Which is central, the Sun or the Earth?

[VaughanRSmith]

I've never studied this in detail, but would there be a problem with assuming a difference between conceptions - take the wedding at Cana for instance. There is a difference between the Cosmological conceptions of the people of the Old Testament and the conceptions which would lead one to believe that "wine is wine and will always be wine", isn't there?

Sorry, Vaughan, I'm struggling to understand the question. Are you asking if the conceptions of the people are more instrumental in the OT than in Cana, or something else?

No, sorry I was unclear.

What I asked was in response to you stating that positing any "misconception" on the part of the one seeing the miracle is untenable, as it opens the door to a liberal interpretation of miraculous events. I put forward that it might be helpful to make a distinction between conceptions of reality - for instance, the positive cosmological view held by saints throughout the Bible, and the assumption of uniformity held by those saints who witnessed a miracle.

For instance, in application to those who witnessed the miracle in Joshua's case, we have this:

Positive view: A cosmological view that creation is geocentric.
Assumption of uniformity: The sun never stops moving through the sky.

In the miracle, the assumption of uniformity is challenged. Just as in the miracles of the New Testament, the disciples'/onlookers' assumptions of uniformity were challenged. This doesn't mean though that their positive cosmological views were correct in the first place.

Thus we may preserve the miraculous happenings throughout Scripture (contra liberalism), whilst holding a different view of cosmology held by those who witnessed them (contra, in this case, geocentricism).

Note: This is all speculation. It also doesn't touch on the exegetical comments you have already posted. Just some thoughts.

 

[MW]

On another note, given that you are approaching this from an exegetical perspective alone (which is fine; I'm not saying it's not), do you have a resource that we could read providing an answer to my second question above, for those who wish to see the scientific explanation?

You will have to ask the scientists for such resources.

 

[charliejunfan]

WOW, I never thought that I would question whether or not the earth revolves around the sun or not. You people are so learned, it's incredible!!! I thank God that there are you people out there who take the time to study scripture this deeply.

 

[Edward]

I am disagreeing over the vantage point and not over the fact that the event happened.

No, you are disagreeing with what stood still. The Bible says what stood still, and you do not accept it.

Well, if the sun stood still, and the earth continued to move, then the sun would have still appeared to be in motion to the folks observing it.

 

[MW]

Thus we may preserve the miraculous happenings throughout Scripture (contra liberalism), whilst holding a different view of cosmology held by those who witnessed them (contra, in this case, geocentricism).

OK. I think I understand now. Here is the problem -- what is a miracle? If we define it as a work which transcends the ordinary operations of providence then it is obvious that one must have a correct view of "nature" in order to know when a miracle has taken place. If the biblical writers/readers were mistaken as to the way the world works then there is no way of knowing that something over and above the ordinary course of providence has taken place.

 

[Brian Withnell]

The inspired writer is reporting Joshua's prayer. Joshua's prayer itself is not necessarily inspired.

And I have repeatedly made the point that Joshua's prayer is instrumental in the miracle. "And there was no day like that before it or after it, that the LORD hearkened unto the voice of a man: for the LORD fought for Israel." To cast doubt on the factuality of the prayer or the event is to cast doubt on the miracle. To cast doubt on the narration of these is to cast doubt on the plenary inspiration of the Bible.

I hear what you are saying, but lets suppose a slight change....

Suppose the earth does go around the sun, and I being a man from 4000 years ago just don't know that .... I ask God to make the sun stand still so we can defeat the enemy more completely. Do you think that God would understand what I was saying, even if I was saying it "wrong" and then use the language of the day to convey the truth regardless of the events in the big perspective? Or do you think that God would sit in heaven and dismiss the prayer for not forming it properly from a heliocentric solar system point of view and tell Joshua "Sorry bub, you didn't ask me properly and you just don't understand the planetary physics involved, so no, not only do I not make the sun stand still, but I don't extend the day through have the rotation of the earth miraculously stopped for a time."

My point is that if the heliocentric model is accurate (and not the geocentric) there would be NO difference in the text of scripture. There is no need for it (even I would, knowing the heliocentric nature of the solar system) if I were in the same situation would ask for the sun to stand still rather than go through all the appropriate planetary physics of "stop the earth, while suspending the inertial forces that are tied to objects in motion staying in motion, then start the rotation later after we defeat the enemy and then suspend yet again the inertial forces that would keep object on the surface at rest as the Earth starts spinning again." If the text would not of necessity change between either one being real, then the text does not support or deny either one.

 

[MW]

Well, if the sun stood still, and the earth continued to move, then the sun would have still appeared to be in motion to the folks observing it.

Yet another non-biblical consideration. Whence in the Bible do you derive the idea that the earth moves? If you do not derive it from the Bible then you have no right to impose it on the biblical text.

 

[au5t1n]

Thus we may preserve the miraculous happenings throughout Scripture (contra liberalism), whilst holding a different view of cosmology held by those who witnessed them (contra, in this case, geocentricism).

OK. I think I understand now. Here is the problem -- what is a miracle? If we define it as a work which transcends the ordinary operations of providence then it is obvious that one must have a correct view of "nature" in order to know when a miracle has taken place. If the biblical writers/readers were mistaken as to the way the world works then there is no way of knowing that something over and above the ordinary course of providence has taken place.

Not so. For either the geocentric or the heliocentric model, if you see the sun sit still in the sky, it is abundantly clear a miracle has taken place, whether the sun miraculously stopped moving or the earth miraculously stopped moving. In either model, the sun does not make a habit of just stopping on its own.

 

[MW]

Do you think that God would understand what I was saying, even if I was saying it "wrong" and then use the language of the day to convey the truth regardless of the events in the big perspective?

Sure, God is big enough that He can do anything. But I am also sure He is wise enough to know that if He accommodated errors there would be no way for believers to know when He was telling truth and when He was accommodating error, to the point there could be no certainty about any fact.

 

[VaughanRSmith]

Thus we may preserve the miraculous happenings throughout Scripture (contra liberalism), whilst holding a different view of cosmology held by those who witnessed them (contra, in this case, geocentricism).

OK. I think I understand now. Here is the problem -- what is a miracle? If we define it as a work which transcends the ordinary operations of providence then it is obvious that one must have a correct view of "nature" in order to know when a miracle has taken place. If the biblical writers/readers were mistaken as to the way the world works then there is no way of knowing that something over and above the ordinary course of providence has taken place.

I think the distinction still guards against this. In the end, a miracle is regarded as a miracle not because it goes against any kind of "law of nature", but because God chooses to work in a different way to the way that He has worked previously. A miracle is miraculous to the witness because it challenges the "assumption of uniformity." I think that the distinction also maintains the difference between the knowledge, for instance, that a dead man cannot rise again, and the knowledge that the earth is the centre of the universe/galaxy. One is an assumption through experience and evidence, whilst the other is a theory that cannot be verified through experience.

My brain is trying hard to express itself.

 

[MW]

Not so. For either the geocentric or the heliocentric model, if you see the sun sit still in the sky, it is abundantly clear a miracle has taken place, whether the sun miraculously stopped moving or the earth miraculously stopped moving. In either model, the sun does not make a habit of just stopping on its own.

Upon whose testimony are you asserting that a miracle took place? That would be the testimony of the one whose knowledge of universal systems you are calling into doubt. Hmmm. The author says, the sun stood still. You want to replace the sun with the earth. But then you still want to say that he was correct about the standing still.

 

[VaughanRSmith]

I might bow out for a little while, see how things go. For Matthew's sake, I hate it when I'm defending/interacting on three to four fronts!

 

[MW]

In the end, a miracle is regarded as a miracle not because it goes against any kind of "law of nature", but because God chooses to work in a different way to the way that He has worked previously.

Well, let's redefine miracle to "accommodate" your explanation. How does the person recording the miracle know that it is a different way, when it is alleged he didn't properly understand the previous way? The miracle may have been nothing more than a normal complexity the narrator couldn't understand.

 

[VaughanRSmith]

In the end, a miracle is regarded as a miracle not because it goes against any kind of "law of nature", but because God chooses to work in a different way to the way that He has worked previously.

Well, let's redefine miracle to "accommodate" your explanation. How does the person recording the miracle know that it is a different way, when it is alleged he didn't properly understand the previous way? The miracle may have been nothing more than a normal complexity the narrator couldn't understand.

For starters, we can say that history has shown it to be true.

Secondly we, as the readers of this miracle, don't find the significance of the miracle in the way that it challenged the assumptions of the day, but in the way that it challenges our own assumptions. We know that the sun doesn't just stop, and give us extra hours in the day. But our assumptions are challenged, just as they were for Joshua and his fellow witnesses, because we assume that things don't just happen that way. This isn't, in the end, a question of cosmology, but of assumptions.

For instance, the disciples wouldn't know about how the surface tension of water worked, or exactly how light Jesus would have to be before he broke the meniscus of the lake, but they did know that no human can walk on water. They didn't need a full blown understanding of the chemical makeup of water in order to recognise a miracle, and neither do we.

 

[Vytautas]

armourbearer,

It seems you want to guard against the interpretaion which says that the earth actually stood still, while the sun appeared to stand still. But you subsittute the vantage point of the people that look at the sun with the earth itself. The sun stood still due to the prayer of Joshua, so that he is the vantage point and not the earth.

 

[au5t1n]

I might bow out for a little while, see how things go. For Matthew's sake, I hate it when I'm defending/interacting on three to four fronts!

I shouldn't have interrupted the flow of your conversation. Please do not feel the need to step out if it is related to my interruption. I'm done for now. Sorry.

Not so. For either the geocentric or the heliocentric model, if you see the sun sit still in the sky, it is abundantly clear a miracle has taken place, whether the sun miraculously stopped moving or the earth miraculously stopped moving. In either model, the sun does not make a habit of just stopping on its own.

Upon whose testimony are you asserting that a miracle took place? That would be the testimony of the one whose knowledge of universal systems you are calling into doubt. Hmmm. The author says, the sun stood still. You want to replace the sun with the earth. But then you still want to say that he was correct about the standing still.

I don't think I can answer that beyond what has already been stated by others better than I can restate it. I do believe that the sun DID stand still in the sky. It was not moving in the sky. That is a fact that is just as true in the heliocentric model. Your view actually demands a continuous miracle throughout all history because it is a violation of both the law of gravity and Newton's Third Law of Motion for a more massive body to revolve around a less massive one.

I have to go to bed, but I have enjoyed reading this discussion, including your part in it. I look forward to reading the rest of this discussion when I have time, and I hope it continues to be profitable.

 

[MW]

We know that the sun doesn't just stop, and give us extra hours in the day. But our assumptions are challenged, just as they were for Joshua and his fellow witnesses, because we assume that things don't just happen that way.

OK. But then the text is also obviously challenging our assumption that the earth revolves around the sun. Why are we at liberty to disregard this challenge? And if we can disregard this challenge, why could not Joshua's contemporaries disregard certain things which would have challenged them? In the end, we would end up merely reading assumptions and challenges into the text rather than simply reading the text as it stands.

 

[MW]

The sun stood still due to the prayer of Joshua, so that he is the vantage point and not the earth.

God is the vantage point. He answered His servant's prayer. If God was simply accommodating Joshua's misconception, then who knows what is true!

 

[MW]

Your view actually demands a continuous miracle throughout all history because it is a violation of both the law of gravity and Newton's Third Law of Motion for a more massive body to revolve around a less massive one.

And here I was thinking Newton was trying to understand God's works, not vice versa.

 

[Brian Withnell]

Do you think that God would understand what I was saying, even if I was saying it "wrong" and then use the language of the day to convey the truth regardless of the events in the big perspective?

Sure, God is big enough that He can do anything. But I am also sure He is wise enough to know that if He accommodated errors there would be no way for believers to know when He was telling truth and when He was accommodating error, to the point there could be no certainty about any fact.

So if God uses figurative speech anywhere, we have no certainty about anything?

Like I said, regardless of which view is correct, it would be expressed the same way. The Bible is not a science text, and you are attempting to make it speak in those terms when it says the sun stood still (i.e., that it could not be as I would say "the sun stood still in the sky" knowing full well that it would not be the sun standing still).

Again, if Joshua asked (even if he knew the earth actually rotates) for the sun to stand still, would the Bible have recorded it that way, or recorded it the way it does? Would the longer, more drawn out words while being closer to the physical reality have done any more good at communicating what the passage wants to communicate than "the sun stood still in the sky for about a day"? The only difference would be in the realm of physics, not in what I believe God is interested in communicating through that passage of scripture.

When I say the sun will rise at 6:36 tomorrow morning, I am wrong if the heliocentric model is correct? Or should I say "the Earth's rotation will allow the first direct light from the sun to appear over the horizon tomorrow at 6:36" in order to be precise from a scientific standpoint? Asking the later is ridiculous ... insisting that God would word scripture so that it does not use figurative speech that we use even to this day just to answer scientific questions that we can discover through ordinary means is to demand that God reveal what we want revealed instead of reveal what he wants to reveal in his own way.

Suppose that God wanted to accomplish what happened without revealing the heliocentric nature of the solar system to those he wanted to reveal the supernatural event of extending the day. How would it be expressed? If you cannot answer that, then are you saying that God had to answer both questions or he could not have answered the one he cares to answer? If those that saw the phenomena of the "sun standing still in the sky" and it really was the earth stopping rotation, how would you expect them to have described it?

You seem to want to force the text to have spoken scientifically ... that the "facts" had to be scientific facts rather than what was observed. I have to believe that if that is the case, you hold to a flat Earth? (corners of the earth ... facts are facts?)

 

[Brian Withnell]

The sun stood still due to the prayer of Joshua, so that he is the vantage point and not the earth.

God is the vantage point. He answered His servant's prayer. If God was simply accommodating Joshua's misconception, then who knows what is true!

God does. You and I don't.

 

[MW]

So if God uses figurative speech anywhere, we have no certainty about anything?

First you said it was a matter of accommodating misconception. Now you are saying it is not an accommodation, but that it utilises figurative language. Well, the figurative language angle is clearly negated by the fact that Joshua prayed for the sun to stand still, and God answered the prayer in terms of the sun standing still. There are no figurative markers in the text. And, finally, it is clear that external considerations raised by secular science are being thrust upon the interpretation of the text.

 

[au5t1n]

Your view actually demands a continuous miracle throughout all history because it is a violation of both the law of gravity and Newton's Third Law of Motion for a more massive body to revolve around a less massive one.

And here I was thinking Newton was trying to understand God's works, not vice versa.

Touché.

By the way, I edited my last post because I don't believe I was right to make unnecessary assumptions about your motivations on previous posts. Sorry about that. Have a good evening.

Austin

 

[ChristianTrader]

Great Mathematician Bertrand Russell:

"Before Copernicus, people thought that the earth stood still and that the heavens revolved about it once a day. Copernicus taught that "really" the earth revolves once a day, and the daily rotation of sun and stars is only "apparent"... But in the modern theory the question between Copernicus and his predecessors is merely one of convenience; all motion is relative, and there is no difference between the two... Astronomy is easier if we take the sun as fixed than if we take the earth... But to say more for Copernicus is to assume absolute motion, which is a fiction. It is a mere convention to take one body as at rest. All such conventions are equally legitimate, though not all are equally convenient." Russell "The ABC of Relativity [ London: Allen & Unwin, 1958, p.13].

I think a YEC Creationist has an incredibly difficult time denying Geocentrism. Geocentrism has an even better pedigree in church history than YEC, and YEC has a good pedigree. The Reformers, had no problem properly interpreting the "God has wings" and the "flat earth" passages while firmly maintaining their geocentrism. This seems to imply that their hermeneutics was a bit more nuanced than some want to give them credit for having.

What I also find interesting is how much ambiguity passages where no ambiguity was found for the first thousand+ years of church history all of a sudden has ambiguity all over it when "Science" starts to bark. First it was geocentrism, then 6 day creationism, then homosexuality etc. etc.

I am not accusing anyone of secretly being a liberal but this 500 year progression is frightening.

CT

 

[Brian Withnell]

Isn't it safe to say that, despite our modern sensibilities, the narration here is not saying what appeared to happen, but what actually happened? I mean, the narrator doesn't say, "The earth stood still." It says that the sun stood still. It doesn't say it just appeared that the sun stood still, or that apparently the sun stood still, but that, in fact, the sun stood still. That seems to be a statement of fact, and not one of appearance.


????

I dunno.

Why would the writer have said it that way unless he knew the Earth rotated, and the sun was the center of the solar system? If the Bible is not a science book, why would it use even the clarifying term that we don't use even today when the general consensus is that the Earth rotates?

-----Added 11/1/2009 at 11:43:32 EST-----

So if God uses figurative speech anywhere, we have no certainty about anything?

First you said it was a matter of accommodating misconception. Now you are saying it is not an accommodation, but that it utilises figurative language. Well, the figurative language angle is clearly negated by the fact that Joshua prayed for the sun to stand still, and God answered the prayer in terms of the sun standing still. There are no figurative markers in the text. And, finally, it is clear that external considerations raised by secular science are being thrust upon the interpretation of the text.

If God says it figuratively, and Joshua said it with misconception, both are still in the text. What one might demand for figurative markers doesn't matter. If God said it so they would understand it, and yet it is figurative because we know it so, then demanding that God should have said it differently so it makes sense scientifically is not what we are able to demand of God.

As I said before, *I* would have prayed the same way today even though I believe the Earth rotates. That being the case, demanding that I would have prayed using figurative markers is just beyond credulity. There is no reason to believe there would be any change in the text even if Joshua knew the Earth rotated ... it would still convey the exact same message.

 

[MW]

If God says it figuratively, and Joshua said it with misconception, both are still in the text. What one might demand for figurative markers doesn't matter. If God said it so they would understand it, and yet it is figurative because we know it so, then demanding that God should have said it differently so it makes sense scientifically is not what we are able to demand of God.

The spanner in your works comes in the fact that there is no shift between (1.) Joshua's prayer, (2.) God's answer to the prayer, and (3.) The inspired narrator's statement of fact. From each and every perspective, the sun stood still. In a fight between the text and the interpreter the text wins every time. Just concede!

 

[Grillsy]

If God says it figuratively, and Joshua said it with misconception, both are still in the text. What one might demand for figurative markers doesn't matter. If God said it so they would understand it, and yet it is figurative because we know it so, then demanding that God should have said it differently so it makes sense scientifically is not what we are able to demand of God.

The spanner in your works comes in the fact that there is no shift between (1.) Joshua's prayer, (2.) God's answer to the prayer, and (3.) The inspired narrator's statement of fact. From each and every perspective, the sun stood still. In a fight between the text and the interpreter the text wins every time. Just concede!

I will ask a question in this way. If the sun doesn't move how does it stop? Why are you unwilling to consider another opinion on the Joshua texts? No one is being liberal, as it is mildly being asserted. Why will you not address the issue of perception?

 

[Mushroom]

Why would the writer have said it that way unless he knew the Earth rotated, and the sun was the center of the solar system? If the Bible is not a science book, why would it use even the clarifying term that we don't use even today when the general consensus is that the Earth rotates?

The Holy Spirit didn't know whether the Earth rotates or not when He inspired this passage? Wow. Good thing modern science has come along to properly educate Him!

Sorry Brian, no offense intended, but sometimes I think we're too easily blinded by the careful subtleties of mankind's attempts to deny the truth of God's Word.

-----Added 11/1/2009 at 11:58:12 EST-----

If the sun doesn't move how does it stop?

Did I miss where someone said the Sun does not move?

 

[Grillsy]

Why would the writer have said it that way unless he knew the Earth rotated, and the sun was the center of the solar system? If the Bible is not a science book, why would it use even the clarifying term that we don't use even today when the general consensus is that the Earth rotates?

The Holy Spirit didn't know whether the Earth rotates or not when He inspired this passage? Wow. Good thing modern science has come along to properly educate Him!

Sorry Brian, no offense intended, but sometimes I think we're too easily blinded by the careful subtleties of mankind's attempts to deny the truth of God's Word.

It is not a question of whether or not the Holy Spirit knew that earth revolved around the sun. It boils down to the fact that the text of Joshua is thousands of years removed from us. Perception in reality and in language must be considered.

I think that our accusation again Brian is unfounded. I could just as easily have accused you of having a not so subtle attempt at avoiding study of a physics text.

The fact of the matter is that the earth revolves around the sun. Go read up on this absolute fact.

And yes the sun does move, it rotates on its axis about once every twenty five Earth days. It could also be argued the sun revolves around the Milky Way.

 

[Igor]

Hm... I am far from being a Liberal in interpreting the Bible, so is my Church (the Russian Baptists are traditionaly very conservative), but if I tried to preach something like this (I mean, that it is the sun that orbits the Earth) from the pulpit, I think that with all respect my congregation has to me as a teacher, that will be my last sermon. (I am not sure they will collect some money to send me to a resort, but that would be a proper thing to do, I believe...)
Guys, are you serious?!