"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]

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]

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]

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

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,

 

[Theognome]

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

 

[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]

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!

 

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

 

[Confessor]

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]

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-----

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.)

Brother, thanks for your helpful comments. They help to put the discussion in proper perspective.

Gratefully yours,

 

[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]

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]

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]

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!