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

[py3ak]

Ruben,

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

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

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

 

[py3ak]

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

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

 

[historyb]

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

 

[Theognome]

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

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

Theognome

 

[Anton Bruckner]

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

 

[lynnie]

Dr Bob- Thanks.

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

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

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

 

[MW]

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

Well said!

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

 

[Anton Bruckner]

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

Well said!

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

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

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

 

[historyb]

Me wonders should we put modern interpretation on ancient things

 

[discipulo]

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

Well said!

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[MW]

how about anthropomorphic language?

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

 

[discipulo]

how about anthropomorphic language?

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

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

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

Bultmann would Demythologize Joshua’s passage in a stroke.

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

 

[Dr. Bob Gonzales]

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

 

[discipulo]

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

It was Archimedes who said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In my humble opinion.

 

[panta dokimazete]

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

 

[MW]

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

 

[historyb]

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

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

 

[Dearly Bought]

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

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

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

 

[discipulo]

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

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

Just making a couple of questions back

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

 

[Confessor]

For what it's worth, heliocentrism and geocentrism are usually used in the context of deciding what is the center of the solar system, not the universe.

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

 

[Dearly Bought]

I guess I should clarify that I do mean a geocentric view of the solar system. Thanks.

 

[discipulo]

For what it's worth, heliocentrism and geocentrism are usually used in the context of deciding what is the center of the solar system, not the universe.

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

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

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

 

[Confessor]

For what it's worth, heliocentrism and geocentrism are usually used in the context of deciding what is the center of the solar system, not the universe.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Dr. Bob Gonzales]

For what it's worth, heliocentrism and geocentrism are usually used in the context of deciding what is the center of the solar system, not the universe.

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

Ben,

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

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

I acknowledge that at one level we don't need to give an answer (in the sense of dogmatizing beyond Scripture and incontrovertible empirical evidence). Perhaps, for all we know, the solar system was "geocentric" in Joshua's day and is now "heliocentric" in our day. But that doesn't seem likely. In any case, my point on this thread is not to suggest that scientific models offered by Christians when interpreting a miracle like that in Joshua 10 should be allowed to controvert the authority of God's word or even attain to a status of absolute certainty. Nevertheless, I don't think it wrong for a pastor, SS teacher, or Christian father to explain to those under his charge, "This is how that miracle may have happened." I think that's all the supernaturalist interpreters are trying to do. In the end, I stand by the proposition with which I ended the first post on this thread:

the Christian’s belief in an omnipotent God and real miracles, as well the limitations of scientific knowledge, should caution him against the need to find a rational explanation for every miracle recorded in Scripture (see Marten Woudstra, The Book of Joshua [1981], 173-76).
​

On another note, I would encourage the readers of this post not to dismiss the "hailstorm" interpretation as pure eisegesis and nonsensical. Dr. Robert Wilson has made a good case from cognate linguistic studies that the verb translated "stopped" can mean "cease shining." If I'm not mistaken, one of its Semitic counterparts was used when describing a solar eclipse. The fact that a hailstorm is mentioned in the context and that Hebrew narrative often applies "dischronologization" gives the "hailstorm" interpretation some viability. If you haven't read the arguments for this view, it's worth looking into if for no other reason than to have something to refute.

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

Your servant,

 

[Confessor]

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for listing those sources, too.

 

[lynnie]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[ChristianTrader]

For what it's worth, heliocentrism and geocentrism are usually used in the context of deciding what is the center of the solar system, not the universe.

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

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

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

CT

 

[Dr. Bob Gonzales]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lynnie,

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

 

[Confessor]

For what it's worth, heliocentrism and geocentrism are usually used in the context of deciding what is the center of the solar system, not the universe.

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

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

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

CT

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

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

 

[MW]

Do you believe that the Scriptures present a geocentric view of the universe?

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

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

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