A part of the miracle was the fact that the sun obeyed the voice of man. The voice of man told the sun to stand still. That is part and parcel of the miracle. You are not at liberty to thrust an allegorical interpretation on the passage.
Which is central, the Sun or the Earth?
- Thread starter JennyG
- Start date
- Status
A part of the miracle was the fact that the sun obeyed the voice of man. The voice of man told the sun to stand still. That is part and parcel of the miracle. You are not at liberty to thrust an allegorical interpretation on the passage.
Tim, obviously not all authorities are created equal; but in the absence of a presentation of actual evidence, simply saying "my authority is better than yours" is extremely unconvincing. Until you've reached the stage where an authority has been established as trustworthy one can't just appeal to that authority and leave the matter there.
Skyler
Puritan Board Graduate
And anyone who was there, whether they had a geocentric or heliocentric cosmology, would agree that the sun stood still. But that doesn't mean we know the exact mechanics of the miracle--only the symptoms. That being, the "sun stood still and the moon stayed".
P.S. Sorry, I have a bad habit of posting the first thing that comes to mind and then editing it almost as soon as I post it.
Skyler: This was the Time Magazine Man of the Century, cover story.
TIME 100: Person of the Century - A Brief History of Relativity
You would expect light to travel at a fixed speed through the ether. So if you were traveling in the same direction as the light, you would expect that its speed would appear to be lower, and if you were traveling in the opposite direction to the light, that its speed would appear to be higher. Yet a series of experiments failed to find any evidence for differences in speed due to motion through the ether.
The most careful and accurate of these experiments was carried out by Albert Michelson and Edward Morley at the Case Institute in Cleveland, Ohio, in 1887. They compared the speed of light in two beams at right angles to each other. As the earth rotates on its axis and orbits the sun, they reasoned, it will move through the ether, and the speed of light in these two beams should diverge. But Michelson and Morley found no daily or yearly differences between the two beams of light. It was as if light always traveled at the same speed relative to you, no matter how you were moving. ( lynnie edit- it was as if the earth stood still)
But it was a young clerk named Albert Einstein, working in the Swiss Patent Office in Bern, who cut through the ether and solved the speed-of-light problem once and for all. In June 1905 he wrote one of three papers that would establish him as one of the world's leading scientists — and in the process start two conceptual revolutions that changed our understanding of time, space and reality.
In that 1905 paper, Einstein pointed out that because you could not detect whether or not you were moving through the ether, the whole notion of an ether was redundant. Instead, Einstein started from the postulate that the laws of science should appear the same to all freely moving observers. In particular, observers should all measure the same speed for light, no matter how they were moving.
************
I don't want to waste time arguing, and anybody who wants to pursue this further can just google it. There are web sites out there, and books and videos. Michaelson- Morley and others (Sagnac If I recall correctly) show that the earth is still, unless you adopt Einstein. I may not be the brightest lightbulb in the PB chandelier, but I read enough geocentric materials a long time ago to know that heliocentricity is impossible unless you adopt relativity theory. I choose to believe that visible light behaves exactly the same way every other wave on the electromagnetic spectrum behaves, with adding and subtracting velocities of observers and sources. I read plenty of Einstein debunking back in the day (much of the physics way over my head, but the basics were understandable). Ultimately both models work and neither can be "proven".
TIME 100: Person of the Century - A Brief History of Relativity
You would expect light to travel at a fixed speed through the ether. So if you were traveling in the same direction as the light, you would expect that its speed would appear to be lower, and if you were traveling in the opposite direction to the light, that its speed would appear to be higher. Yet a series of experiments failed to find any evidence for differences in speed due to motion through the ether.
The most careful and accurate of these experiments was carried out by Albert Michelson and Edward Morley at the Case Institute in Cleveland, Ohio, in 1887. They compared the speed of light in two beams at right angles to each other. As the earth rotates on its axis and orbits the sun, they reasoned, it will move through the ether, and the speed of light in these two beams should diverge. But Michelson and Morley found no daily or yearly differences between the two beams of light. It was as if light always traveled at the same speed relative to you, no matter how you were moving. ( lynnie edit- it was as if the earth stood still)
But it was a young clerk named Albert Einstein, working in the Swiss Patent Office in Bern, who cut through the ether and solved the speed-of-light problem once and for all. In June 1905 he wrote one of three papers that would establish him as one of the world's leading scientists — and in the process start two conceptual revolutions that changed our understanding of time, space and reality.
In that 1905 paper, Einstein pointed out that because you could not detect whether or not you were moving through the ether, the whole notion of an ether was redundant. Instead, Einstein started from the postulate that the laws of science should appear the same to all freely moving observers. In particular, observers should all measure the same speed for light, no matter how they were moving.
************
I don't want to waste time arguing, and anybody who wants to pursue this further can just google it. There are web sites out there, and books and videos. Michaelson- Morley and others (Sagnac If I recall correctly) show that the earth is still, unless you adopt Einstein. I may not be the brightest lightbulb in the PB chandelier, but I read enough geocentric materials a long time ago to know that heliocentricity is impossible unless you adopt relativity theory. I choose to believe that visible light behaves exactly the same way every other wave on the electromagnetic spectrum behaves, with adding and subtracting velocities of observers and sources. I read plenty of Einstein debunking back in the day (much of the physics way over my head, but the basics were understandable). Ultimately both models work and neither can be "proven".
I hope you are not suggesting that the Bible merely accommodated its language to the misconception of the one/s telling or reading the account. This is a liberal view of accommodation.
Zenas
Snow Miser
Geocentricity is untenable and is neither necessarily nor possibly deduced from Scripture. God's Word is not a science book. He wrote it to convey to us specific things, i.e. special revelation. Everything else is general revelation. Heliocentricity is deduced from general revelation.
Skyler
Puritan Board Graduate
Not at all. I'm saying that if I (a heliocentrist) was there, I would have said "Hey look! The sun's standing still!" That the earth was actually the stationary one would not have entered my mind until either a) a few seconds afterwards when someone else was on the verge of making a comment to that effect or b) if one of my siblings had made the original comment and I was being an annoying big brother. The "sun standing still" is the natural, intuitive observation, which is immediately understandable regardless of your cosmology.
This simply reduces the Bible to a set of propositions it may or may not declare. This would make reason the revealer rather than God.
More dogmatism!
Geocentricity is equally deduced from general revelation. Philosophers have clearly stated that the conclusion depends entirely on what is assumed when examining the data.
Again, you leave out of view the fact that Joshua told the sun to stand still, which was part and parcel of the miracle. It is not a matter of mere observation; his command was instrumental to the miracle.
Skyler
Puritan Board Graduate
Lynnie--I see where you're coming from, I think. But here's a graphical, interactive demonstration of the Michelson-Morley experiment that might help clarify it for you:
Michelson-Morley Experiment
Basically, they were testing to see if the Earth's velocity would make a difference in the speed of light--and it didn't, confirming Einstein's hypothesis.
-----Added 11/1/2009 at 06:20:47 EST-----
I don't think I am. Joshua told the sun to stand still, and it did. Where's the problem?
Michelson-Morley Experiment
Basically, they were testing to see if the Earth's velocity would make a difference in the speed of light--and it didn't, confirming Einstein's hypothesis.
-----Added 11/1/2009 at 06:20:47 EST-----
I don't think I am. Joshua told the sun to stand still, and it did. Where's the problem?
There isn't a problem if one accepts that the sun historically, in the time-space continuum, literally stood still.
Zenas
Snow Miser
The Sun did stand still relative to the Earth, because the Sun appeared to be moving and then stopped. The Earth stopped rotating in order for that to happen, presumably.
Also, reading this verse to convey that the Earth revolves around the Sun fails to consider the fact that God talks down to us. He speaks to us in ways that we understand. People, for thousands of years, would not have understood that the Sun appeared to move around the Earth because the Earth was rotating, and it, in fact, was revolving around the Sun.
To quote my favorite line from the Mothman Prophecies, "Have you ever tried to explain yourself to a cockroach?".
Also, reading this verse to convey that the Earth revolves around the Sun fails to consider the fact that God talks down to us. He speaks to us in ways that we understand. People, for thousands of years, would not have understood that the Sun appeared to move around the Earth because the Earth was rotating, and it, in fact, was revolving around the Sun.
To quote my favorite line from the Mothman Prophecies, "Have you ever tried to explain yourself to a cockroach?".
Skyler
Puritan Board Graduate
From a heliocentric perspective, I only use the technical wording in a qualified setting.
Coupled with the fact that this section is rendered in the ESV and NASB as poetry, designated by being set apart from the rest of the passage, I don't see any reason why I can't accept this as an "everyday" use of the term rather than a technical use of the term.
After all, Joshua didn't have to explain the mechanics of how to make the sun stand still to God.
Again, Joshua told the sun to stand still. Part of the miracle is the fact that the sun obeyed his voice. Only liberals believe that God has accommodated the Scriptures to our misconceptions.
After all, Joshua didn't have to explain the mechanics of how to make the sun stand still to God.
This is poor exegesis. Typical of the allegorical method.
Skyler
Puritan Board Graduate
After all, Joshua didn't have to explain the mechanics of how to make the sun stand still to God.
This is poor exegesis. Typical of the allegorical method.
I'm having difficulty believing that you are serious here. Why are you focusing on the light-hearted part of my post(indicated by a smiley:
) instead of the argument? Furthermore, are you rejecting the concept of language of appearance?I'm having difficulty believing that you are serious here. Why are you focusing on the light-hearted part of my post(indicated by a smiley:
I accept the Calvinian, not the Cartesian, teaching of accommodation. I suggest participants in this thread do some reading on this subject in order to discover the difference. Your advocacy of Cartesian accommodation equally justifies liberal explanations of Bible miracles.
Skyler
Puritan Board Graduate
I'm having difficulty believing that you are serious here. Why are you focusing on the light-hearted part of my post(indicated by a smiley:
I accept the Calvinian, not the Cartesian, teaching of accommodation. I suggest participants in this thread do some reading on this subject in order to discover the difference. Your advocacy of Cartesian accommodation equally justifies liberal explanations of Bible miracles.
Perhaps you could recommend an article or two on the subject? I'm not sure how using everyday language instead of needlessly complicated technical explanations is "liberal".
Then you don't believe the Bible on this point.
A good start would be Henry Krabbendam's "Warfield v Berkouwer on Scripture" in Inerrancy, edited by Norman L. Geisler, and especially the sections which compare the earlier and later views of Berkouwer. Berkouwer is a perfect example of changes in "reformed" thinking on the subject, in which Scripture ceases to be revelation per se but becomes a witness to revelation.
Everyday phenomonological language is to be accepted in the Bible only where it can be proven by internal markers in the text, not from quasi-scientific considerations being imposed on the text.
"Flat earth theory" was a post-Darwinian polemic to manipulate opponents.
Mr. Winzer, if I understand the drift of your remarks correctly, the vital point is that Joshua commands the sun and moon to stand still, and they obeyed. It seems to me like that is the biggest difficulty for those who think that the language here is either accommodated to contemporary views, or that it is phenomenological; because Joshua commanded the sun, and the sun obeyed his voice. When the command is directed to the sun, saying that the earth obeyed doesn't really seem like interpreting the text in the most straightforward way.
In other words, if it didn't say that Joshua commanded the sun and moon to stand still, but merely that they did so, would it be possible to understand it as described from the standpoint of the observer, without implying any comment on the functioning of the superlunary?
Can you give an instance of a place where phenomenological language might be legitimately seen in Scripture?
In other words, if it didn't say that Joshua commanded the sun and moon to stand still, but merely that they did so, would it be possible to understand it as described from the standpoint of the observer, without implying any comment on the functioning of the superlunary?
Can you give an instance of a place where phenomenological language might be legitimately seen in Scripture?
Ruben, yes, it could then be seen as phenomenological, but the weight of assumption would still rest with the historical, which requires it to be interpreted as a literal event. Some literary markers would be necessary to conclude that this was just how it appeared and not rather what actually happened. Even then, however, interpreting cosmological phenomena in Scripture requires an understanding of biblical cosmology. The fact is that the Bible everywhere presents the sun in motion relative to the earth. And it is also a fact that science truly so called allows various geocentric functions, e.g., navigation. Hence there is no reason for interpreting the biblical text in a figurative or less than literal manner. Special revelation requires us to understand that the sun literally stood still and general revelation really offers no voice of criticism to it.
I can think of numerous places where the Scriptures speak of things "as it were." E.g., Numb. 9:15, "And on the day that the tabernacle was reared up the cloud covered the tabernacle, namely, the tent of the testimony: and at even there was upon the tabernacle as it were the appearance of fire, until the morning."
I must say that unbelievers who read this thread are going to be laughing that we even debate this stuff.
Reverend Winzer, could you possibly name some major geocentric Reformed theologians post-Galileo so that we might be able to see where you're coming from. It seems to me that had heliocentrism been generally accepted before the Reformation, that the reformers would have accepted it.
I should also note that the sun does move relative to the earth.
Reverend Winzer, could you possibly name some major geocentric Reformed theologians post-Galileo so that we might be able to see where you're coming from. It seems to me that had heliocentrism been generally accepted before the Reformation, that the reformers would have accepted it.
I should also note that the sun does move relative to the earth.
Thanks, Mr. Winzer. I just wanted to be sure I was understanding if the command was the real sticking point in the narrative, and that phenomenological language is (in other texts) a legitimate category to use in interpretation.
Wilhelmus a Brakel (The Christian's Reasonable Service) represents the Dutch conservative school which adamantly opposed the Cartesian accommodation of secular science:
VaughanRSmith
Puritan Board Sophomore
Matthew, could you please demonstrate exegetically how this verse is incompatible with a heliocentric view of the galaxy?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
- Locked
