ECT Joshua's Long Day--Does it mandate a Geocentric Cosmology?

Derf

Well-known member
This was lifted from another thread (about flat earth and fake moon landings) where it didn't really fit the topic. [MENTION=7209]Ask Mr. Religion[/MENTION], always a good source for biblical information, brought up that the passage in Joshua 10 about the sun standing still can only refer to a geocentric (earth-centered) cosmology. I was initially in disagreement with him (thus the "No." at the beginning of his post). But I'm thinking it through some more. Here are his words:
No.

A prayer was offered up for the sun to stand still. The prayer was answered and declared so. The Sun did not appear to stand still to all observers, else we have inspired writers of Scripture writing untruths. The text in question does not pertain to different perspectives in a narrative, but to narration. To claim there is inspired and uninspired speech in the narration is to claim that the penmen were not fully inspired. Such a view as yours undermines the verbal-plenary inspiration of Scripture. Further, there are no literary markers whatsoever in the Joshua 10 account that point to metaphors or phenomenology as devices at work.

Those who hold heliocentricity usually avoid the idea of "error" in this passage by saying that the passage is simply accommodated to the way people thought at that time; and now that we are supposed to know better we can understand what is said as speaking according to the senses. On that explanation, though, there is no figure of speech. It is understood to be a literal statement which speaks according to the way the senses perceive things.

You will never be able to say with any degree of certainty that anything is true on the basis that the Bible teaches it while you allow that the Bible accommodates its teaching to the mistaken notions of men. Your doctrine of inspiration is not orthodox so long as you do not consider the suppression of the penmen's errors to be an active part of it. You will simply never know what is absolute truth and what is mere accommodation. Like the liberal, the canon of reason is required to distinguish where Scripture speaks truth and where it accommodates error.

Now if you are saying it is not an accommodation, but that it utilizes figurative language then the figurative language tactic 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. Again, 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.

Think of the consequences if your possibility was actually entertained. The liberals would have all the justification they need for explaining away the miraculous in the Bible since everyone to whom the Bible was written thought in terms of the miraculous. The Holy Spirit didn't know whether the Earth rotates or not when He inspired this passage? Yikes!

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

AMR

Let's talk about whether this passage requires that the sun, and presumably all the planets, and perhaps all the stars, revolve around the earth. Or can it allow for a heliocentric (sun-centered) planetary system, or some-other centered universe.

Ready...Go!
 

Right Divider

Body part
This was lifted from another thread (about flat earth and fake moon landings) where it didn't really fit the topic. @Ask Mr. Religion, always a good source for biblical information, brought up that the passage in Joshua 10 about the sun standing still can only refer to a geocentric (earth-centered) cosmology. I was initially in disagreement with him (thus the "No." at the beginning of his post). But I'm thinking it through some more. Here are his words:

Let's talk about whether this passage requires that the sun, and presumably all the planets, and perhaps all the stars, revolve around the earth. Or can it allow for a heliocentric (sun-centered) planetary system, or some-other centered universe.

Ready...Go!
I don't think that the cosmological model comes into play at all.

That event was truly a miracle that required God to do something completely outside of the normal order of physics.
 

chair

Well-known member
The Earth goes around the Sun. That is a fact.

The verse describes the Sun and Moon as stopping in their tracks. Read completely literally, that means that the author of Joshua held to an incorrect Geocentric view of the solar system. If your faith is based on thinking that the entire Bible is The Word of God and completely literally accurate- then it is time to dump your faith.

If you are capable of seeing that Bible is a collection of man-written works and as such is not perfect, or if you can at least consider that some verses are not to be taken literally, then you can continue with your faith.
 

Right Divider

Body part
The Earth goes around the Sun. That is a fact.

The verse describes the Sun and Moon as stopping in their tracks. Read completely literally, that means that the author of Joshua held to an incorrect Geocentric view of the solar system. If your faith is based on thinking that the entire Bible is The Word of God and completely literally accurate- then it is time to dump your faith.

If you are capable of seeing that Bible is a collection of man-written works and as such is not perfect, or if you can at least consider that some verses are not to be taken literally, then you can continue with your faith.
:french:
 

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Let the Bible Speak for Itself

Let the Bible Speak for Itself

I am averse to making heliocentric and geocentric views exclusive of one another.

As I have noted elsewhere, scientists use both views for different purposes.

Just in case someone thinks I am some sort of rube when it comes to understanding of the issues involved a few words are in order. I possess a doctorate in electrical engineering and worked on the design of the Iridium low-earth orbit satellite system for Motorola when it was being designed and not yet launched. I lead a team of advanced engineering graduates in the simulation and modeling of the entire planned 77 (now only 66) satellite system at the network level, that is, all the orbital mechanics and communications between satellites and between satellites and earth stations and mobile phones. My doctoral engineering dissertation concerned network level protocol stochastic queueing theory. Leveraging my doctoral research, my team and I developed a great deal of the orbital mechanics and networking queueing code in the Iridium network model. Prior to moving to Arizona to work with the Iridium team, I worked at Motorola in Arlington Heights, IL creating network performance models of the soon to be introduced GSM cellular network (late 1980's), which was initially deployed in 1992. The point of all of this is to note that assumptions that I am ignorant of theories of orbital dynamics and the associated vector mathematics for the same, will fall upon deaf ears. For that matter, none of this science speak is really germane to the discussion at hand.

My primary concern related to the Joshua 10 account is to see the Bible interpreted in its own right, and not have spurious astronomical theories thrust upon it. I haven't said the heliocentric model is not correct but will do affirm the two should not be placed in competition with each other. Astronomy is an ever advancing science. What appears contradictory today may be harmonized tomorrow with the unveiling of new discoveries. Any scientist worth his salt acknowledges this. To say that science must have the final word is to make an unscientific statement. Science is an open canon, therefore contradiction is to be expected. Christian scientists should be wary of reading the Bible like science or science like the Bible. We expect non-contradiction in the Bible because it is a closed canon. What Scripture says Scripture has always said and will always say. Science is an open canon. Science has said things which it no longer says and what it says today may yet be changed. The dogmatic statements made in favor of absolute heliocentricity in the other thread at this site are simply unscientific, to say the least.

I am simply allowing the Bible to say what it says. The Joshua 10 account obviously does not teach us physics, astronomy, or any other science; but the passage makes a statement about the sun, that it ordinarily moves, and that a miracle occurred when the sun stopped moving.

Again, from Scripture:
1. The sun ordinarily moves. Nothing in Scripture teaches us that the sun phenomenologically "appears" to move.
2. Joshua made a specific prayer:

Joshua 10:
12 Then Joshua spoke to the Lord in the day when the Lord delivered up the Amorites before the sons of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel,

“O sun, stand still at Gibeon,
And O moon in the valley of Aijalon.”

13 So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped,
Until the nation avenged themselves of their enemies.
Is it not written in the book of Jashar? And the sun stopped in the middle of the sky and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day.

14 There was no day like that before it or after it, when the Lord listened to the voice of a man; for the Lord fought for Israel.

3. God listened to Joshua and answered his prayer. God did not just "appear" to answer his prayer: There was no day like that before it or after it, when the Lord listened to the voice of a man; for the Lord fought for Israel.

I don't think adopting a phenomenological view of the Joshua 10 narrative makes sense without knowing how Scripture presents cosmology. For example, Scripture describes the earth as round, not flat (Isaiah 40:21-22; Job 26:7). As another example, is it not the case that Scripture presents the sun in motion relative to the earth? If we assume that Scripture presents cosmology in a way that could be understood by the audience at the time, accommodating mistaken perceptions, then miracles are easily waved off by the liberals.

Question:
Was the miraculous account of the sun standing still in Joshua 10 an actuality or just a phenomenological account of what the ancient folks apparently assumed?

Whatever one thinks about physics, astronomy, or any other science, he has no right to impose his unproven, ever advancing scientific explanations on the Bible and make Scripture say something other than what it says.

AMR
 

Derf

Well-known member
I don't think that the cosmological model comes into play at all.

That event was truly a miracle that required God to do something completely outside of the normal order of physics.

I don't disagree with your second statement, necessarily, but AMR referred to "heliocentrity" in a way that seemed to set those that hold it, which I would call for this discussion "heliocentrists", at odds with a literal (and perhaps "wooden") interpretation of that particular scripture. I may have made too quick a presumption to think the other option he would be considering would be geocentricity, but I still need to read his response.

It may be that there is no way to figure the event in any kind of physics we know of today, since stopping of the earth's rotation, as one option, seems only slightly less fantastic than stopping both the sun and the moon from their revolutions around the earth.

Other options might include stopping time itself for all places outside of the area of the battle, although I've heard of some reports of long nights (the obvious effect on the other side of the globe from Joshua) in other places around the globe. I don't know how much to believe such third-(or more)-hand reports, but they are intriguing.

With AMR's credentials, both technical and biblical, I look forward to his thoughts on the physics involved, if any were involved. Because, despite your assertion, some normal order of physics was still involved--the Israelites still swung swords and ran after their enemies. The slain still fell to the ground. Light from the sun, and reflected light from the moon (although questionable with Paul's assertion that the moon has it's own glory in 1 Cor 15:14) still illuminated their activities.
 

Right Divider

Body part
I don't disagree with your second statement, necessarily, but AMR referred to "heliocentrity" in a way that seemed to set those that hold it, which I would call for this discussion "heliocentrists", at odds with a literal (and perhaps "wooden") interpretation of that particular scripture. I may have made too quick a presumption to think the other option he would be considering would be geocentricity, but I still need to read his response.

It may be that there is no way to figure the event in any kind of physics we know of today, since stopping of the earth's rotation, as one option, seems only slightly less fantastic than stopping both the sun and the moon from their revolutions around the earth.
I agree. But just stopping the earth's rotation for a short time is also not enough. All objects on earth must also be stopped. And by "stopped", I don't mean decelerated to zero. That would be very noticeable by everyone on the planet.

Other options might include stopping time itself for all places outside of the area of the battle, although I've heard of some reports of long nights (the obvious effect on the other side of the globe from Joshua) in other places around the globe. I don't know how much to believe such third-(or more)-hand reports, but they are intriguing.

With AMR's credentials, both technical and biblical, I look forward to his thoughts on the physics involved, if any were involved. Because, despite your assertion, some normal order of physics was still involved--the Israelites still swung swords and ran after their enemies. The slain still fell to the ground. Light from the sun, and reflected light from the moon (although questionable with Paul's assertion that the moon has it's own glory in 1 Cor 15:14) still illuminated their activities.
I did NOT assert that "some normal order of physics was involved". I said that God had to do "something completely outside of the normal order of physics".

How did you get that backwards?

I also never said anything even remotely close to "all physics stopped". I don't know where you would get these ideas.
 

Derf

Well-known member
I agree. But just stopping the earth's rotation for a short time is also not enough. All objects on earth must also be stopped. And by "stopped", I don't mean decelerated to zero. That would be very noticeable by everyone on the planet.
I'm not sure why "decelerated to zero" is a problem for you. Isn't that what "stopped" means? Maybe you are distinguishing between an immediate (instantaneous) deceleration and a more gradual deceleration. That's fair, certainly, although I think the text allows for either.
I did NOT assert that "some normal order of physics was involved". I said that God had to do "something completely outside of the normal order of physics".

How did you get that backwards?

I also never said anything even remotely close to "all physics stopped". I don't know where you would get these ideas.

You quoted it yourself "COMPLETELY outside of the normal order of physics". I don't mean to split hairs with you on this--I believe God did something outside the normal order of physics, but it affected people in a way that wasn't catastrophic (as all physics stopping would be, I expect), but still allowed most normal physics to continue in this altered, temporary state.
 

Right Divider

Body part
I'm not sure why "decelerated to zero" is a problem for you. Isn't that what "stopped" means? Maybe you are distinguishing between an immediate (instantaneous) deceleration and a more gradual deceleration. That's fair, certainly, although I think the text allows for either.

You quoted it yourself "COMPLETELY outside of the normal order of physics". I don't mean to split hairs with you on this--I believe God did something outside the normal order of physics, but it affected people in a way that wasn't catastrophic (as all physics stopping would be, I expect), but still allowed most normal physics to continue in this altered, temporary state.
I agree with that.

When I said COMPLETELY, I was talking about the event itself and not the other activities of humans on the planet.

Bottom line: miracles circumvent the natural order of the universe.
 

Derf

Well-known member
I am averse to making heliocentric and geocentric views exclusive of one another.

As I have noted elsewhere, scientists use both views for different purposes.
...
My primary concern related to the Joshua 10 account is to see the Bible interpreted in its own right, and not have spurious astronomical theories thrust upon it. I haven't said the heliocentric model is not correct but will do affirm the two should not be placed in competition with each other. Astronomy is an ever advancing science. What appears contradictory today may be harmonized tomorrow with the unveiling of new discoveries. Any scientist worth his salt acknowledges this. To say that science must have the final word is to make an unscientific statement. Science is an open canon, therefore contradiction is to be expected. Christian scientists should be wary of reading the Bible like science or science like the Bible. We expect non-contradiction in the Bible because it is a closed canon. What Scripture says Scripture has always said and will always say. Science is an open canon. Science has said things which it no longer says and what it says today may yet be changed. The dogmatic statements made in favor of absolute heliocentricity in the other thread at this site are simply unscientific, to say the least.

I am simply allowing the Bible to say what it says. The Joshua 10 account obviously does not teach us physics, astronomy, or any other science; but the passage makes a statement about the sun, that it ordinarily moves, and that a miracle occurred when the sun stopped moving.

Again, from Scripture:
1. The sun ordinarily moves. Nothing in Scripture teaches us that the sun phenomenologically "appears" to move.
2. Joshua made a specific prayer:

Joshua 10:
12 Then Joshua spoke to the Lord in the day when the Lord delivered up the Amorites before the sons of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel,

“O sun, stand still at Gibeon,
And O moon in the valley of Aijalon.”

13 So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped,
Until the nation avenged themselves of their enemies.
Is it not written in the book of Jashar? And the sun stopped in the middle of the sky and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day.

14 There was no day like that before it or after it, when the Lord listened to the voice of a man; for the Lord fought for Israel.

3. God listened to Joshua and answered his prayer. God did not just "appear" to answer his prayer: There was no day like that before it or after it, when the Lord listened to the voice of a man; for the Lord fought for Israel.

I don't think adopting a phenomenological view of the Joshua 10 narrative makes sense without knowing how Scripture presents cosmology. For example, Scripture describes the earth as round, not flat (Isaiah 40:21-22; Job 26:7). As another example, is it not the case that Scripture presents the sun in motion relative to the earth? If we assume that Scripture presents cosmology in a way that could be understood by the audience at the time, accommodating mistaken perceptions, then miracles are easily waved off by the liberals.

Question:
Was the miraculous account of the sun standing still in Joshua 10 an actuality or just a phenomenological account of what the ancient folks apparently assumed?

Whatever one thinks about physics, astronomy, or any other science, he has no right to impose his unproven, ever advancing scientific explanations on the Bible and make Scripture say something other than what it says.

AMR

I appreciate the emphasis on maintaining the right attitude toward science, which you obviously respect but recognize its fluid nature, and the scriptures which you obviously respect and recognize its eternal truth value.

I'm intrigued by the thought that the sun was moving, then stopped, then started again, as absolute, rather than relative, descriptions. I think it requires that the earth be at rest the whole time, or am I misunderstanding you? That would suggest, of course, that when you put a geo-synchronous satellite up, it doesn't really match and relatively offset from the speed of the earth it left in order to stay where it is (as the earth is fixed, rotationally), yet with respect to the sun and other planets, it would definitely be moving. And if it's not moving, it certainly tears holes in our understanding of gravity and its effects. I'll have to think through that a bit.

I think I understand your point about the two points of view being compatible in some ways, but I don't think they both are compatible cosmologies, are they? Do you think the Joshua passage drives us to a particular cosmology?

Regarding your question: "Was the miraculous account of the sun standing still in Joshua 10 an actuality or just a phenomenological account of what the ancient folks apparently assumed?" I think the word "just" may be a bit offputting, as it suggests that if the sun didn't actually stand still, but the earth did, that it was less of a miracle, or not a miracle at all. I don't think that's a proper dichotomy, as it makes one have to dismiss the miraculous nature of the event in order to hold to a helio-centric cosmology.
 

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
If you are capable of seeing that Bible is a collection of man-written works and as such is not perfect, or if you can at least consider that some verses are not to be taken literally, then you can continue with your faith.
Thanks be to God I am not capable of viewing Holy Writ as riddled with error and am compelled to continue with my faith.

Further, I take all Scripture literally. That does not mean woodenly. It means to take the words in Scripture exactly they are intended to mean by the writer, that is, literally. The writers of Holy Writ, superintended by God the Holy Spirit, wrote the words of God as the words of men. The words of men employ many literary devices, hyperbole, chiasm, allusion, apostrophe, metaphor, parellelism, assonance, idiom, simile, merism, synecdoche, paradox, metonymy, didactic, poetry, and so on. These devices are to be taken literally, that is, just as they were meant when they were so written. A good student of hermeneutics understands how to distinguish these literary devices, and not add more meaningful freight to them than they were meant to carry.

AMR
 

Derf

Well-known member
I agree with that.

When I said COMPLETELY, I was talking about the event itself and not the other activities of humans on the planet.

Bottom line: miracles circumvent the natural order of the universe.

Yes, they do. But as you pointed out, the side effects also need to be taken into account. From what I've read about the miracles in the bible, they always maintain some aspects of the natural order.

In regard to the stopping of the earth and all that was on it, I went through an exercise to determine how bad that might be just a few months ago. It turned out not to be as bad as one might think, as long as the deceleration wasn't instantaneous. It went something like this:

The surface of the earth at the equator is a decent nominal case. The earth revolves at a rate of 1 per day (of course), and at 25,000 miles circumference, that means 25,000 miles per day or a little over 1000 miles per hour (faster than the speed of sound, interestingly enough).

How slow would the earth have to stop for the Israelites and their enemies not to notice it, or at least not to associate it with the earth stopping? I would suggest that if the deceleration were spread out over, say, a half hour, the sun would mostly have appeared to stand still. At least let's try it with a half hour.

1/2 a(t^2) = 1000 is the equation we want to use, with t = 0.5. That resolves to a = 2000/.25 or 8000 miles/hr^2, which is an odd unit that we don't have a good feel for. So we need a good comparison.

A car that can accelerate from 0 to 60 miles per hour in 10 seconds is a reasonable economic vehicle--certainly not a muscle car. It's acceleration would be 60 mph/10 seconds, or 6 mphps (another weird set of units), which translates to a whopping 21,600 miles/hr^2! We can divide that number by 2.7 to get back to 8000 mi/hr^2, which means we can instead multiply our 10 sec acceleration time by 2.7, so that in 1/2 hour, we can accelerate to the speed of the earth at the equator without really feeling it. Or we can stop the earth, had we the power to do so, in that same space of time.

Is a half hour too long? It might be, especially since the moon was also stopping, (not standing), in the Valley of Aijalon. But maybe not. Certainly it's possible that God suspended a lot of the effects of the stopping, but it doesn't seem like He had to.

Another effect is what happens to the energy. That was another eye opener--apparently stopping the whole earth, if that's what God did, could have melted the earth, if all of the energy were absorbed as heat in the ground and water.
 

Rosenritter

New member
Hello there Derf. I was looking here because of the reference to Joshua's Day vs. the witch of Endor discussion on the Eternal Conscious Torment board. Finished reading through now, thank you.

Let's talk about whether this passage requires that the sun, and presumably all the planets, and perhaps all the stars, revolve around the earth. Or can it allow for a heliocentric (sun-centered) planetary system, or some-other centered universe.

My initial reaction is that it doesn't speak as to which revolves around what. (continuing to read now) ... and that the question of heliocentric or geocentric is nothing more than a matter of perspective. Whenever you are running equations, you get to pick where you declare point zero. For some problems, it makes sense to pick the sun. For others, the earth. The world works the same either way. Neither one is "wrong."

But let's consider the question of the physics side effects of the sun stopping in the sky. We normally think of the sun's movements through the heavens being because of the earth turning. That is because our schools teach us to be heliocentric....

... and all those side effects such as deceleration shock are what you would expect if the world suddenly went from full rotation to zero. Right?

What if God was Geocentric instead of Heliocentric? How would he approach the problem?

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth, it says. It describes the earth as without form and void, a canvas waiting to be completed. The sun and the stars follow, but earth is the center of creation.

So when God stopped the sun in the sky, and the moon in the sky, that can also be done by making the rest of the universe spin in geosynchronous orbit around the earth for the duration of the day.

The earth never stops spinning, no one gets inertia slammed into jelly, and who cares about the sudden start and stop anywhere else? Those stars, in their uncountable trillions, exist to adorn the sky... that's their purpose.

Of course, there's also the possibility that God could temporarily nullify any inertial shift, and maybe it's just a half dozen of one is equal to six of another type scenario. It really doesn't matter how he chose to work with it behind the scenes, or which laws he chose to alter or where he applied forces. Once it enters the realm of "miracle" standard rules no longer apply.
 
Last edited:

jsanford108

New member
The Earth goes around the Sun. That is a fact.

The verse describes the Sun and Moon as stopping in their tracks. Read completely literally, that means that the author of Joshua held to an incorrect Geocentric view of the solar system. If your faith is based on thinking that the entire Bible is The Word of God and completely literally accurate- then it is time to dump your faith.

Do you dump faith in science every time it is wrong?

Science said "the best way to rid of infection is bleeding it out." Science said "spontaneous generation is fact." Science said "cells are the smallest natural unit." Science said "global warming is real." (This last on is just a joke)

By your proposed logic, you should reject science, since it is a collection of information proposed by man, utilizing man-made equipment and experiments.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL
 

Wick Stick

Well-known member
Further, I take all Scripture literally. That does not mean woodenly. It means to take the words in Scripture exactly they are intended to mean by the writer, that is, literally.
The Hebrew of the Scriptures does not work that precisely (at least, not by default). Let me run a few things by you.

Biblical Hebrew has only about 30K words. For the sake of comparison, Modern English has about 170K. Because of the relative dearth of words, it is rare for a Hebrew word to be precise. Most/all words are overloaded. That is, each word has multiple meanings.

Now, extrapolate that to the level of sentences and paragraphs. What happens when I create a sentence using 6 words, and all those words have 3-4 meanings each? For a more authentic experience, also remove all spaces and punctuation marks - those weren't invented yet. How clear is that paragraph?

It turns out that it is entirely clear - once we solve the jigsaw puzzle. First one must figure out where to separate the words. Then let them give each other context, and play process of elimination among the various definitions of the words, and a picture emerges.

But there's a wrinkle. It turns out that it's a quantum jigsaw puzzle. Put it together and you can get a precise meaning. But put it together again using different assumptions, and you can get a different but nonetheless precise meaning, different than the first meaning; also a valid outcome.

This makes written communication (and particularly translation) challenging. Because the authors were not idiots, they found a way to remove the ambiguity (well...when they wanted to). It's called parallelism, and it works on the same principle as a mathematical checksum. The author writes two sentences that use different words, but have the same overall meaning. The reader understands that if his interpretation of the two sentences isn't the same, then he did it wrong.

Because the authors were clever fellows, they also understood that this ambiguity was not necessarily a problem, but perhaps a feature of their language. Wordplay in Hebrew is extremely common; the pun is ubiquitous. A Jewish writer, whose sentences or stories have only a single level of meaning, isn't a very good Jewish writer.

A quick-witted writer can accomplish great things using that ambiguity. Frame mundane history using words that allow for the story to be read in terms of epic exploits? Doable. Write a technical manual for farming, that can be read to convey spiritual truths? Yes. Frame a story in such a way as to divide a group of readers into two groups, based on how they read the text? That happened.

You tell me you want the author's intent. But what if the author intended for the text to be interpreted? What if you're supposed to bring your preconceptions to the text, and you get out of it what you put in, like an art student in front of a painting?

And, finally, what if The Author's intent went quite a bit further than the author's intent?

Jarrod
 

Rosenritter

New member
The Hebrew of the Scriptures does not work that precisely (at least, not by default). Let me run a few things by you.

Biblical Hebrew has only about 30K words. For the sake of comparison, Modern English has about 170K. Because of the relative dearth of words, it is rare for a Hebrew word to be precise. Most/all words are overloaded. That is, each word has multiple meanings.

Now, extrapolate that to the level of sentences and paragraphs. What happens when I create a sentence using 6 words, and all those words have 3-4 meanings each? For a more authentic experience, also remove all spaces and punctuation marks - those weren't invented yet. How clear is that paragraph?

It turns out that it is entirely clear - once we solve the jigsaw puzzle. First one must figure out where to separate the words. Then let them give each other context, and play process of elimination among the various definitions of the words, and a picture emerges.

But there's a wrinkle. It turns out that it's a quantum jigsaw puzzle. Put it together and you can get a precise meaning. But put it together again using different assumptions, and you can get a different but nonetheless precise meaning, different than the first meaning; also a valid outcome.

This makes written communication (and particularly translation) challenging. Because the authors were not idiots, they found a way to remove the ambiguity (well...when they wanted to). It's called parallelism, and it works on the same principle as a mathematical checksum. The author writes two sentences that use different words, but have the same overall meaning. The reader understands that if his interpretation of the two sentences isn't the same, then he did it wrong.

Jarrod

I am reminded of a discussion with NWL. If we were applying that application parallelism to another Old Testament passage,

Job 19:25-27 KJV
(25) For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:
(26) And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:
(27) Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me.

You would agree that these statements are meant to be applied to the same redeemer, and the same God, not that Job would randomly switch subjects mid-breath? Not that these are unrelated statements?
 

Derf

Well-known member
Hello there Derf. I was looking here because of the reference to Joshua's Day vs. the witch of Endor discussion on the Eternal Conscious Torment board. Finished reading through now, thank you.
Hi Rosenritter. Thanks for stopping by. Your comments are appreciated.

My initial reaction is that it doesn't speak as to which revolves around what. (continuing to read now) ... and that the question of heliocentric or geocentric is nothing more than a matter of perspective. Whenever you are running equations, you get to pick where you declare point zero. For some problems, it makes sense to pick the sun. For others, the earth. The world works the same either way. Neither one is "wrong."
That's my tendency as well. It struck me as odd that someone well-versed in the heliocentric model, using it every day in fact, would be willing to move away from it for this passage. I respect [MENTION=7209]Ask Mr. Religion[/MENTION]'s point of view here, but I'm not sure how I can do what he says he does. But I want to be open to the possibility he suggests.

But let's consider the question of the physics side effects of the sun stopping in the sky. We normally think of the sun's movements through the heavens being because of the earth turning. That is because our schools teach us to be heliocentric....

... and all those side effects such as deceleration shock are what you would expect if the world suddenly went from full rotation to zero. Right?
Suddenly or mostly sudden, as I expressed previously.

What if God was Geocentric instead of Heliocentric? How would he approach the problem?

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth, it says. It describes the earth as without form and void, a canvas waiting to be completed. The sun and the stars follow, but earth is the center of creation.

So when God stopped the sun in the sky, and the moon in the sky, that can also be done by making the rest of the universe spin in geosynchronous orbit around the earth for the duration of the day.

The earth never stops spinning, no one gets inertia slammed into jelly, and who cares about the sudden start and stop anywhere else? Those stars, in their uncountable trillions, exist to adorn the sky... that's their purpose.
The issue with that is that in some places in the universe, the objects all have to exceed the speed of light to keep up with the earth's rotation. Unless it wasn't necessary because it was daytime for our Israelites (though nighttime in other parts of the world).

If the whole universe had to be sped up to geosynchronous orbit around the earth, then we should be able to see a continuous stream of effects, as the light from those areas of the universe hit the earth. For us, I would assume that the stars that are 3200 to 3500 light years from us would show up as suddenly racing across the sky. But that means that the effect could have been only local--just those stars that are within a day's travel time for light. And the sun is the only one that is that close.

So that means the only real concern is the sun and moon, and the planets, I suppose. If one realigns the sun without realigning the planets, their orbits go wonky and likely cause catastrophic results--planets flying into the sun or each other over the next hundred years or so.

Of course, there's also the possibility that God could temporarily nullify any inertial shift, and maybe it's just a half dozen of one is equal to six of another type scenario. It really doesn't matter how he chose to work with it behind the scenes, or which laws he chose to alter or where he applied forces. Once it enters the realm of "miracle" standard rules no longer apply.
This is the trivial solution that requires no thought. Let's leave that to somebody else to consider, OK?
 

Wick Stick

Well-known member
I am reminded of a discussion with NWL. If we were applying that application parallelism to another Old Testament passage,

Job 19:25-27 KJV
(25) For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:
(26) And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:
(27) Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me.

You would agree that these statements are meant to be applied to the same redeemer, and the same God, not that Job would randomly switch subjects mid-breath? Not that these are unrelated statements?
If I was matching parallel statements, I would do it according to the color scheme above. The latter 2 verses are linked by parallelism.

V. 25 isn't in parallel with the other verses, but its still related by the use of the conjunction at the beginning of V. 26.
 

Derf

Well-known member
If I was matching parallel statements, I would do it according to the color scheme above. The latter 2 verses are linked by parallelism.

V. 25 isn't in parallel with the other verses, but its still related by the use of the conjunction at the beginning of V. 26.

This quite fascinating! I don't want to squelch good discussion, but how do we apply this to a literal take on the Joshua story. I think you're right about the Job passage, but it seems more poetic in nature, too. It's usually considered a book of poetry.

Here's an attempt:

[Jos 10:12-14 KJV] 12 Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. 13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. [Is] not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day. 14 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.

But how does this help us to determine if the intent of the author was to say, "The Sun normally goes around the earth, with the moon, but God stopped it from doing so."?
 
Top