Please explain the issues surrounding plenary inspiration and the phenomenological approach, using Joshua 10 as an example

Status
Not open for further replies.

pgwolv

Puritan Board Freshman
Recently, some posts surrounding geocentrism vs. heliocentrism and the sun standing still have come up. I have browsed previous threads on this, but mostly they revolved around the science/natural revelation surrounding it. Some people claimed that sound exegesis/hermeneutics of special revelation demands that the sun physically stood still, not the earth, because the writer of the book of Joshua believed the sun moved around the earth, and God answered his prayer without correcting his knowledge.

From a scientific perspective, the most reasonable exchange in my eyes was as follows:
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.
Confessor said:
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.
Now, I am yet to learn Greek and Hebrew to be able to perform proper exegesis myself. Rev. Winzer and AMR had talked about text needing internal markers to indicate that it may be read figuratively or phenomenologically. Would exegetes from both sides please explain their reading of the text in Joshua 10? Sorry if it is a can of worms, but I would love for some kind of clarity on this issue, as some have pointed out that several doctrines are affected.
 
As Patrick (Ask Mr. Religion) said some years ago:
Ask Mr. Religion said:
...it is a narrative account. Where in this account is the exegetical warrant to read into the account accommodation to error by the writer and/or the viewers of the account or claims of phenomenological wording?...I am eager to be edified by anyone when it comes to understanding Scripture. Can you offer up an analysis of the passages describing the account in question such that we can examine how you view this narrative?
As well as:
Ask Mr. Religion said:
I think verbal plenary inspiration of Scripture and the account of Joshua and the sun literally in our space-time existence standing still trumps the notions in the article. Seems the folks are ignoring the cosmology of Scripture in favor of using just science as an interpretive grid of Scripture. I find nothing in Scripture denying the sun is in motion relative to the earth.
 
I don't own a commentary on Joshua. I can only quote Matthew Henry, for now (I bolded some of it myself):
2. The great faith of Joshua, and the power of God crowning it with the miraculous arrest of the sun, that the day of Israel’s victories might be prolonged, and so the enemy totally defeated. The hail-stones had their rise no higher than the clouds, but, to show that Israel’s help came from above the clouds, the sun itself, who by his constant motion serves the whole earth, by halting when there was occasion served the Israelites, and did them a kindness. The sun and moon stood still in their habitation, at the light of thy arrows which gave the signal, Hab. 3:11.

(1.) Here is the prayer of Joshua that the sun might stand still. I call it his prayer, because it is said (Josh. 10:12) he spoke to the Lord; as Elijah, though we read (1 Kgs. 17:1) only of his prophesying of the drought, yet is said (Jas. 5:17) to pray for it. Observe, [1.] An instance of Joshua’s unwearied activity in the service of God and Israel, that though he had marched all night and fought all day, and, one might expect, would be inclined to repose himself and get a little sleep, and give his army some time to rest—that, like the hireling, he would earnestly desire the shadow, and bid the night welcome, when he had done such a good day’s work—yet, instead of this, he wishes for nothing so much as the prolonging of the day. Note, Those that wait on the Lord and work for him shall renew their strength, shall run and not be weary, shall walk and not faint, Isa. 40:31. [2.] An instance of his great faith in the almighty power of God, as above the power of nature, and able to control and alter the usual course of it. No doubt Joshua had an extraordinary impulse or impression upon his spirit, which he knew to be of divine origin, prompting him to desire that this miracle might be wrought upon this occasion, else it would have been presumption in him to desire or expect; the prayer would not have been granted by the divine power, if it had not been dictated by the divine grace. God wrought this faith in him, and then said, “According to thy faith, and thy prayer of faith, be it unto thee.” It cannot be imagined, however, that such a thing as this should have entered into his mind if God had not put it there; a man would have had a thousand projects in his head for the completing of the victory before he would have thought of desiring the sun to stand still; but even in the Old-Testament saints the Spirit made intercession according to the will of God. What God will give he inclines the hearts of his praying people to ask, and for what he will do he will be enquired of, Ezek. 36:37. Now, First, It looked great for Joshua to say, Sun, stand thou still. His ancestor Joseph had indeed dreamed that the sun and moon did homage to him; but who would have thought that, after it had been fulfilled in the figure, it should be again fulfilled in the letter to one of his posterity? The prayer is thus expressed with authority, because it was not an ordinary prayer, such as is directed and supported only by God’s common providence or promise, but the prayer of a prophet at this time divinely inspired for this purpose; and yet it intimates to us the prevalency of prayer in general, so far as it is regulated by the word of God, and may remind us of that honour put upon prayer (45:11), Concerning the work of my hands command you me. He bids the sun stand still upon Gibeon, the place of action and the seat of war, intimating that what he designed in this request was the advantage of Israel against their enemies; it is probable that the sun was now declining, and that he did not call for the lengthening out of the day until he observed it hastening towards it period. He does likewise, in the name of the King of kings, arrest the moon, perhaps because it was requisite for the preserving of the harmony and good order of the spheres that the course of the rest of the heavenly bodies should be stayed likewise, otherwise, while the sun shone, he needed not the moon; and here he mentions the valley of Ajalon, which was near to Gibeon, because there he was at that time. Secondly, It was bold indeed to say so before Israel, and argues a very strong assurance of faith. If the event had not answered the demand, nothing could have been a greater slur upon him; the Israelites would have concluded he was certainly going mad, or he would never have talked so extravagantly. But he knew very well God would own and answer a petition which he himself directed to be drawn up and presented, and therefore was not afraid to say before all Israel, calling them to observe this work of wonder, Sun, stand thou still, for he was confident in him whom he had trusted. He believed the almighty power of God, else he could not have expected that the sun, going on in its strength, driving in a full career, and rejoicing as a strong man to run a race, should be stopped in an instant. He believed the sovereignty of God in the kingdom of nature, else he could not have expected that the established law and course of nature should be changed and interrupted, the ordinances of heaven, and the constant usage according to these ordinances, broken in upon. And he believed God’s particular favour to Israel above all people under the sun, else he could not have expected that, to favour them upon an emergency with a double day, he should (which must follow of course) amaze and terrify so great a part of the terrestrial globe with a double night at the same time. It is true, he causeth the sun to shine upon the just and the unjust; but for this once the unjust shall wait for it beyond the usual time, while, in favour to righteous Israel, it stands still.

(2.) The wonderful answer to this prayer. No sooner said than done (Josh. 10:13): The sun stood still, and the moon staid. Notwithstanding the vast distance between the earth and the sun, at the word of Joshua the sun stopped immediately; for the same God that rules in heaven above rules at the same time on this earth, and, when he pleases, even the heavens shall hear the earth, as here. Concerning this great miracle it is here said, [1.] That it continued a whole day, that is, the sun continued as long again above the horizon as otherwise it would have done. It is commonly supposed to have been about the middle of summer that this happened, when, in that country, it was about fourteen hours between sun and sun, so that this day was about twenty-eight hours long; yet, if we suppose it to have been at that time of the year when the days are at the shortest, it will be the more probable that Joshua should desire and pray for the prolonging of the day. [2.] That hereby the people had full time to avenge themselves of their enemies, and to give them a total defeat. We often read in history of battles which the night put an end to, the shadows of which favoured the retreat of the conquered; to prevent this advantage to the enemy in their flight, the day was doubled, that the hand of Israel might find out all their enemies; but the eye and hand of God can find them out without the help of the sun’s light, for to him the night shineth as the day, Ps. 139:12. Note, Sometimes God completes a great salvation in a little time, and makes but one day’s work of it. Perhaps this miracle is alluded to Zech. 14:6, 7, where the day of God’s fighting against the nations is said to be one day, and that at evening time it shall be light, as here. And, [3.] That there was never any day like it, before or since, in which God put such an honour upon faith and prayer, and upon Israel’s cause; never did he so wonderfully comply with the request of a man, nor so wonderfully fight for his people. [4.] This is said to be written in the book of Jasher, a collection of state-poems, in which the poem made upon this occasion was preserved among the rest; probably the same with that book of the wars of the Lord (Num. 21:14), which afterwards was continued and carried on by one Jasher. Those words, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon, and thou moon in the valley of Ajalon, sounding metrical, are supposed to be taken from the narrative of this event as it was found in the book of Jasher. Not that the divine testimony of the book of Joshua needed confirmation from the book of Jasher, a human composition; but to those who had that book in their hands it would be of use to compare this history with it, which warrants the appeals the learned make to profane history for corroborating the proofs of the truth of sacred history. [5.] But surely this stupendous miracle of the standing still of the sun was intended for something more than merely to give Israel so much the more time to find out and kill their enemies, which, without this, might have been done the next day. First, God would hereby magnify Joshua (Josh. 3:7) 71dc , as a particular favourite, and one whom he did delight to honour, being a type of him who has all power both in heaven and in earth and whom the winds and the seas obey. Secondly, He would hereby notify to all the world what he was doing for his people Israel here in Canaan; the sun, the eye of the world, must be fixed for some hours upon Gibeon and the valley of Ajalon, as if to contemplate the great works of God there for Israel, and so to engage the children of men to look that way, and to enquire of this wonder done in the land, 2 Chron. 32:31. Proclamation was hereby made to all the neighbouring nations. Come, behold the works of the Lord (Ps. 46:8), and say, What nation is there so great as Israel is, who has God so nigh unto them? One would have supposed that this would bring such real ambassadors as the Gibeonites pretended to be from a very far country, to court the friendship of Israel because of the name of the Lord their God. Thirdly, He would hereby convince and confound those idolaters that worshipped the sun and moon and gave divine honours to them, by demonstrating that they were subject to the command of the God of Israel, and that, as high as they were, he was above them; and thus he would fortify his people against temptations to this idolatry, which he foresaw they would be addicted to (Deut. 4:19), and which, notwithstanding this, they afterwards corrupted themselves with. Fourthly, This miracle signified (it is the learned bishop Pierson’s notion) that in the latter days, when the light of the world was tending towards a light of darkness, the Sun of righteousness, even our Joshua, should arise (Mal. 4:2), give check to the approaching night, and be the true light. To which let me add that when Christ conquered our spiritual enemies upon the cross the miracle wrought on the sun was the reverse of this; it was then darkened as if it had gone down at noon, for Christ needed not the light of the sun to carry on his victories: he then made darkness his pavilion. And, Lastly, The arresting of the sun and moon in this day of battle prefigured the turning of the sun into darkness, and the moon into blood, in the last great and terrible day of the Lord.
It does not seem overly helpful with regards to my specific question.
 
Then also John Gill, quite similar:
sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon, and thou, moon, in the valley of
Ajalon
;
where they now appeared, and were seen by all Israel, the one as if over Gibeon, and the other as in the valley of which Masius thinks is the same with the valley of Gibeon, ( Isaiah 28:21 ) ; and so must be near Gibeon, and the sun and the moon not far from one another, as they might be if it was now new moon, as Kimchi and R. Isaiah; or on the decrease; some say seven days before her change: but Abarbinel is of opinion that it was near the full of the moon, which was just rising in the valley of Ajalon, and the sun near setting as it seemed over Gibeon, and were just opposite one to another; and Joshua fearing he should not have time to pursue his enemies, and make the victory entire, should the sun set, prays that both sun and moon might continue in the position they were; the sun that he might have the benefit of daylight, which was the chief thing desired; the moon being only mentioned, that the heavenly motions might not be confounded, and the order of the orbs disturbed
 
Thanks to Puritan Search, I also got the following:
Vers. 12. Then spake Joshua unto the Lord in the day when the Lord delivered up the Amorites, &c.] For the better understanding of this miraculous passage concerning Joshuas commanding the sun to stand still, we must know, first, That whereas it is said in the first place, that Joshua spake to the Lord, thereby is meant, that he did first pray unto the Lord, that this miracle might be wrought, and that to the end they might have the more time to pursue and destroy the Amorites, and then by the same special instinct of God's spirit that moved him to desire this of God, being fully assured that God had heard his prayer, and that what he desired should be done, he commanded the sun to stand still, &c. secondly, That whereas in the next clause it follows, and he said in the sight of all Israel, Sun stand thou still, &c. this is added to show the assurance of his faith; because he was so undoubtedly persuaded that God would certainly do what he had prayed for, and desired the people should take notice of it for their future encouragement, openly in the presence of all the people he looked up to the heavens, and speaking as it were to the sun, said, Sun stand thou still, &c. and happily with relation to the people's gazing upon him, when in so strange a manner they saw him look up to the sun and command the sun to stand still, this phrase is used, and he said, not in the audience but in the sight of all Israel, Sun stand thou still, &c. thirdly, That for the words themselves which Joshua spake, Sun stand thou still upon Gibeon, and thou moon in the valley of Ajalon; there is nothing can be certainly concluded, but that he did as it were adjure the sun and moon by the Almighty power of God, to stand still just in the place wherein they were when he spake unto them, that so the sun might still give light till they had made an end of pursuing and destroying their enemies, and that hereby must needs be intended the stay of the whole body of the moveable heaven, together with the sun and the moon; for it cannot be meant of staying that peculiar motion of the Orbs of the sun and moon, whereby they move severally from the west to the east (for the lengthening of the day could not depend upon that) but it must be meant of the motion of the heaven, whereby the sun and moon together with all the other heavenly Orbs, are carried about by the motion of the supreme Sphere, in the space of four and twenty hours from the east to the west: Some indeed would conclude from these words, that it was at noon day when Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, namely, because it was when the sun was right over Gibeon, as the words they say imply, Sun stand thou still upon Gibeon; and that therefore also it is said verse. 13. so the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and then they take the next clause to be added, and thou moon in the valley of Ajalon, by way of expressing the same thing in other words, to wit, that the moon also should stand still and not bring in night upon them. Again, others would infer from these words that it was towards sunneset when Joshua commanded the sun to stand still; and that first, Because it is most probable that the fear of want of daylight to pursue the enemy when he saw the sun decline apace towards its setting, was the occasion that moved Joshua to desire this miraculous stay of the sun: and secondly, Because the words seem to imply that he saw the moon also, when he said, and thou moon in the valley of Ajalon; as indeed about the new of the moon it is usually seen towards sun-setting. But I say, neither of these can be gathered from the text. The drift doubtless of Joshua was only to express that the heavenly Orbs should stand still to the end the sun might not set but continue still to give them light in those parts, only the more rhetorically to set forth the wonder of the miracle, he mentions both sun and moon the two great lights of heaven together with Gibeon and Ajalon two places not far distant one from another; Sun stand thou still upon Gibeon, and thou moon in the valley of Ajalon.
- Arthur Jackson (1593-1666), Annotations upon the remaining historical part of the Old Testament

I do not know the credentials of this brother, but he seemed to believe the words do not necessitate that the solar orb itself had to stand still.
 
Edward Marbury (1581-ca.1655) in his commentary on Habakkuk 3:11:

Verse 11. The Sun and Moon stood still in their habitation: at the light of thine arrows they went, at the shining of thy glittring spear...​


Then spake Joshua to the Lord, in the day when the Lord delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel: Sun stand thou still upon Gibeon, and thou Moon in the valley of Ajalon.

And the Sun stood still, and the Moon stayed until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies: Is not this written in the book of Jasher? so the Sun stood still in the midst of Heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

And there was no day like that before it nor after it, that the Lord hearkened to the voice of a man: for the Lord fought for Israel.

This is the wonder that Habakkuk our Prophet doth here commemorate, a miracle yet fresh in the memory of the Church, yet by computation of times from the time of Joshua, when this was done to this time of Habakkuk: when this is remembered were past, more then 700 years.

Habakkuk doth well to remember this, for of all the miracles that God wrought for Israel, this was the greatest; here Heaven fought against Earth, the Sun and Moon stood still to give light to the Battail, and the faithful witnesses of Heaven (so the Sun is called) staid his course to bear witness how God fought for Israel.

We may truly say to Israel, Tibi militat aether: Observe the words of the Prophet, how well they follow the history in Joshua. Habukkuk saith,

The Sun and Moon stood still in their habitation, they stood in their several sphere wherein they move, for these be their habitations, and note that they both stood still, Sun and Moon. For the Moon borrowing all her light of the Sun, had she kept her course while the Sun had stood still the length of a day, there had been great irregularity of motion in these Caelestiall bodies, from the constant order set them by their Maker in their Creation.

Observe also, that he doth not say the earth stood still, but the Sun: it had been, as some said, the Earth and the Moon stood still as the Sun and the Moon, and our understanding would have as soon apprehended, if that new Astronomy had had been then revealed, which some of our Empericks, and Journeymen in that excellent Science of Astronomy have of late revived in their Almanacs, telling the world that they have long been in a wrong belief, that the Sun moveth, and the earth is fixed, for they believe that the Sun is fixed, and the earth is moved.

And to evade the clear evidence of this text, which tells it for a wonder that the Sun stood still, they say, this is spoken to our capacity, because to our sight it so seemeth, that the Sun moveth, and the earth is fixed, but indeed it is otherwise.

Our capacity I think hath much wrong done in this, for if the Word of God had told us, that God had created the Sun to stand still, and the Earth to move, it is more likely that we should have taken his Word for it, and have believed it as it is, as well as now we believe it, as it appears.

We are neither incapable nor incredulous, but that many against the letter of Scripture have written, and made more believe, that the Sun stands still from the creation.

The common defense of this opinion grounded upon God's application of himself, to human capacity, doth make figures in story where is no need, and maketh David a man of small judgment in the knowledge of the Sun, who saith, that God hath set a tabernacle for the Sun in the Heavens, (called here) an habitation, Which is a Bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth, as a strong man, to run his race.

His going forth is from the end of the Heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it.

Doth not this Prophet speak of the glory of God, declared in the motion, not the station of the Sun? or in the glory of God shown in our opinion of the Suns motion, not in the truth thereof.

Greater secrets then this are revealed in holy Scripture, which are against the vouchie of the outward sense, or the rational discourse of man, and no doubt, but if the Sun had stood still, and the earth that we live upon had moved, when this miracle was by the spirit of truth recorded, it had been so set down to us
 
PG, I feel like I reiterate this often, but when we look to understand a writing, we should ask ourselves both what it is teaching, and what it is not teaching.

What I mean is, people will read someone like Calvin and say "well, Calvin was talking about X, but he didn't mention Y, therefore he didn't have a problem with Y." If the original author did not intend for certain conclusions to be drawn, then be very, very careful about drawing those conclusions.

I believe the Geocentrists get side-tracked on the Joshua 10 passage. They say Joshua commanded to sun to stand still, and the Holy Spirit says that the sun stood still. Therefore cosmology is geocentric. Seems reasonable on the surface.

But is the Holy Spirit teaching anything about cosmology in this passage? I don't see how it even touches on a cosmological model, let alone heliocentricity or geocentricity. To believe it does is to already read your own views into it.

The geocentrist insists that one should read it as a historical passage (agreed) and therefore, if this historical passage says the sun stood still, then it didn't just stand still in the sky (despite it basically saying just that), but in the universe (disagree that that is a necessary conclusion).

Ask the geocentrist if they also believe that the sun literally stood "still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon." Or was that from Joshua's vantage point? This region is not on the equator, so did the sun move up to Gibeon and the Moon move in the valley of Ajalon? Even the geocentrist (who insists that as a historical event, this must be read a certain way) doesn't interpret this part literally, but only as it appeared to Joshua.

Assume for a moment that the Holy Spirit knows the universe is geocentric. How would he (or Joshua, or us) describe the event: the sun stood still. Assume for a moment that the Holy Spirit knows the universe is heliocentric. He (or Joshua, or us) would describe it the exact same way. So this passage cannot be made to teach for or against either cosmology. That's not what the intent is at all so don't make it do so. The intent is to clearly communicate the miracle. The passage does this beautifully, we can all see it in our mind without needing to develop a cosmological model.

You can find people using it to argue one way or the other (as you have). They have their own biases and historical context. Don't for a moment think that they weren't influenced by their own context, as godly as they were. We all are.
 
PG, I feel like I reiterate this often, but when we look to understand a writing, we should ask ourselves both what it is teaching, and what it is not teaching.

What I mean is, people will read someone like Calvin and say "well, Calvin was talking about X, but he didn't mention Y, therefore he didn't have a problem with Y." If the original author did not intend for certain conclusions to be drawn, then be very, very careful about drawing those conclusions.

I believe the Geocentrists get side-tracked on the Joshua 10 passage. They say Joshua commanded to sun to stand still, and the Holy Spirit says that the sun stood still. Therefore cosmology is geocentric. Seems reasonable on the surface.

But is the Holy Spirit teaching anything about cosmology in this passage? I don't see how it even touches on a cosmological model, let alone heliocentricity or geocentricity. To believe it does is to already read your own views into it.

The geocentrist insists that one should read it as a historical passage (agreed) and therefore, if this historical passage says the sun stood still, then it didn't just stand still in the sky (despite it basically saying just that), but in the universe (disagree that that is a necessary conclusion).

Ask the geocentrist if they also believe that the sun literally stood "still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon." Or was that from Joshua's vantage point? This region is not on the equator, so did the sun move up to Gibeon and the Moon move in the valley of Ajalon? Even the geocentrist (who insists that as a historical event, this must be read a certain way) doesn't interpret this part literally, but only as it appeared to Joshua.

Assume for a moment that the Holy Spirit knows the universe is geocentric. How would he (or Joshua, or us) describe the event: the sun stood still. Assume for a moment that the Holy Spirit knows the universe is heliocentric. He (or Joshua, or us) would describe it the exact same way. So this passage cannot be made to teach for or against either cosmology. That's not what the intent is at all so don't make it do so. The intent is to clearly communicate the miracle. The passage does this beautifully, we can all see it in our mind without needing to develop a cosmological model.

You can find people using it to argue one way or the other (as you have). They have their own biases and historical context. Don't for a moment think that they weren't influenced by their own context, as godly as they were. We all are.
In other words, exegesis is beside the point when you ask the wrong question?
 
Recently, some posts surrounding geocentrism vs. heliocentrism and the sun standing still have come up. I have browsed previous threads on this, but mostly they revolved around the science/natural revelation surrounding it. Some people claimed that sound exegesis/hermeneutics of special revelation demands that the sun physically stood still, not the earth, because the writer of the book of Joshua believed the sun moved around the earth, and God answered his prayer without correcting his knowledge.

From a scientific perspective, the most reasonable exchange in my eyes was as follows:


Now, I am yet to learn Greek and Hebrew to be able to perform proper exegesis myself. Rev. Winzer and AMR had talked about text needing internal markers to indicate that it may be read figuratively or phenomenologically. Would exegetes from both sides please explain their reading of the text in Joshua 10? Sorry if it is a can of worms, but I would love for some kind of clarity on this issue, as some have pointed out that several doctrines are affected.
You likely already know this, but many or all of Rev. Winzer's comments on the aspect of phenomenological markers in the text can be found by typing the word, or derivatives, into the search bar and putting MW in the "by" field.
 
Last edited:
You likely already know this, but many or all of Rev. Winzer's comments on the aspect of phenomenological markers in the text can be found by typing the word, or derivatives, into the search bar and putting MW in the "by" field.
I think I read all of his comments already, but I think Logan is right; exegetically, the sun stood still in the sky, in the same way as it does to us. We aren't making a cosmological statement when we talk about the sun coming up and going down
 
Assume for a moment that the Holy Spirit knows the universe is geocentric. How would he (or Joshua, or us) describe the event: the sun stood still. Assume for a moment that the Holy Spirit knows the universe is heliocentric. He (or Joshua, or us) would describe it the exact same way. So this passage cannot be made to teach for or against either cosmology. That's not what the intent is at all so don't make it do so. The intent is to clearly communicate the miracle. The passage does this beautifully, we can all see it in our mind without needing to develop a cosmological model.

I think this is pretty hard to argue against if one accepts the basic premise of Accommodation - and the use of phenomenological language is of course inherent in that process. Further, if the questions raised in the Joshua passage are fully addressed using this approach (and they are), then it seems foolish to insist that what is now scientifically observable should nonetheless be denied and overthrown. Again, making a biblical passage say something it doesn't explicitly convey, or necessarily intend to, can have the very opposite effect from that which such insistence purports to achieve, namely, maintaining and protecting the integrity of Scripture.
 
Last edited:
"First, the subject of the verb wayyōʾmer, “and he said,” is not specified, and it is at least possible that God, not Joshua, is the speaker; the grammar would certainly allow for this, even if it is not the first probability. Second, even though the text says that Joshua “spoke to the Lord,” the words spoken were actually addressed directly to the sun and the moon, not to the Lord. Many commentators have noted this, and some have attributed this to layers of tradition that have been stitched together in this passage, while others have stated that Joshua was addressing the sun and the moon through the power of God, or that he was actually praying to God.199 However, this tension would be resolved much more easily if it were God speaking rather than Joshua. This suggestion is made more plausible when we remember that God is a far more appropriate subject than Joshua to have addressed the sun and moon directly with a command such as this: he created them, and he was their sovereign (Gen 1:14–17; Isa 40:26; Jer 31:35). If this is the case, then we have in these verses evidence of God taking the initiative and demonstrating his great power over these natural phenomena, speaking directly to them, ordering them to obey his command.

In line with this, the end of v. 14 states, “Surely the Lord was fighting for Israel,” which can shed some light on a statement in v. 13 (usually read “until the nation avenged itself on its enemies”). If God, in his capacity as their sovereign, commanded the sun and the moon to take their positions, and if, as we have noted in connection with vv. 10–11, God was ultimately solely responsible for doing battle with the Amorites, then here too it should not surprise us p 241 if God—rather than the Israelites—is described as taking vengeance upon his enemies. This is precisely what the Old Greek states, which reads in v. 13: “until God took vengeance on their enemies.” If this is the original reading, then the entire text is consistent: God was the one who sent the hailstorm and struck down the Amorites (v. 11), who commanded the sun and the moon to obey him (v. 12), who avenged himself upon Israel’s enemies (v. 13); in short, God fought for Israel (v. 14). Even if the word “God” is not added to the text, we can still see him as the subject of the verb “take vengeance” by postulating that the consonant m dropped out of the text just after the verb, which ends with an m (nqm). Then, the Hebrew would read “until he [i.e., God] took vengeance against the nation of his enemies.” Thus, in the exposition below, we assume that God was the one who spoke to the sun and the moon, not Joshua (see the translation of vv. 12–14 given near the end of this discussion)."

- David Howard, Joshua, NAC
 
I think I read all of his comments already, but I think Logan is right; exegetically, the sun stood still in the sky, in the same way as it does to us. We aren't making a cosmological statement when we talk about the sun coming up and going down
What do you (and others) make of the fact that the Holy Spirit tells us that “the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.”

What do folks think happened there? And what are some comments on this being the Holy Spirit telling the reader what happened in a historical event?
 
"Proposal 1: The Earth Stopped Rotating. Traditionally, it has been assumed that a miracle of colossal magnitude took place, that the sun actually stopped in its course across the sky (as well as the moon)—or, in terms of modern science, that the earth’s rotation stopped. The apocryphal book called The Wisdom of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) states, “Was it not through [Joshua] that the sun stood still and one day became as long as two?” (Sir 46:4, NRSV),202 and Josephus likewise claimed that this day was longer than the ordinary day (Ant. 5.1.17). This interpretation has been supported by a long line of Christian and Jewish interpreters, including Augustine, Jerome, Luther, and Calvin, and various rabbinical commentators.

In modern times, some Bible students have claimed to verify this by referring to supposed calculations showing that precisely one day is missing from astronomical history and that this missing day is accounted for by the extra “day” in Joshua 10 and the ten steps (degrees?) that the sun went backwards in Hezekiah’s time (2 Kgs 20:9–11). In one such account, it is claimed that a Professor Pickering of the Harvard Observatory traced this missing day back to Joshua’s time, and that the ten “degrees” in Hezekiah’s time were verified by astronomers from Greenwich and Yale. However, such claims have not been verified; they only exist in popular-level works on the Bible and science.

Another, more recent story makes the same claims—that twenty-three hours and twenty minutes are missing, to be ascribed to Joshua’s long day, and the remaining forty minutes are due to the event in Hezekiah’s day—but it ascribes this to “our astronauts and space scientists at Green Belt Maryland,” who stumbled across the missing day in the course of “checking the position of the sun, moon and planets out in space where they would be one hundred and one thousand years from now.” It is claimed that the computer running the measurements came to a halt, until one scientist recalled stories from his Sunday School days that might explain this; following a quick check of the Bible, the calculations verified Joshua’s long day and the ten degrees of Hezekiah, and the project was able to proceed. It is difficult to regard such unverified accounts as belonging to anything but a variety of the “urban legend” genre.

Nevertheless, the traditional interpretation cannot be ruled out merely because it involves a phenomenon of colossal magnitude that modern science would dismiss out of hand because it cannot be verified, or because certain attempts to verify it have no credibility.

Proposal 2: The Sun’s Light Lingered. Many scholars have sought explanations in various natural phenomena. It is objected that, while God certainly p 243 is capable of performing a miracle on such a grand scale as stopping the earth on its axis, this is out of proportion to his normal ways of working, and so other naturalizing explanations are advanced. Thus, some have proposed a refraction of light that allowed for more light in order that the battle might be completed. Another proposal is that light was diffused due to a rain of meteorites.207

Proposal 3: The Sun’s Light Was Blocked. Others argue that there was less light, not more, and that a solar eclipse is in view here, basing their argument in part on understanding the verb dmm (in vv. 12b and 13a) as “to be dark,” rather than its more common translation, “to cease” or “to be quiet.” The idea is that the sun ceased from shining, not from moving in its course across the sky. A related proposal states that Joshua’s request was for relief from the heat of the sun, in order that the battle might be fought to its conclusion. Thus, the sun “ceased” from shining due to the cloud cover associated with the hailstorm (v. 11), which at the same time killed many of the enemy and gave welcome relief from the sun’s heat to the Israelites. However, these views do not explain how the cloud cover would not have refreshed the Amorites as well as the Israelites. Furthermore, they do not adequately account for the parallelism of the verbs in these two verses, dmm and ʿmd (“stand”; see below).

Proposal 4: A Special Sign Was Involved. Another set of approaches sees in Joshua’s words a request for an omen involving astrological signs. These approaches consider the episode here in the context of ancient Near Eastern culture, where the movements of the sun, moon, stars, and planets were watched carefully as signs of good or ill fortune. In these interpretations, there was no extraordinary interruption of the movement of heavenly bodies, only an alignment that could be taken as a good or evil omen. Thus, one scholar first proposed that Joshua’s request was for a favorable sign for Israel, one in which both the sun and moon would be visible at the same time: the sun rising and standing in the sky in the east before the moon had set in the west. The sun would “stop” or “wait” in opposition to the moon, which “stood” or “waited” for the sun. This typically was the fourteenth day of the month in p 244 ancient Near Eastern omen texts. A slight variation on this argues that, since the Canaanites would likely have seen such an opposition as a sign favorable to them as well (not as an evil omen), Joshua’s request was uttered as a polemic in order to demonstrate to the Canaanites that he could control these elements of nature simply by praying to his God. Another variation suggests that Joshua’s request was for the sun and moon to stand in opposition, not on the fourteenth day of the month, which the Canaanites would have seen as propitious for them, but rather on the fifteenth, which they would have interpreted as an evil omen for them. Joshua himself need not have believed in such omens, but he asked for this knowing that his enemies would have, thus using their own beliefs against them.212

These approaches have the advantage that such omens were clearly part of the cultural and religious environment of the ancient Near East, and it is possible that such a practice was followed here. They have the disadvantage, however, that the text itself gives no indication at all that omens or signs (for good or for evil) were in view here. If what occurred was such a radical event as an omen that the Gibeonites would have interpreted as having been a message to them from Israel’s God (whether portending victory for Israel or boding ill for them), then we should expect some sort of indication that they indeed feared the Israelites or their God and that the omen or sign was effective.

Proposal 5: The Passage Is Figurative. Two proposals take into account the nature of poetry, since vv. 12b–13a (and possibly v. 13b, as well) are poetic (see NIV’s layout). One such proposal is that the words spoken to the sun and moon in v. 12b originated with the poet who authored the fragment (and perhaps the book), not with Joshua or Yahweh, and they were a command to these heavenly bodies to “be speechless with terror, be stunned into motionless rigidity,” that is, that they should have “a stunned reaction in the face of a startling catastrophe or astonishing revelation.” This proposal has support in that dmm, “to be quiet,” does indeed indicate on occasion “silence in the face of an impending catastrophe or one that has already struck, or in preparation for a revelation.” It rests on the analogy of such poetic passages as Exod 15:16, where the Moabites, Edomites, and Canaanites are p 245 terrified of Israel: “Terror and dread will fall upon them. // By the power of your arm they will be as still (dmm) [i.e., dumbstruck, silent, in awe] as a stone //—until your people pass by, O Lord,” or Hab 3:11, which states that “sun and moon stood still (ʿmd) [i.e., were dumbstruck, silent, in awe] in the heavens // at the glint of your flying arrows, at the lightning of your flashing spears.” This is an attractive option, since it deals with the language of the text on its own terms, but it suffers from the (perhaps fatal) objection that v. 13b makes it clear that the position or movement of the sun and moon were integral parts of the phenomenon; they were not just passive addressees, as this proposal would have it."

- David Howard, Joshua, NAC
 
What do you (and others) make of the fact that the Holy Spirit tells us that “the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.”

What do folks think happened there? And what are some comments on this being the Holy Spirit telling the reader what happened in a historical event?

You don’t think the Spirit himself can or does use speech that identifies with our view and observation of things?
 
You don’t think the Spirit himself can or does use speech that identifies with our view and observation of things?
No.. I would not think that God would in any way tell a falsehood. Can you think of another historical narrative where God is said to do as you asked? (Remembering that figurative language is different from phenomenological.)

I'm sincerely asking!
 
Does the fact that the Bible places the seat of a person's thinking in the heart (or sometimes in the kidneys) mean that we have to disagree with neuro-science? Scripture is full of phenomenological language - and phenomenological language is in no sense a "falsehood" so please can we avoid such emotive language?
 
No.. I would not think that God would in any way tell a falsehood. Can you think of another historical narrative where God is said to do as you asked? (Remembering that figurative language is different from phenomenological.)

I'm sincerely asking!

I am not exactly sure what you mean by “narrative of the Holy Spirit”, because, after all, it’s the Spirit through the mouth and pen of Joshua, is it not? Why is phenomenological language no option here, in your opinion? (Sorry if I don’t get your point, yet)
 
I am not exactly sure what you mean by “narrative of the Holy Spirit”, because, after all, it’s the Spirit through the mouth and pen of Joshua, is it not? Why is phenomenological language no option here, in your opinion? (Sorry if I don’t get your point, yet)
Are the historical narrative passages in Scripture to be taken as fact, given to us by the Holy Spirit? Or can the writer under inspiration of the Holy Spirit tell a falsehood? "Falsehood" shouldn't be an inflammatory word here; I simply mean tell something as fact that wasn't true. Where would this leave us, if we believe the answer to the second question is "yes,' with the other historical narratives of the Bible?

Joshua penned the book, but he was inspired of the Spirit to tell the church what happened. It's one thing for Joshua to have told us that he commanded the sun and moon; but another thing for Joshua to tell us, under inspiration of the Spirit, that the sun and moon indeed stood still, and for how long, etc.
 
Judges 2:15 "Whithersoever they went out, the hand of the LORD was against them for evil..."

This is a historical narrative to be taken as fact, given to us by the Holy Spirit. So we must believe that God has a hand or else this is a falsehood? Is it telling something as fact that isn't true? Or is it using merely descriptive human language that everyone can clearly understand?
 
Judges 2:15 "Whithersoever they went out, the hand of the LORD was against them for evil..."

This is a historical narrative to be taken as fact, given to us by the Holy Spirit. So we must believe that God has a hand or else this is a falsehood? Is it telling something as fact that isn't true? Or is it using merely descriptive human language that everyone can clearly understand?

I think she differentiates between phenomenological language and figurative language. And she wanted to have other places in Scripture where phenomenological language is used in a similar fashion. Do we find any? I don’t know. This is how I understand this post:

No.. I would not think that God would in any way tell a falsehood. Can you think of another historical narrative where God is said to do as you asked? (Remembering that figurative language is different from phenomenological.)

I'm sincerely asking!
 
Are the historical narrative passages in Scripture to be taken as fact, given to us by the Holy Spirit? Or can the writer under inspiration of the Holy Spirit tell a falsehood? "Falsehood" shouldn't be an inflammatory word here; I simply mean tell something as fact that wasn't true. Where would this leave us, if we believe the answer to the second question is "yes,' with the other historical narratives of the Bible?

Joshua penned the book, but he was inspired of the Spirit to tell the church what happened. It's one thing for Joshua to have told us that he commanded the sun and moon; but another thing for Joshua to tell us, under inspiration of the Spirit, that the sun and moon indeed stood still, and for how long, etc.

Doesn’t the fact that Joshua 10:13 speaks of the sun “not setting” negate your argument? Since the sun doesn’t really do that, but only appears to. What do you think?
 
Perhaps this document will help the discussion? (Answers Research Journal 10 (2017):115–120. Kevin Short, Ph.D. Student, Apologetics and Worldview, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Kentucky.)

In the final part, he states: "In describing the appearances of what was seen, the inerrantist claims that the Old Testament uses language shaped by ancient metaphysics to present truths of history and theology. The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, then, is correct to distinguish between phenomenological language and errors. While Christians should believe that the Bible commits no errors in matters of science (and that all such errors rest on inadequate understandings of Scripture’s meanings) it must be remembered that the Old Testament is not an astronomical manual; the references to the heavens are incidental in discussions of broader theological truths."
 
Are the historical narrative passages in Scripture to be taken as fact, given to us by the Holy Spirit? Or can the writer under inspiration of the Holy Spirit tell a falsehood? "Falsehood" shouldn't be an inflammatory word here; I simply mean tell something as fact that wasn't true. Where would this leave us, if we believe the answer to the second question is "yes,' with the other historical narratives of the Bible?

Joshua penned the book, but he was inspired of the Spirit to tell the church what happened. It's one thing for Joshua to have told us that he commanded the sun and moon; but another thing for Joshua to tell us, under inspiration of the Spirit, that the sun and moon indeed stood still, and for how long, etc.

In simplest terms, Divine Accommodation means that God uses language in Scripture that finite humans are able to relate to and understand. While this is especially noticeable in figurative and theological contexts, there is no good reason to suppose this principle wouldn't extend to historical narratives as well, regardless of the frequency of such examples. Accommodation would indeed seem quite necessary in this particular case, given that the mechanics of cosmology were then still largely uninvestigated, and thus unknown (that era effectively commenced with Copernicus).

With regard to Joshua's wording, it seems most reasonable to believe his request was made according to the relatively limited cosmological knowledge that people had at the time. As such, his phrasing would understandably have been based on his normal human sensory perception and geophysical perspective, in much the same way as all of us still speak today. Even while Joshua's directive was technically incorrect, God still graciously accommodated its intent and purpose by performing the spectacular miracle that He did, without first giving Joshua a corrective lesson in astronomy. In a phrase: Divine Accommodation.

I believe all this makes complete sense of the way the event was recorded, especially during the time in history that it was. That's basically what Logan was also getting at earlier:

Assume for a moment that the Holy Spirit knows the universe is geocentric. How would he (or Joshua, or us) describe the event: the sun stood still. Assume for a moment that the Holy Spirit knows the universe is heliocentric. He (or Joshua, or us) would describe it the exact same way. So this passage cannot be made to teach for or against either cosmology. That's not what the intent is at all so don't make it do so. The intent is to clearly communicate the miracle. The passage does this beautifully, we can all see it in our mind without needing to develop a cosmological model.

Divine Accommodation can in no way be construed as being false or untrue. It is in fact a necessary construct that God graciously uses to communicate with his finite, fallen creatures.
 
Last edited:
I think she differentiates between phenomenological language and figurative language. And she wanted to have other places in Scripture where phenomenological language is used in a similar fashion. Do we find any? I don’t know. This is how I understand this post:

And the question I would ask is: "why should I accept the premise of that distinction and that different rules (falsehood/not falsehood) apply to them?"
 
What do you (and others) make of the fact that the Holy Spirit tells us that “the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.”
From the point of view of earth, this is exactly what happened. It is true, from our perspective, our reference point. Biblical language tends to be geocentric, in the sense that most of it is presented from the perspective of earth and man.

On Creation Ministries International, I found what seems to be phenomenological language; this time nauticocentric rather than geocentric, according to Robert Carter and Jonathan Sarfati. Perhaps someone can confirm the Greek sentence construction?
And it’s not just us: the leading Roman poet Virgil (70–19 BC) wrote, “We set out from harbour, and lands and cities recede” (Aeneid 3:72). This line was quoted by both Copernicus and Kepler. Similarly, in inspired Scripture itself, there is Acts 27:27, where the Greek literally says, “toward the middle of the night the sailors began sensing some land to be drawing near to them” (Berean Literal Bible, the most literal translation that keeps the Greek accusative and infinitive construction) or “toward the middle of the night the sailors were supposing that some country drew nigh to them” (Young’s Literal Translation, which keeps the sense but in a more normal English phrasing). These are both cases of what could be called a nauticocentric reference frame, which shows that the geocentric reference frame was not the only one chosen by ancient people.
 
And the question I would ask is: "why should I accept the premise of that distinction and that different rules (falsehood/not falsehood) apply to them?"

You don’t accept that speaking of outward things as they appear to the eye is different than to speak of the nostrils of God in regards of his anger? I think she got a point here. And so we would have to prove that phenomenological language is being used in Scripture as an acceptable and sound device to describe reality from other places, because otherwise we would be arguing in circles and just assume what is to be proven.

And ye I just hinted at Joshua 10:13, let’s see what she has to say about that.
 
No.. I would not think that God would in any way tell a falsehood. Can you think of another historical narrative where God is said to do as you asked? (Remembering that figurative language is different from phenomenological.)

I'm sincerely asking!
And so we would have to prove that phenomenological language is being used in Scripture as an acceptable and sound device to describe reality from other places, because otherwise we would be arguing in circles and just assume what is to be proven.
So, apart from the apparent phenomenonological language used in Acts 27, as I mentioned above, what about Gen 1 "16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also"? The moon is called a "light." Does that mean the moon creates light just as the sun does? I think that is what people of the ANE would have thought, and that is what our senses tell us, but science tells us the moon only reflects light. Compare Isaiah 30:26; Ezekiel 32:7; and Mark 13:24.
 
So, apart from the apparent phenomenonological language used in Acts 27, as I mentioned above, what about Gen 1 "16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also"? The moon is called a "light." Does that mean the moon creates light just as the sun does? I think that is what people of the ANE would have thought, and that is what our senses tell us, but science tells us the moon only reflects light. Compare Isaiah 30:26; Ezekiel 32:7; and Mark 13:24.

Actually, that is exactly what I was arguing for in my thread concerning the Copernican system. I was arguing there with Logan about Genesis 1. Funny that you bring that up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top