be our reference point, and such a view cannot therefore be imposed on anyone else choosing a different arbitrary reference point.
> 
> Seeing as this choice (i.e., of the sun as reference point) makes astronomical equations much more palatable and less complicated, it makes sense to assume the sun as a reference point when doing such equations. Yet using the earth as a reference point makes things very easy to understand because we simply ask others to imagine that in their eyes -- i.e. phenomenological language.
> 
> So, my answer is that if we assume our reference point to be the earth, yes, the sun really did stop moving across the sky. If we assume it to be the sun, then yes, the earth really did stop rotating. No matter what reference point from which we choose to look at the situation, the end result is that some observer on the earth saw something which appeared to be the sun stopping. And that is all that matters. Thus, Copernicanism, insofar as it relies on an arbitrary reference point, cannot possibly be used to tell someone else that their arbitrary reference point is _wrong_, and therefore any interpretation is valid insofar as it understands that, given the observer's reference point, the sun stopped _according to his perception_.
> 
> Since I live on the earth, I usually use that as my reference point, but I keep in mind that it is arbitrary. (This is an extremely fun point to argue if anyone brings up heliocentrism and how "stupid" past peoples were.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Brother, thanks for your helpful comments. They help to put the discussion in proper perspective.
> 
> Gratefully yours,
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Mushroom

Christian scientists observing and theorizing about phenomena of the created natural order is a far cry from speculating about the mechanics employed by God in the execution of miraculous events.

Why not try to determine exactly what processes God used to resurrect His Son? We could speculate on how corruption was prevented from taking place, how blood cells were reinvigorated, and how muscle tissue dead three days was made to move again. Or we could just believe the Word of God, and accept that there are mysteries not given to men to know.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

Brad said:


> Christian scientists observing and theorizing about phenomena of the created natural order is a far cry from speculating about the mechanics employed by God in the execution of miraculous events.
> 
> Why not try to determine exactly what processes God used to resurrect His Son? We could speculate on how corruption was prevented from taking place, how blood cells were reinvigorated, and how muscle tissue dead three days was made to move again. Or we could just believe the Word of God, and accept that there are mysteries not given to men to know.



Point well taken. Thanks Brad.

Your servant,


----------



## Confessor

Brad said:


> Christian scientists observing and theorizing about phenomena of the created natural order is a far cry from speculating about the mechanics employed by God in the execution of miraculous events.
> 
> Why not try to determine exactly what processes God used to resurrect His Son? We could speculate on how corruption was prevented from taking place, how blood cells were reinvigorated, and how muscle tissue dead three days was made to move again. Or we could just believe the Word of God, and accept that there are mysteries not given to men to know.



1. We are not prying into secret things, but merely trying to understand _what_ the miracle was, i.e., the identity of the miracle. It is possible to leave the realm of faithful speculation, but you are asserting who is doing so without demarcating appropriate boundaries.

2. We are not suspending the truthfulness of the passages while we attempt to figure some things out. In other words,, believing the Bible on God's Word and determining the mechanics of miracles are not mutually exclusive options.


----------



## Mushroom

> 1. We are not prying into secret things, but merely trying to understand what the miracle was, i.e., the identity of the miracle. It is possible to leave the realm of faithful speculation, but you are asserting who is doing so without demarcating appropriate boundaries.


I understand your point, Ben. I suppose the difference between us is that I am satisfied that what the miracle was is that the sun stood still. I don't mean to demarcate anyhting, I just believe all such speculation is pointless.


> 2. We are not suspending the truthfulness of the passages while we attempt to figure some things out. In other words,, believing the Bible on God's Word and determining the mechanics of miracles are not mutually exclusive options.


Determine to your heart's desire, brother.


----------



## lynnie

Confessor- nice posts.

I myself and some intelligent PhD type people I know have been geocentrists for many years. (the earth is still and the universe revolves around it every 24hours). And no, it isn't flat earth  The Association of Biblical Astronomy has plenty of devout people in it, including many Reformed Calvinists. Malcolm Bowden in England is particularly good for layman; Gerhardus Bouw is over my head when the physics and math start but a major scientist.

The FACT is that the heliocentric and geocentric models BOTH work perfectly to explain everything- eclipses, retrograde motion of planets, etc. Helio is simpler because the geo has the planets orbiting the sun as it orbits earth, but both work. So unless you get outside our solar system you can't prove either.

What you CAN prove is the Michaelson-Morley and Sagnac experiments. These were originally done to measure the speed of the earth going around the sun. As it hurls towards a fixed star for 6 months, and then spins the other way for the next 6 months, normally, based on the rest of the electromagnetic spectrum, you'd expect the measured velocity of the light waves from the star to be more or less, depending on the direction. (like sound from an ambulance, as the sound waves are higher and lower if it speeds towards you and away from you). 

This works for the rest of the electromagnetic spectrum, like radar waves or radio waves. But golly gee, the measurements for earth kept coming out to zero. That meant it wasn't moving. A mystery.

Along came Einstein who figured out that light does not act like the whole rest of the entire electromagnetic spectrum. Even Time magazine pointed out that his genius lay in explaining Sagnac and M-M. Every other wave on that entire spectrum follows the laws of physics with adding and subtracting velocity, except visible light. Yeah right.

And Christianity swallowed this **** hook line and sinker. You should read the careful science about all this. I spent a couple years on it, amazing. Satellites, focault pendulum, all the stuff they thrwo at you- none of it conflicts with geocentricity.

Barry Setterfield has some good research on the decreasing speed of light. Extrapolate the numbers back and the universe is much much smaller than you think. And the speed of light is not a speed limit for rotation.

There are other geocentric proofs like the shells of quasars centered on earth...quite a few actually. But modern man refuses to accept that the earth is at the center of the universe. Sad. It is true because the work of Jesus Christ is at the center of all existence.

This subject tends to be rather difficult for many folks to even consider. But I thought I'd throw it into the mix. The bible is true, even to the sun rising and setting


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

lynnie said:


> Confessor- nice posts.
> 
> I myself and some intelligent PhD type people I know have been geocentrists for many years. (the earth is still and the universe revolves around it every 24hours). And no, it isn't flat earth  The Association of Biblical Astronomy has plenty of devout people in it, including many Reformed Calvinists. Malcolm Bowden in England is particularly good for layman; Gerhardus Bouw is over my head when the physics and math start but a major scientist.
> 
> The FACT is that the heliocentric and geocentric models BOTH work perfectly to explain everything- eclipses, retrograde motion of planets, etc. Helio is simpler because the geo has the planets orbiting the sun as it orbits earth, but both work. So unless you get outside our solar system you can't prove either.
> 
> What you CAN prove is the Michaelson-Morley and Sagnac experiments. These were originally done to measure the speed of the earth going around the sun. As it hurls towards a fixed star for 6 months, and then spins the other way for the next 6 months, normally, based on the rest of the electromagnetic spectrum, you'd expect the measured velocity of the light waves from the star to be more or less, depending on the direction. (like sound from an ambulance, as the sound waves are higher and lower if it speeds towards you and away from you).
> 
> This works for the rest of the electromagnetic spectrum, like radar waves or radio waves. But golly gee, the measurements for earth kept coming out to zero. That meant it wasn't moving. A mystery.
> 
> Along came Einstein who figured out that light does not act like the whole rest of the entire electromagnetic spectrum. Even Time magazine pointed out that his genius lay in explaining Sagnac and M-M. Every other wave on that entire spectrum follows the laws of physics with adding and subtracting velocity, except visible light. Yeah right.
> 
> And Christianity swallowed this **** hook line and sinker. You should read the careful science about all this. I spent a couple years on it, amazing. Satellites, focault pendulum, all the stuff they thrwo at you- none of it conflicts with geocentricity.
> 
> Barry Setterfield has some good research on the decreasing speed of light. Extrapolate the numbers back and the universe is much much smaller than you think. And the speed of light is not a speed limit for rotation.
> 
> There are other geocentric proofs like the shells of quasars centered on earth...quite a few actually. But modern man refuses to accept that the earth is at the center of the universe. Sad. It is true because the work of Jesus Christ is at the center of all existence.
> 
> This subject tends to be rather difficult for many folks to even consider. But I thought I'd throw it into the mix. The bible is true, even to the sun rising and setting



Lynnie,

Thanks for all the intriguing information. When you speak of geocentric, are you speaking of the earth relative to the universe or to the solar system or both? I've read something from Barry Setterfield and from D. Russell Humphreys on the subject of starlight and time. Fascinating. But some of it went over my head since my training is not in astrophysics. Have you read David Snoke's latest book, _The Biblical Case for an Old Earth_ (P&R)? If so, I'd be interested to get your perspective. 

By the way, I do believe the earth is at the center of the universe in God's plan of redemption. Thanks for pointing that out!


----------



## py3ak

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Ruben,
> 
> I share your commitment to the authority of Scripture and a belief that nothing is too hard for the Lord. I have to confess, however, that I get the impression from interacting with some folk on this board that if anyone suggests an interpretation that doesn't agree with Luther or Calvin, he's _ipso facto_ treated with suspicion. My 11 year old son is learning about the universe. He's learned that the earth revolves around the sun not the sun around the earth (as it "appears"). Consequently, when he says, "Dad, when the Bible speaks of the sun standing still in the sky, what does that mean?" I could respond, "Shut up and believe the Bible." Or, I could explain that the Scripture writers often employed phenomenal language (i.e., the language of appearance). Then I would suggest several scenarios that would all involve a miracle, but not one that required the earth to take center stage in the solar system while the sun assumed a position in a fixed orbit around the earth. I believe God could have refracted the light. I believe God could have stopped the rotation of the earth. I believe that it could have been an eclipse. I believe it may have been a supernaturally sent hail storm in response to Joshua's prayer. All of these are possible scenarios for the event described in Joshua 10. And I disagree that everyone who would dare to suggest such a scenario is by default an unbeliever or driven by a desire for respectability--unless, of course, you have the miraculous ability to read the hearts of men!



Dr. Gonzales, I'm not exactly sure how much correspondence you meant for there to be between my post and your reply. I didn't mention either Calvin or Luther in my reply, so I don't quite know what that had to do with my post. Nor did I claim to be able to read the hearts of men: I pointed out that the search for _explanations_ of miracles seems absurd if you define a miracle as God achieving something with inadequate means, or without any means, or in opposition to the means that are in fact present. If the text itself doesn't tell you what the mechanism was, anything else is just speculation, and my point was that such speculation takes a great deal for granted (what such and such a mechanism "would have" entailed). And while I did not include you in my citation of the scholars who come up with assorted theories (you'll notice I said nothing about the hailstorm idea), I would be very glad if you could explain to me an alternate construction for these phrases:
"a miracle of gigantic proportions"
"an incredible bending of light"
Do such phrases have any definite meaning when you are already in the realm of the miraculous?

"Phenomenological" language cannot be distinguished from the language of reality, because the "phenomena" are also reality. The mountains in Arizona look blue from a distance; when one gets close to them they appear to be red and tan with some vegetation. Which is appearance and which is reality? The problem is solved if you cease to make that distinction: the appearance from afar and the appearance from near by (and the appearance under an electron microscope) are all real, and none is more real than another. Hence it is unnecessary to instruct anyone that the earth _really_ revolves around the sun.


----------



## py3ak

Confessor said:


> I am honestly surprised that so many people are questioning Dr. Gonzales's faith in trying to discern what God's Word entails on this matter.



If someone is questioning the reality of Dr. Gonzales' faith you should use the "report post" feature to let the moderators know so that they can cause that to stop.


----------



## historyb

I will go out on a limb and say it happened just like it says. The Sun and moon stood still, that's my story and I'm sticking to it.


----------



## Theognome

historyb said:


> I will go out on a limb and say it happened just like it says. The Sun and moon stood still, that's my story and I'm sticking to it.



It's a sad day when affirming what the Scripture says is going out on a limb.

Theognome


----------



## Anton Bruckner

the day was lengthened by God.
We know that a day is when the earth rotates on its axis therefore God slowed down the rotation of the earth whilst keeping the negative effects of said rotation from occurring. It silliness to conclude contrarily. That's like saying how did Jesus resurrect a dead man seeing that the dead man's decomposition was and is part of the make up of organisms that ate his body. Would resurrection entail a deprivation of the nutrients from the organism that ate some of the decomposed body? Its simple. When Jesus raised a person from the dead, He raised the person in the exact same body whilst nullifying all the negative occurrences that would have happened as a result of the resurrection seeing that a miracle is an invasion into the natural order to undo what the natural order did.


----------



## lynnie

Dr Bob- Thanks.

To answer your question, both at the center of the solar system and the universe.

Thanks for the book mention but I'm so die hard young earth thanks to guys like the ones I mentioned that I think I'll never change. I don't know how much things changed after the fall and flood and maybe days and years were longer, but not by the millions and billions of years. The shrinkage of the sun, extrapolated back, has us frying to a crisp and boiling away maybe 100,000- 200,000 years ago or at at least a million years ago. And it gets pretty hot long before that.

Great subject...can't wait for heaven to learn more!


----------



## MW

Theognome said:


> It's a sad day when affirming what the Scripture says is going out on a limb.



Well said!

The word of God states in no uncertain terms that Joshua spoke in the sight of Israel, "Sun, stand thou still;" and the narrative subsequently records in words that cannot be mistaken, "the sun stood still." People can understand the workings of the universe however they please from one generation to another, but the fact remains the same that on this particular day in history the sun literally ceased to move for a period of time. We are not at liberty to make the text say something other than what is written.


----------



## Anton Bruckner

armourbearer said:


> Theognome said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a sad day when affirming what the Scripture says is going out on a limb.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well said!
> 
> The word of God states in no uncertain terms that Joshua spoke in the sight of Israel, "Sun, stand thou still;" and the narrative subsequently records in words that cannot be mistaken, "the sun stood still." People can understand the workings of the universe however they please from one generation to another, but the fact remains the same that on this particular day in history the sun literally ceased to move for a period of time. We are not at liberty to make the text say something other than what is written.
Click to expand...

how about anthropomorphic language? The Bible does use them. In Genesis it says that God came down to the tower of Babel to see what mankind was up to? Genesis also said that God rested on the 7th day? Are we to believe that God took an escalator and came down to the tower of Babel because He wanted to diligently inquire as to the matter before He changed their speech? Or are we to believe that God was tired after creation and decided to relax?

Joshua did say, "Sun stand still", but what he really meant was for the day to be prolonged. God can use the ignorance of Joshua to accomplish His feat. Its like correcting something a child did. When Jacob decided to do his voodoo thing to trick uncle laban out of his sheep are we to suppose that Jacob's voodoo thingie was the reason for him getting lots of sheep or was it God's power that worked despite of Jacob's ignorance.


----------



## historyb

Me wonders should we put modern interpretation on ancient things


----------



## discipulo

Anton Bruckner said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theognome said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a sad day when affirming what the Scripture says is going out on a limb.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well said!
> 
> The word of God states in no uncertain terms that Joshua spoke in the sight of Israel, "Sun, stand thou still;" and the narrative subsequently records in words that cannot be mistaken, "the sun stood still." People can understand the workings of the universe however they please from one generation to another, but the fact remains the same that on this particular day in history the sun literally ceased to move for a period of time. We are not at liberty to make the text say something other than what is written.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how about anthropomorphic language? The Bible does use them. In Genesis it says that God came down to the tower of Babel to see what mankind was up to? Genesis also said that God rested on the 7th day? Are we to believe that God took an escalator and came down to the tower of Babel because He wanted to diligently inquire as to the matter before He changed their speech? Or are we to believe that God was tired after creation and decided to relax?
> 
> Joshua did say, "Sun stand still", but what he really meant was for the day to be prolonged. God can use the ignorance of Joshua to accomplish His feat. Its like correcting something a child did. When Jacob decided to do his voodoo thing to trick uncle laban out of his sheep are we to suppose that Jacob's voodoo thingie was the reason for him getting lots of sheep or was it God's power that worked despite of Jacob's ignorance.
Click to expand...


Ignorance? Are you kidding? That was the first case of genetic manipulation 

So you think with Joshua it could be the phenomenological perception that the Sun stood still?

I think what can be deceptive is to try to grasp these things with our finite minds and go beyond what is revealed to us by the Lord.


----------



## MW

Anton Bruckner said:


> how about anthropomorphic language?



Why should modern "humans" feel the need to explain the understanding of past "humans" in terms of anthropomorphism? Do modern humans think their knowledge of the universe is something more than human? Clearly the desire to explain away an ancient understanding of the universe in terms of anthropomorphism demonstrates that modern man feels a little bit closer to God as a result of his pseudo-science.


----------



## discipulo

armourbearer said:


> Anton Bruckner said:
> 
> 
> 
> how about anthropomorphic language?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should modern "humans" feel the need to explain the understanding of past "humans" in terms of anthropomorphism? Do modern humans think their knowledge of the universe is something more than human? Clearly the desire to explain away an ancient understanding of the universe in terms of anthropomorphism demonstrates that modern man feels a little bit closer to God as a result of his pseudo-science.
Click to expand...


Sometimes I wonder if our Technical approach to creation is not one of the worst features of our fallen mind, maybe Heidegger was right after all.

But a technical approach to Revelation has proved to be deadly.

Bultmann would Demythologize Joshua’s passage in a stroke.

By the way, Bultmann and Heidegger were colleagues at Marburg.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

Is the earth really rotating on it's axis? Or is it really stationary? A few on this list may believe the latter. I, on the other hand, believe the former. If, therefore, I suggest to my children or congregation the idea that God supernaturally halted the rotation of the earth for a period of time, am I guilty of twisting Scripture? Sorry guys, but I still fail to see why so many on this list view such an interpretation of the text as vain speculation and a sell-out to modern science.


----------



## discipulo

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Is the earth really rotating on it's axis? Or is it really stationary? A few on this list may believe the latter. I, on the other hand, believe the former. If, therefore, I suggest to my children or congregation the idea that God supernaturally halted the rotation of the earth for a period of time, am I guilty of twisting Scripture? Sorry guys, but I still fail to see why so many on this list view such an interpretation of the text as vain speculation and a sell-out to modern science.



It was Archimedes who said:

_Give me a steady point and I will lift up the whole world._

When I mentioned Heidegger and Techne, I meant our modern thinking process that tends to feel comfortable only when we understand the mechanics of the universe.

We want to move outside reality and look in with a microscope or a telescope, and if we can control it the better.

I believe this is a result of the moral and noetic effect of the fall on the prelapsarian mandate to subdue the earth.

How do we know that the earth orbits around the sun and revolves around in itself, certainly not through our common human daily and lifetime experience.

I have nothing against science, but then we acquire a laboratory toy principle of the universe, an hyperestesic multidimensional and multireferential awareness of Creation that reminds me of the serpent’s seduction: 

Know more and more and be like God, know good and evil at the same time.

Don't we feel like falling when we think about the galaxies? Have you ever felt an existential leap outside of reality?

A missionary friend of mine used to say that the fall was the only dogma we could prove by personal experience.

The approach to Joshua’s passage that needs to take into consideration scientifical macroscale knowledge in detriment of our finitude, very likely is an unconscious denial of God’s supremacy and sovereignty.

In my humble opinion.


----------



## panta dokimazete

It is not pride nor vain striving to seek out and understand God's workmanship in this Creation. While we may not understand the deep mysteries of the Lord Himself, this present Creation was made for us, with rules and logical sequencing that the Lord allows us to understand with the toolset he has supplied - namely - our minds. We were wired to be inquisitive and interactive, so that we could see, understand with wonder, and glorify God for His creativity - I believe this is the case even with some miraculous events. We can glorify God and be edified by destroying the enemies' logic and presuppositions with our own.


----------



## MW

Why should the findings of the inductive method of scientific enquiry, which only ever claims to provide a working hypothesis until improved by more advanced study, be exalted to the status of "normative," while the historical claims of the Bible, a book accepted as possessing divine and infallible authority, is relegated to the domain of the "figurative?"


----------



## historyb

armourbearer said:


> Why should the findings of the inductive method of scientific enquiry, which only ever claims to provide a working hypothesis until improved by more advanced study, be exalted to the status of "normative," while the historical claims of the Bible, a book accepted as possessing divine and infallible authority, is relegated to the domain of the "figurative?"


I have seen that very dangerous trend ebb and flow. It looks like the trend is starting to flow again and In my humble opinion that is dangerous. The Bible should be placed above man's science In my humble opinion


----------



## Dearly Bought

armourbearer said:


> Why should the findings of the inductive method of scientific enquiry, which only ever claims to provide a working hypothesis until improved by more advanced study, be exalted to the status of "normative," while the historical claims of the Bible, a book accepted as possessing divine and infallible authority, is relegated to the domain of the "figurative?"



Rev. Winzer,
Do you believe that the Scriptures present a geocentric view of the universe?

What are your criteria for discerning between historical claims and poetic language in the Scriptures?


----------



## discipulo

Dearly Bought said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should the findings of the inductive method of scientific enquiry, which only ever claims to provide a working hypothesis until improved by more advanced study, be exalted to the status of "normative," while the historical claims of the Bible, a book accepted as possessing divine and infallible authority, is relegated to the domain of the "figurative?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rev. Winzer,
> Do you believe that the Scriptures present a geocentric view of the universe?
Click to expand...


Just making a couple of questions back

How often do we have any other view? What is the centre of the Universe?


----------



## Confessor

For what it's worth, _heliocentrism_ and _geocentrism _are usually used in the context of deciding what is the center of the _solar system_, not the _universe_.

And to speak as if one view is correct (even as a personal belief) is to presume that motion is absolute rather than relative, and is therefore fallacious.


----------



## Dearly Bought

I guess I should clarify that I do mean a geocentric view of the _solar system_. Thanks.


----------



## discipulo

Confessor said:


> For what it's worth, _heliocentrism_ and _geocentrism _are usually used in the context of deciding what is the center of the _solar system_, not the _universe_.
> 
> And to speak as if one view is correct (even as a personal belief) is to presume that motion is absolute rather than relative, and is therefore fallacious.



Of course, I should have made it clear, the thing is our galaxy is moving, what we know of the universe is expanding (so it seems) and, exactly, there is not an absolute referential centre. Or maybe there is…

Do you think the Incarnation of the Creator is an indifferent matter to the way we view this?


----------



## Confessor

discipulo said:


> Confessor said:
> 
> 
> 
> For what it's worth, _heliocentrism_ and _geocentrism _are usually used in the context of deciding what is the center of the _solar system_, not the _universe_.
> 
> And to speak as if one view is correct (even as a personal belief) is to presume that motion is absolute rather than relative, and is therefore fallacious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, I should have made it clear, the thing is our galaxy is moving, what we know of the universe is expanding (so it seems) and, exactly, there is not an absolute referential centre. Or maybe there is…
> 
> Do you think the Incarnation of the Creator is an indifferent matter to the way we view this?
Click to expand...


No, my point is that it is nonsense to say in the first place "our galaxy is moving" as if this is an absolute thing. You could say that, in arbitrarily establishing outside galaxies as the reference point, it _appears_ our galaxy is moving, but not that our galaxy is moving absolutely. Motion is purely relative. I am not sitting still right now, as the Earth is also rotating. And even to say _that_ statement is to presume absolute motion in a sense, as it could be that the Earth is not rotating at all but everything is revolving around that. To talk about motion assumes a reference point, and this reference point is always arbitrary.

Wow, this blows my mind. I need to think about this more.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

Confessor said:


> For what it's worth, _heliocentrism_ and _geocentrism _are usually used in the context of deciding what is the center of the _solar system_, not the _universe_.
> 
> And to speak as if one view is correct (even as a personal belief) is to presume that motion is absolute rather than relative, and is therefore fallacious.



Ben,

I'm not a trained scientist. But I think I understand your point. The "movement" of one object is measured "in relation to" another object. That other object may be moving too of course. Indeed, isn't it possible that the whole universe might be moving? 

Whatever the case, how would you apply your knowledge of the earth's relation to the sun to a passage like Joshua 10? There, we're told that the sun "stopped" or "ceased." If the verb refers to the cessation of the sun's trajectory across the sky, then how might you explain that phenomenon to an adult SS using the current knowledge we have of the solar system? Would you say, "The sun stopped revolving around the earth"? Would you say, "The earth stopped rotating on its axis so that the sun appeared stationary in the sky"? Would you say, "The movement of heavenly bodies (including the earth) is relative so we really can't know what happened"? Or, would you give some other answer? 

I acknowledge that at one level we don't need to give an answer (in the sense of dogmatizing beyond Scripture and incontrovertible empirical evidence). Perhaps, for all we know, the solar system was "geocentric" in Joshua's day and is now "heliocentric" in our day. But that doesn't seem likely. In any case, my point on this thread is not to suggest that scientific models offered by Christians when interpreting a miracle like that in Joshua 10 should be allowed to controvert the authority of God's word or even attain to a status of absolute certainty. Nevertheless, I don't think it wrong for a pastor, SS teacher, or Christian father to explain to those under his charge, "This is how that miracle may have happened." I think that's all the supernaturalist interpreters are trying to do. In the end, I stand by the proposition with which I ended the first post on this thread: 
the Christian’s belief in an omnipotent God and real miracles, as well the limitations of scientific knowledge, should caution him against the need to find a rational explanation for every miracle recorded in Scripture (see Marten Woudstra, The Book of Joshua [1981], 173-76).​On another note, I would encourage the readers of this post not to dismiss the "hailstorm" interpretation as pure eisegesis and nonsensical. Dr. Robert Wilson has made a good case from cognate linguistic studies that the verb translated "stopped" can mean "cease shining." If I'm not mistaken, one of its Semitic counterparts was used when describing a solar eclipse. The fact that a hailstorm is mentioned in the context and that Hebrew narrative often applies "dischronologization" gives the "hailstorm" interpretation some viability. If you haven't read the arguments for this view, it's worth looking into if for no other reason than to have something to refute. 

Here are some resources:
Ralph Davis, No Falling Words (1988), 84-86.
Walter Kaiser Jr., More Hard Sayings of the Old Testament (1992), 123-26.
E. W. Maunder, “The Battle of Beth-Horon,” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (1939), 1:446-49.
John Rea, “Joshua,” in The Wycliffe Bible Commentary (1963), 218.
Robert D. Wilson, “Understanding ‘The Sun Stood Still,’” in Classical Evangelical Essays in Old Testament Interpretation (1972), 61-65.

Your servant,


----------



## Confessor

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Whatever the case, how would you apply your knowledge of the earth's relation to the sun to a passage like Joshua 10? There, we're told that the sun "stopped" or "ceased." If the verb refers to the cessation of the sun's trajectory across the sky, then how might you explain that phenomenon to an adult SS using the current knowledge we have of the solar system? Would you say, "The sun stopped revolving around the earth"? Would you say, "The earth stopped rotating on its axis so that the sun appeared stationary in the sky"? Would you say, "The movement of heavenly bodies (including the earth) is relative so we really can't know what happened"? Or, would you give some other answer?



My point is that one cannot _possibly_ give an absolute answer on this. *The most one can say is that, from Joshua's perspective, the sun appeared to stop moving across the sky, because any more definitive answer would presume absolute motion, which is impossible.* If we assume that Earth is an arbitrary reference point, then it is true that the sun stopped revolving around the earth. If we assume the sun is an arbitrary reference point, then it is true that the earth stopped rotating for a second. There is no _absolutely_ correct answer, for motion is inherently relative.

Even if someone is running around you in a circle, you cannot say absolutely that he is moving. You can say it and make sense because the reference point of _you_ is assumed in the speech (or more appropriately, the reference point is the earth), but otherwise you cannot say absolutely that he is moving. Establish him as a reference point (albeit, a reference point exerting energy) -- which is perfectly justified BTW, because it's arbitrary -- and now _you're_ the one moving. Pretty cool, huh?



Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Nevertheless, I don't think it wrong for a pastor, SS teacher, or Christian father to explain to those under his charge, "This is how that miracle may have happened." I think that's all the supernaturalist interpreters are trying to do.



I'm not against the _a priori_ possibility of the miracle being a hailstorm or whatever. I agree with your point that it's fine to look into the miracle and try to discern what's going on, iff we never waver in our allegiance to Scriptural authority and maintain a perspicuous exegesis of the text. Regarding this specific passage, I think it reads pretty smoothly as a literal interpretation, and I have no good reason to see it as meaning something else, but if it really binds your conscience in such a way that a hailstorm seems a plausible interpretation, then by all means, state your opinion.

Thank you for listing those sources, too.


----------



## lynnie

And what exactly is the infallible authority that the universe is expanding?

If the speed of light has remained constant since creation then yes, it appears to be expanding.

If however, you take all the measurements of the speed of light ever made and plot them on a graph, even accounting for technological error in older measurements, the speed of light is decreasing at parabolic curve rates (exponential not arithmetic). Barry Setterfield's research is classic.

When man fell and all of creation was subject to decay, you think the universe wasn't subject to any change or decay? Death and decay entered only into carbon based life on earth but not stars and galaxys?

And who exactly says our galaxy is moving? Why are so many things pointing to the centrality of earth...uniformity of background radiation measurements, shells of quasars, etc? The books with their "proofs" of evolution and derision of the ID evidence are the same books with their big bang garbage. The whole visible universe emerged from a point of infinite density smaller than the dot on this i. Yeah right. 

What a joy to know the bible is true in any area it talks about, including astronomy and creation.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Confessor said:


> For what it's worth, _heliocentrism_ and _geocentrism _are usually used in the context of deciding what is the center of the _solar system_, not the _universe_.
> 
> And to speak as if one view is correct (even as a personal belief) is to presume that motion is absolute rather than relative, and is therefore fallacious.



At best, all one could say is that we cannot scientifically determine what is moving and what is at rest. (Not that I personally accept this position)

Therefore the Bible cannot speak on the topic? The Bible can only speak on topics that science has already spoke concerning?

CT


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

lynnie said:


> And what exactly is the infallible authority that the universe is expanding?
> 
> If the speed of light has remained constant since creation then yes, it appears to be expanding.
> 
> If however, you take all the measurements of the speed of light ever made and plot them on a graph, even accounting for technological error in older measurements, the speed of light is decreasing at parabolic curve rates (exponential not arithmetic). Barry Setterfield's research is classic.
> 
> When man fell and all of creation was subject to decay, you think the universe wasn't subject to any change or decay? Death and decay entered only into carbon based life on earth but not stars and galaxys?
> 
> And who exactly says our galaxy is moving? Why are so many things pointing to the centrality of earth...uniformity of background radiation measurements, shells of quasars, etc? The books with their "proofs" of evolution and derision of the ID evidence are the same books with their big bang garbage. The whole visible universe emerged from a point of infinite density smaller than the dot on this i. Yeah right.
> 
> What a joy to know the bible is true in any area it talks about, including astronomy and creation.



Lynnie,

Are you aware that both Hugh Ross and David Snoke raise serious questions concerning Setterfield's claims?


----------



## Confessor

ChristianTrader said:


> Confessor said:
> 
> 
> 
> For what it's worth, _heliocentrism_ and _geocentrism _are usually used in the context of deciding what is the center of the _solar system_, not the _universe_.
> 
> And to speak as if one view is correct (even as a personal belief) is to presume that motion is absolute rather than relative, and is therefore fallacious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At best, all one could say is that we cannot scientifically determine what is moving and what is at rest. (Not that I personally accept this position)
> 
> Therefore the Bible cannot speak on the topic? The Bible can only speak on topics that science has already spoke concerning?
> 
> CT
Click to expand...


No, that's not what I'm saying. My point is that, by virtue of the very nature of motion, it is impossible to say that something is moving _absolutely_. This means that all talk of motion must be interpreted in terms of the reference point. This means that, with Joshua as the reference point, the sun really did stop moving across the sky. And if we take the sun as the reference point, then the earth stopped rotating.

I'm not sure what the big deal is. No one is attacking the authority of Scripture.


----------



## MW

Dearly Bought said:


> Do you believe that the Scriptures present a geocentric view of the universe?
> 
> What are your criteria for discerning between historical claims and poetic language in the Scriptures?



I don't think the Scriptures present any systematic theory with regard to the workings of the universe, but am certain that the earth is theologically centre stage as a matter of course. Nor do I claim to know very much at all about how scientists theorise about such things. But this I know, the miracle was not simply that the sun stood still, but that the sun stood still upon the command of Joshua that it cease moving. So if the sun does not move at all, Joshua's command was misplaced, and the subsequent miracle is exploded. Faced with these facts, I choose to believe the Bible, and trust that men of science will sooner or later arrive at a theory which can accommodate it.

The criteria for discerning figurative language in Scripture must be internal markers within the text itself, not any preconceived idea of what the Scriptures can and cannot declare. Further, even where figurative language is employed, as in Ps. 19 in relation to the unhindered course of the sun, there must be a literal referent in order for such language to make sense.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Confessor said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Confessor said:
> 
> 
> 
> For what it's worth, _heliocentrism_ and _geocentrism _are usually used in the context of deciding what is the center of the _solar system_, not the _universe_.
> 
> And to speak as if one view is correct (even as a personal belief) is to presume that motion is absolute rather than relative, and is therefore fallacious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At best, all one could say is that we cannot scientifically determine what is moving and what is at rest. (Not that I personally accept this position)
> 
> Therefore the Bible cannot speak on the topic? The Bible can only speak on topics that science has already spoke concerning?
> 
> CT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that's not what I'm saying. My point is that, by virtue of the very nature of motion, it is impossible to say that something is moving _absolutely_. This means that all talk of motion must be interpreted in terms of the reference point. This means that, with Joshua as the reference point, the sun really did stop moving across the sky. And if we take the sun as the reference point, then the earth stopped rotating.
> 
> I'm not sure what the big deal is. No one is attacking the authority of Scripture.
Click to expand...


You are confusing motion with the ability to find a non arbitrary reference point. If God says in the Bible, that the earth is fixed and everything else moves around it, our concept of motion does not/would not change. The only thing that would change is our view of what is the absolute reference point.

CT


----------



## Confessor

ChristianTrader said:


> You are confusing motion with the ability to find a non arbitrary reference point.



I'm not sure with this means, but I understand the rest of your post, so I'm not sure it's a problem.



ChristianTrader said:


> If God says in the Bible, that the earth is fixed and everything else moves around it, our concept of motion does not/would not change. The only thing that would change is our view of what is the absolute reference point.



I agree with this absolutely. I do not know why I did not mention it earlier. I should have moved from my position that motion always depends on an arbitrary reference point to the fact that God has decreed that Earth is the reference point -- thus it is non-arbitrary in the truest sense of the term. Thanks for the correction. 

As Rev. Winzer said, if Joshua ordered that the sun stop, then he ordered that the sun actually stop. Earth is in fact the reference point.

I still wonder whether it be permissible to "pretend" that the sun is the reference point for the pragmatic purposes of astronomical equations...I mean, if we use the assumption just to make equations nicer, and all the while realize God's decree of Earth as the center, then it can't be wrong, can it?


----------



## MW

Confessor said:


> I still wonder whether it be permissible to "pretend" that the sun is the reference point for the pragmatic purposes of astronomical equations...I mean, if we use the assumption just to make equations nicer, and all the while realize God's decree of Earth as the center, then it can't be wrong, can it?



It wouldn't be the first time faith must think on a different "trajectory" from sight.


----------



## Hamalas




----------



## Theognome

Confessor said:


> I still wonder whether it be permissible to "pretend" that the sun is the reference point for the pragmatic purposes of astronomical equations...I mean, if we use the assumption just to make equations nicer, and all the while realize God's decree of Earth as the center, then it can't be wrong, can it?



Offhand, I'd say that God is the reference point for the faithful purposes of biblical equations. Measuring God's Word by the minuscule knowledge of scientific man to make His Scripture fit into our own presumptions is akin to saying, "God, we know better now. You better make what you said fit into our current understanding or we'll go build a better god for ourselves."

Does this mean I don't value science? No, but it does mean that science is not the measure of God or His word.

Theognome


----------



## Confessor

Theognome said:


> Offhand, I'd say that God is the reference point for the faithful purposes of biblical equations. Measuring God's Word by the minuscule knowledge of scientific man to make His Scripture fit into our own presumptions is akin to saying, "God, we know better now. You better make what you said fit into our current understanding or we'll go build a better god for ourselves."
> 
> Does this mean I don't value science? No, but it does mean that science is not the measure of God or His word.
> 
> Theognome



I'm not advocating denying a proposition in Scripture because "science says so"; I am advocating that we pretend something contrary to what is the case, and knowing that it is contrary to the case, for the purpose of making equations easier to understand. Then, once we understand the equations under the (false) assumption of heliocentrism, we convert this back to the correct view of geocentrism. It's kind of like speaking through a translator. We change our view to heliocentrism for the sake of understanding, then do our equations and stuff, then change it back to geocentrism.

This is adamantly _not_ a concession or compromise to any view contrary to Scripture, nor is it a denial of biblical propositions. Rather, it is merely an accommodation for man to better understand the universe by putting specific equations in a different scope.


----------



## Theognome

Confessor said:


> Theognome said:
> 
> 
> 
> Offhand, I'd say that God is the reference point for the faithful purposes of biblical equations. Measuring God's Word by the minuscule knowledge of scientific man to make His Scripture fit into our own presumptions is akin to saying, "God, we know better now. You better make what you said fit into our current understanding or we'll go build a better god for ourselves."
> 
> Does this mean I don't value science? No, but it does mean that science is not the measure of God or His word.
> 
> Theognome
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not advocating denying a proposition in Scripture because "science says so"; I am advocating that we *pretend something contrary to what is the case, and knowing that it is contrary to the case, for the purpose of making equations easier to understand*. Then, once we understand the equations under the (false) assumption of heliocentrism, we convert this back to the correct view of geocentrism. It's kind of like speaking through a translator. We change our view to heliocentrism for the sake of understanding, then do our equations and stuff, then change it back to geocentrism.
> 
> This is adamantly _not_ a concession or compromise to any view contrary to Scripture, nor is it a denial of biblical propositions. Rather, it is merely an accommodation for man to better understand the universe by putting specific equations in a different scope.
Click to expand...


(emphasis added)

Brother, if this is not a concession or compromise, then what is? You made it clear that 'pretending' the scripture promotes one thing is needed to understand what it is promoting. How is that different that simply stating, "I don't believe what God wrote"?

This issue is much larger than just the miracle given in the OP, for such methodology _will_ be applied all over God's word to the detriment of the faithful. How many cults have their beginnings in just this kind of isogesis?

Theognome


----------



## lynnie

Dr Bob- not sure of the names but aware of detractors. My favorite young earth creationist is Malcolm Bowden who lays out fairly the critics for many points and also the problems with parts of the creationist model as well.

EVERY model has some problems.

What you have to come back to is the electromagnetic spectrum. Waves behave a certain way when velocities are involved. This is how radar uses radio waves to measure how fast your car is speeding.

If you measure the lightwaves from a star while the earth is (allegedly)moving around the sun towards the star, and then six months later when it is moving away from the star, you would expect to get a speed of c plus or minus the speed of the earth as it orbits the sun. This is basic physics. But you don't, it is zero.

So, you can believe Einstein that the visible light suddenly has this freaky characteristic where when you measure the speed from a moving object you don't add and subtract velocities, the way you do with other waves. Or, you can face the simple fact that we are not orbiting the sun. Take your pick. It's all well laid out in the Association of Biblical Astronomy materials for anybody who wants to find out more. 

And like I said before, both models (geo and helio) work perfectly to predict solar system events. *Copernicus didn't come up with a more accurate model, he came up with a different one that works just as well. You've been hoodwinked and lied to that his model works better. *It doesn't. They both work, and neither can be "proved" by observation standing on the earth. Both are equally acceptable.

I am really a novice at this stuff, so again, I defer any deeper discussion to the authors like Gerhardus Bouw, Bowden, etc.


----------



## Confessor

Theognome said:


> Brother, if this is not a concession or compromise, then what is? You made it clear that 'pretending' the scripture promotes one thing is needed to understand what it is promoting. How is that different that simply stating, "I don't believe what God wrote"?



If I were compromising, I would state that what the Bible states is actually wrong and I'm not going to treat it as correct in what it says.

What I am advocating is that, for the sake of clarity and general cleanness in astronomical equations, we pretend the sun is stationary, do our equations, then convert them back to a geocentric form. This is done all the time with mathematical equations and arguably language translation; everyone realizes that it is only done to make things easier and not to claim that they actually represent reality.

For instance, if I were to attempt to solve the equation (e^x)^2+2e^x+1=0, I could substitute y=e^x to make the equation a bit easier, thus making it y^2+2y+1=0, with the answer being y=-1. Then I could substitute this back into the equation to solve for x, finding that x=ln(-1), which is actually an imaginary number, but whatever. The point is that we can use methods which make equations easier without assuming that, for instance, the equation _really_ is y^2+2y+1=0. We never forget that the equation is in terms of x, and we never forget that the y and x are connected in a specific way (y=e^x) so that we can change the equation back to its original form. It's all a matter of ease of use, not of denying any truths in any way, especially those found in Scripture.



Theognome said:


> How many cults have their beginnings in just this kind of isogesis?



Zero, because they are changing the meaning permanently, and they are not changing for the sake of ease in dealing with equations. In fact, I'm not eisegeting at all. I have already stated that I believe the earth is objectively the center of the universe, and I am only changing this view _temporarily_ to make astronomical equations easier, after which I immediately convert them back to the geocentric model.


----------



## MW

lynnie said:


> They both work, and neither can be "proved" by observation standing on the earth. Both are equally acceptable.



That's basically what I would have thought, but it is good to know there are sound inductive reasons for thinking it.


----------



## discipulo

lynnie said:


> EVERY model has some problems.
> 
> If you measure the lightwaves from a star while the earth is (allegedly)moving around the sun towards the star, and then six months later when it is moving away from the star, you would expect to get a speed of c plus or minus the speed of the earth as it orbits the sun. This is basic physics. But you don't, it is zero.
> 
> .



Is there no measurable Doppler effect – red vs blue difference of frequency ?

Very interesting!!!

Exactly we make models, which is fine really, but it is not Truth.

Einstein realized that gravity affects Light, even if photons have a near zero mass, and behave both like particles while Light is also a wave.

Does present Physics completely understands the origin of gravity?

One would say: of course Newton even got an apple on his head right?

The mass principle applies, but one of CERNs new toy is to understand better 
theory of particles concerning the discrepancy between electromagnetism and gravity.

In fact how gravity force is propagated is virtually unknown since there is only vacuum and some black matter between stars and planets...

Is there a Gravity wave??????

well like there is an electromagnetic wave or a Light ray? We don't know yet...

We talk about gravitational fields, but we don't know what it really is...

So to apply such an uncertain knowledge to Joshua's passage in detriment of Revealed Truth has very serious epistemological consequences. 

And In my humble opinion is very unwise.


----------



## Confessor

lynnie said:


> If you measure the lightwaves from a star while the earth is (allegedly)moving around the sun towards the star, and then six months later when it is moving away from the star, you would expect to get a speed of c plus or minus the speed of the earth as it orbits the sun. This is basic physics. But you don't, it is zero.



All this would mean is that, relatively speaking, neither Earth nor the star is moving in relation to one another. As far as what that scientific discovery entails, it could allow that both Earth and the star be moving at billions of miles per hour -- so long as they both are moving at the same speed and in the same direction.

Thus, while the test of light waves could disprove some single fact (namely that the star is moving in relation to Earth, or vice versa), it cannot in principle disprove heliocentrism, seeing as heliocentrism is based on an arbitrary selection of the sun as the immovable reference point by which motion is understood.

Scripture says that the earth should be the reference point; therefore it is, but based _solely on scientific findings_ there's no way you can disprove heliocentrism, unless you prove the sun doesn't exist or something.


----------



## Wannabee

I've held off making comments in this thread because it's all over the map. But, I do have a couple of observations. Hopefully they'll be helpful.

First, there are some who seem threatened that anyone would attempt to understand how God did something. I know that's not the intention, but it comes across that way. 

Second, it CAN be very dangerous to explain God's providences through modern science. Scripture does not submit to science. True science validates the claims of Scripture. If we approach science with this perspective then we should not be threatened by anything true science puts forth. Much of the problem is the irresponsibility of "scientists" today who depart from true science and justify their own hypotheses and research through misleading information and avowals of ideas as facts. This has shaded our view in many ways.

Overlapping number two, Scripture is absolutely correct in all it's claims. It's not only the measure of faith and practice, but also true in all it's scientific, geographic and historical claims as well. If it fails in any aspect of any of these then it can no longer be trusted. However, since it is the measure then all else must be tested against it, rather than the other way around. Scripture proves nothing. It is not designed to prove anything. It proclaims truth without apology. All else proves Scripture, and therefore God, true.

Explaining certain aspects of God's working is vain and futile. Some of these include the virgin birth, the hypostatic union, resurrections, healings and even the miracles of vicarious atonement, faith and salvation. We can understand it based on what God has given us, and must accept it on faith. If we cannot accept these truths on faith then our faith is no faith at all, but merely judgment of what we deem as true based on our self-proclaimed expertise. Again - vanity.

There are certain miracles that are edifying to discuss and seek out greater understanding. One would be the nature of the flood. Why was there no rain before the flood? What does God mean by water coming from the deep? Was there an ice canopy? What happened to it? Was it a meteor? Was it the hand of God directly moving, creating, breaking down or in some other fashion bringing about this cataclysmic event? In light of this, which is the greater miracle? Is it more miraculous for God to cause the floods to come through direct manipulation of "nature" at the tie of the event? Or, is it a greater miracle for God to set a meteor on course to impact an ice dome that surrounds the earth at the precise moment that would allow all the animals to be in the ark and Noah's family to be safely inside; and to set all of this in motion in the first days of creation? Wow! Either one is mind-blowing, and neither one takes away anything from the power or character of God.

For young-earthers, of which I'm one, have you ever thought of the fact that a star observed going super-nova never really happened? If the light takes 500,000 years to reach the earth from that star and you watch it through a telescope then it couldn't have actually happened if creation is only 6,000 years old. Rather, God created everything, including light rays from supernovas, in an aged condition. Or, perhaps the atrophy of light could somehow explain it. Is there any danger in exploring this possibility? I think it's awesome. The heavens declare the glory of God!

When did God prepare the locusts? Did He create them the moment Moses pronounced the plague, or were the eggs laid normally, but in abundance and nurtured for this purpose? What about the flies? What is burning hail? Is it possible today? Some can explain it with modern science, from what I've heard. But it's beyond me. In some ways I don't care how God did it. Regardless of His means, it's still a miracle because He did it how He did it and when He did it. Even if I can explain that it was a normal cycle in the habits of locusts, the miracle isn't diminished. God timed it all from the foundation fo the world to intersect according to His divine plan. Wow!

In the end all of these discussions must start and end with God. If we start with science then we are idolaters. If we question the verity of God's Word then we are idolaters. If we in any way judge God's Word then we are idolaters. We must begin with Scripture defining our reference points and all else must submit to God as revealed in Scripture. All else must prove Scripture true. If it in any way denigrates Scripture, no matter how persuasive the discussion and research is put forth, or how diligent the scientists are, it must be rejected as anti-Christ.

So, to those on every part of this map, isn't any discussion within these parameters edifying? Can we not strive to know more about God's creation through responsible science, as long as that science begins with God and submits to Scripture first? On the other hand, delving into possibilities based on criteria contrary to Scripture must be avoided at all costs as dangerous to all involved.

Again, may God be true and every man a liar.

As for how God did it, I don't have a clue. Daylight lasted longer than it normally does because God willed it to be so according to His design and for His own good purposes. I'd be interested in knowing how He did it. But all the speculations give us are possibilities of His means. Basically, the biggest miracle here is that the prayer of a man was a means by which God accomplished His purposes. Now that's awesome!


----------



## govols

Wannabee said:


> If the light takes 500,000 years to reach the earth from that star and you watch it through a *microscope *then it couldn't have actually happened if creation is only 6,000 years old.



Great post but I would love for someone to view a super nova under a microscope. Now that would be awesome.

Sorry - couldn't pass it up - carry on.


----------



## discipulo

govols said:


> Wannabee said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the light takes 500,000 years to reach the earth from that star and you watch it through a *microscope *then it couldn't have actually happened if creation is only 6,000 years old.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great post but I would love for someone to view a super nova under a microscope. Now that would be awesome.
> 
> Sorry - couldn't pass it up - carry on.
Click to expand...


in fact it is basically the same thing upside down


----------



## Wannabee

Thanks guys. It's a case of passion overriding clarity, I suppose. Heh, it's not the first time... At least someone was reading it.  It's amended, but I'll treasure you posts for posterity... and humility's sake.


----------



## LawrenceU

I'm not an astrophysicist. I'm merely a pastor. But, I do wonder how we are able to use a heliocentric model of the solar system and its resultant physics thereby placing probes precisely on spot at the far reaches of that solar system if the solar system is in fact geocentric. It seems to me that we would be way off target. I've read some on this and the mathematical arguments just don't seem to work.


----------



## Nate

Wannabee said:


> In the end all of these discussions must start and end with God. If we start with science then we are idolaters. If we question the verity of God's Word then we are idolaters. If we in any way judge God's Word then we are idolaters. We must begin with Scripture defining our reference points and all else must submit to God as revealed in Scripture. All else must prove Scripture true. If it in any way denigrates Scripture, no matter how persuasive the discussion and research is put forth, or how diligent the scientists are, it must be rejected as anti-Christ.




Exactly!

I have to admit, the geocentric arguments brought up by lynnie etc are new to me and profoundly confusing. For instance, I'm sure that since Copernicus's time, measurements have been taken from points removed from the surface of the earth (regarding her last post). 
Don't we have a Professor of physics who is extremely trustworthy on matters of Faith and science somewhere here on the PB? Does anyone know his take?


----------



## lynnie

"Don't we have a Professor of physics who is extremely trustworthy on matters of Faith and science somewhere here on the PB? Does anyone know his take? "

Malcolm Bowden is fully Reformed and co authored a (non creationism) book with the same Dr. Law who wrote some abridged versions of John Owen for Banner of Truth. I'm not quoting some wierd Dispensational dope here


----------



## Nate

lynnie said:


> "Don't we have a Professor of physics who is extremely trustworthy on matters of Faith and science somewhere here on the PB? Does anyone know his take? "
> 
> Malcolm Bowden is fully Reformed and co authored a (non creationism) book with the same Dr. Law who wrote some abridged versions of John Owen for Banner of Truth. I'm not quoting some wierd Dispensational dope here



Sorry, my post probably came out more disrespectful than I intended. I wouldn't expect you to quote some Dispensational dope. I'll need to do some reading by the authors you provided to try and see if I have been hoodwinked.


----------



## lynnie

Nah, you weren't disrespectful. It was a fair question but I don't know of any recent developments with space probes. But you got me interested in reading up more myself, it's been a while


----------



## Hebrew Student

Hey Everyone!



> A variation of this view, points out that in the ancient Near East the simultaneous appearance of the sun and moon in the sky was viewed as a good omen. Hence, Joshua is praying for a visible sign of victory (Boling, p. 284). But it is unlikely that Joshua would have followed an ancient superstition which viewed the sun and moon as deities.



One of the professors here at Trinity, Dr. James Hoffmeier, believes that this was, not Joshua following the pagan superstitions, but asking God to give them an omen that, even in their religious context, would have meant bad news for them. Hence, from the perspective of the pagans, it would be a good sign for their enemies, and a bad omen for them.

I say that this is possible, but not necessary. Because I am not a naturalist, I am willing to consider both interpretation #1 or #2. We have to be careful, because we believe that God controls all things, and he can certainly bring about his purposes by ordaining things to happen as he has before. However, because he is a personal God, he is not obligated to do that. Hence, I am not going to throw an interpretation out because it is consistent with naturalism, but I am also not going to accept it just because it is the only interpretation that is consistent with naturalism.

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## Brian Withnell

Theognome said:


> *VII. God knows mechanical law better than man will ever hope to, so we will never understand it (Theognome).*
> 
> I've had this argument here before. To try to define the miraculous in particular terms that mere man can define under his understanding of mechanical law is presumptuous at best. God does not need to explain His knowledge of the workings of the universe, and science will never proceed to a point where it can define the miraculous. For mankind to be able to do so, man would need comprehensive knowledge of mechanical law- something which man, in his finitude, will never attain. In short, it is a fools discussion, for only a fool would state what God has done through His infinite knowledge.
> 
> Theognome



While God is certainly capable of working without means, it is certainly possible for him to work within means as well. While we can never hope to understand everything that God has done in terms of means, that in no way ought to preclude our investigation into what might be understood in terms of his producing extraordinary providence through means. Some things are beyond means (the virgin birth, the resurrection, and many others) it is a fools errand to look into them, but while that is absolutely true, it is also true that some of what God did might have been by means. 2 Kings 3 is an example where scripture itself tells of the means God used in an extraordinary providence in delivering victory to Israel.

That said, it is also possible that God can work without or against means; when he commands, the universe has no choice but to obey. This specific instance does need an additional possible post ... God chose to work without means and stopped the rotation of the earth with a miracle that did involve not destroying the earth (suspending inertia) or displacing the sun and moon. For all we know, he could have allowed the Israelites to have worked within a time warp in which the rest of the universe was stopped in time, while what they saw was time not changing.

There are two types of errors that I can see as possible. One is insisting that all the details must be able to be understood through ordinary means (the atheist mechanistic universe world view). It is in error because God is not only transcendent, but also imminent. He is beyond creation, but condescends to his creators in revealing himself and interacting with them. The other error is to presume that because we cannot know everything, that we shouldn't bother understanding what is revealed. What is revealed is to us and our children that we may obey God word. All revelation, regardless of special or general, is for us. If God used means, it is perfectly acceptable to look into it, and right for us to do so. If we find that God did not use means, then we glorify him still in his sovereign control of the universe, knowing he is not limited to means.

I find it no less extraordinary that Joseph was called to save his family through means (the "only" miracle was Joseph being told ahead of time what would occur, the rest was through the means of actions by others). God sovereignly worked out his will and accomplished his eternal plan through means in that case. I see no reason why we should not look into the history in order to gain knowledge of external events (even to know why there were seven good years followed by seven bad years if we can discover it ... which might be possible).

It is certainly error to think that we can "explain away" all that is miraculous in scripture; Jesus taking on a human nature is beyond explanation in the extreme. But if a passage talks of something that occurred with means, rather than beyond or against means, it is good to know what God has revealed. While those within "Science" (capital "S") reject God, there is no reason we should not use science (small "s") to understand what we can of how God has accomplished what we can understand.

-----Added 3/22/2009 at 07:24:30 EST-----



Theognome said:


> Speed is not an issue, actually. What these scholars are doing is quite obvious.



Are you saying you know the hearts of all these men? I would not go there.

Brother, tread carefully.


----------



## Brian Withnell

Brad said:


> But, from the perspective of a Hubble telescope, the sun does not revolve around the earth.
> 
> 
> 
> But Dr. Bob, from the Hubble telescope, the Earth revolves around the _Hubble telescope_. By observing the relational movements of heavenly bodies we can deduce mathematically that from the surface of the Sun the Earth revolves around it, that from the surface of the Moon the Earth revolves around it, that from the surface of Jupiter it's moons revolve around it, that from the center of the Milky Way, the Solar system revolves around it, etc. & etc. & etc.
Click to expand...


Brad,

From the perspective of the Cassini space probe, the Earth revolves around the Sun. It is past the orbit of Saturn, and it had to track the position of the Earth the entire time it was in space in order to send back the pictures (it had to have the antenna pointed in the correct direction or it would not have been able to communicate). That leaves us with one of two conclusions: 1) the Earth is the center of the solar system, and God decided to hide that fact from man with every deep space probe we have launched; 2) the heliocentric view of the solar system is correct and those probes do not require continual extraordinary providence in order to keep their antennas pointing toward the Earth as they exit the Earth's orbit around the sun.

Either is fully possible. Yet I doubt that the condescension of God extends to making false presumptions of the mechanics of the universe operate the way we would expect them to operate ... that is, I doubt God would intervene in the moment by moment positioning of the satellite's position to assure the antenna would point back to the earth. Is it possible? Of course it is possible. Is it reasonable to think that? I'm not sure. Is it possible that some of the rejection of science is a fear of "the camel's nose" rather than truly being concerned about a proper view of scripture? I think this may be the case.

In any case, it is the Lord's day, and my heart longs for the corporate worship of God. I look forward to hearing his word.


----------



## Brian Withnell

lynnie said:


> Dr Bob- Thanks.
> 
> To answer your question, both at the center of the solar system and the universe.
> 
> Thanks for the book mention but I'm so die hard young earth thanks to guys like the ones I mentioned that I think I'll never change. I don't know how much things changed after the fall and flood and maybe days and years were longer, but not by the millions and billions of years. The shrinkage of the sun, extrapolated back, has us frying to a crisp and boiling away maybe 100,000- 200,000 years ago or at at least a million years ago. And it gets pretty hot long before that.
> 
> Great subject...can't wait for heaven to learn more!



Please be careful when you start stating "facts" about science. The sun does in fact convert mass into energy (figuratively "burn" off mass) at a rate of 4 million tons a second. But the mass of the sun is about 2 time 10 to the 30th power. In other words, it "burns" off less than a millionth of its mass every million years.

While I don't doubt you believe the person that gave the information to you, it just isn't true. The sun should be growing in size due to reduction in gravity (less mass = less gravity, and the sun will not compress its gas as much over time). The people that originate these things harm the cause of Christ by making it seem Christians will lie to support illogical beliefs. I don't doubt many are duped by such things; I hear "scientific evidence" that just doesn't make sense in many cases.


----------

