PDA

View Full Version : Why did God stop the sun?? (moved from AE)



Jeffinator
Sep 21st 2008, 09:15 PM
In Joshua 10:1-15 in order to win a battle against his enemies Joshua asked God to stop the sun and moon in its tracks so they could keep fighting. Except for the sun and the moon dont move, the earth does. Is this just old world thinking about how everything revolves around the earth??

Plz help.

scourge39
Sep 21st 2008, 10:51 PM
In Joshua 10:1-15 in order to win a battle against his enemies Joshua asked God to stop the sun and moon in its tracks so they could keep fighting. Except for the sun and the moon dont move, the earth does. Is this just old world thinking about how everything revolves around the earth??

There's no conclusive solution to interpreting the event, but 3 options have been put forth:

1) The sun simply stood still, implying that enough light was provided for him to win the battle. The sun's eastern position suggests this took place in the afternoon, making additional hours of daylight unnecessary.

2) The request was referring to a solar eclipse, which would've only hindered the pursuit of the battle rather than help Israel win it.

3) Seeing the sun and moon simultaneously on days other than the fourteenth day of the month was seen as a bad omen to Canaanites according to their astrological practices. It may have remained in place for one day, serving as a positive sign for Joshua and a negative one for his enemies. This interpretation has much going for it, although we don't fully understand astrological practices at that time.

livingword26
Sep 21st 2008, 11:14 PM
Its common language even today, to speak of the sun and the moon moving accross the sky. We talk about the sun rising, and the sun setting, When it actually just sets there. Its the easiest way to describe the movement.

zombieCat
Sep 22nd 2008, 04:30 AM
So you're saying when the bible clearly contradicts scientific evidence, it should be taken allegorically? Good point.

BrckBrln
Sep 22nd 2008, 05:05 AM
So you're saying when the bible clearly contradicts scientific evidence, it should be taken allegorically? Good point.

It's hardly contradicting science. It's what livingword said. If you went outside and the sun stayed in the same spot for five hours, you would say the sun stood still.

zombieCat
Sep 22nd 2008, 06:07 AM
It's hardly contradicting science. It's what livingword said. If you went outside and the sun stayed in the same spot for five hours, you would say the sun stood still.The example you reinforced is indeed allegory. If taken literally, as we're supposed to with the Genesis account of creation, yes the passage does contradict science. This is one of the passages that kept people from accepting the scientific evidence that the earth revolves around the sun. Only after there was unequivocal proof otherwise did people say, "Yeah, I guess it is just allegorical."

crawfish
Sep 22nd 2008, 08:31 PM
The example you reinforced is indeed allegory. If taken literally, as we're supposed to with the Genesis account of creation, yes the passage does contradict science. This is one of the passages that kept people from accepting the scientific evidence that the earth revolves around the sun. Only after there was unequivocal proof otherwise did people say, "Yeah, I guess it is just allegorical."


"There is talk of a new astrologer who wants to prove that the earth moves and goes around instead of the sky, the sun, the moon, just as if somebody were moving in a carriage or ship might hold that he was sitting still and at rest while the earth and the trees walked and moved. But that is how things are nowadays: when a man wishes to be clever he must needs invent something special, and the way he does it must needs be the best! The fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside-down. However, as Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth."

- Martin Luther on Copernicus


I think few of us have a problem with understanding that what the scripture refers to is the perception of the author and not the physical reality. The human author didn't need to understand or explain the true state of the earth and the solar system; he simply needed to explain the miracle of God extending the daylight hours.

FYI to the OP - while the suns movement is simply a perception due to the revolving of the earth, the moon in fact DOES move around the earth. Two actions at a minimum are required here: 1) the earth stops revolving, and 2) the moon stops orbiting. According to the scriptures it is only one action, though.

This does force us, however, to accept the fact that God does (at times) communicate through perspective rather than scientific reality. It opens the door to acceptance that we aren't always told how he does things, only how those things appear from our ability to perceive them.

zombieCat
Sep 22nd 2008, 11:49 PM
"There is talk of a new astrologer who wants to prove that the earth moves and goes around instead of the sky, the sun, the moon, just as if somebody were moving in a carriage or ship might hold that he was sitting still and at rest while the earth and the trees walked and moved. But that is how things are nowadays: when a man wishes to be clever he must needs invent something special, and the way he does it must needs be the best! The fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside-down. However, as Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth."

- Martin Luther on Copernicus


I think few of us have a problem with understanding that what the scripture refers to is the perception of the author and not the physical reality. The human author didn't need to understand or explain the true state of the earth and the solar system; he simply needed to explain the miracle of God extending the daylight hours.

FYI to the OP - while the suns movement is simply a perception due to the revolving of the earth, the moon in fact DOES move around the earth. Two actions at a minimum are required here: 1) the earth stops revolving, and 2) the moon stops orbiting. According to the scriptures it is only one action, though.

This does force us, however, to accept the fact that God does (at times) communicate through perspective rather than scientific reality. It opens the door to acceptance that we aren't always told how he does things, only how those things appear from our ability to perceive them.I agree with everything you said.

Richard H
Sep 23rd 2008, 12:22 AM
In Joshua 10:1-15 in order to win a battle against his enemies Joshua asked God to stop the sun and moon in its tracks so they could keep fighting. Except for the sun and the moon dont move, the earth does. Is this just old world thinking about how everything revolves around the earth??

Plz help.
Hi Jeff,
The Discovery Channel is full of shows seeking to explain (rather to explain away) the miracles of God.
In “explaining” the Red Sea, nowhere do they touch on the multiple times the River Jordan was parted the same way.

Astronomically, the darkening that occurred at the death of Jesus cannot be explained by an eclipse.
Mathematical calculations show that there was no eclipse at that time.

Now that we are called to live by faith, God does not seem to perform these sorts of events anymore, but He is certainly able to perform that which is impossible.
Else, we have no hope.

Richard

petepet
Sep 23rd 2008, 11:51 AM
In Joshua 10:1-15 in order to win a battle against his enemies Joshua asked God to stop the sun and moon in its tracks so they could keep fighting. Except for the sun and the moon dont move, the earth does. Is this just old world thinking about how everything revolves around the earth??

Plz help.


Strictly speaking Joshua asked the sun and moon to 'be silent'.

10.12-13a ‘Then spoke Joshua to Yahweh, in the day when Yahweh delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel,
"Sun on Gibeon be silent (still),
Moon in the vale of Aijalon,
So the sun was silent (still) and the moon stayed,
Until the nation was revenged on its foes."

Thus it is not quite clear what happened or when it happened. Does the reference to Gibeon mean that it happened while they were at Gibeon? If so it was while the sun was rising (verse 9) which is supported by the fact that the moon was still visible. But why then ask for the sun to stand still at that point? If he wanted light there would be plenty of time still left in the day. It is more probable that he would want it to be ‘silent’, NOT to rise so as to be able to continue the advantage of the night attack. Thus ‘be silent’ could mean stay dark. This would tie in with the visibility of the moon over Aijalon, the remarkable weather conditions, and the later hailstorm that destroyed the enemy from a black sky (verse 11). It would also tie in with the fact that Joshua was making a night attack (verse 9). It should be noted that there is no suggestion in the actual historical account of an excessively long day.

For the meaning ‘be silent’, which is the primary meaning of the verb, compare Amos 5.13; Leviticus 10.3; Psalm 4.4 (5); 31.17; Job 31.34. For the meaning ‘be still’ compare Jeremiah 8.14; 47.6; 1 Samuel 14.9, but these could equally be rendered by ‘silence’, it was the stillness of silence, non-activity.

We are not incidentally to see in it the literal adding of a twenty four hour period. The ‘about a whole day’ in question would be in terms of the period between sunrise and sunset.

10.13b-14 ‘And the sun stayed in the midst of heaven and hasted not to go down about a whole day. And there was no day like that before it or after it, that Yahweh heard the voice of a man. For Yahweh fought for Israel.’

This could mean that the sun having begun to appear simply disappeared because of the thick, threatening clouds which resulted, among other things, in the hailstorm. As far as they were concerned it ‘stopped’ in the midst of heaven. (The word in Hebrew means to stand still, stop still. Thus here possibly meaning that they saw its movement no longer. As far as they were concerned it had stopped moving. It no longer produced any effect. And the day had gone very dark. They were describing what they saw. So that day there was no sun seen hasting to go down. And it was all due to Joshua’s request, God’s response to the latter being a unique event in history.

Given the unusual weather conditions, the appearance of the moon, and the rare nature of the hailstorm, it seems more probable that the reference is to a dark day not a light one.

All we can really say with certainty in the end is that there were hugely remarkable events affecting the weather and the heavens which were seen as the work of Yahweh in direct response to Joshua’s prayer, an event unique in history up to that time. And they described it in terms of what they saw. The important thing to the writer was that Yahweh fought for Israel.

Marc B
Sep 30th 2008, 03:43 AM
Makes good sense your heavy overcast analogy. Anyone who is up before sunrise will know that an overcast sky to the east will delay their perception of sunrise marked by a brightening sky. A totally dark day is certainly not impossible. Since God created the laws of physics it's not unreasonable to assume He uses them to do His bidding.

Desperaux
Dec 6th 2009, 05:03 AM
Its common language even today, to speak of the sun and the moon moving accross the sky. We talk about the sun rising, and the sun setting, When it actually just sets there. Its the easiest way to describe the movement.


Yes.

God stopped the earth's rotation for the reason that He was asked to by His righteous servant. Good reason!

Luke34
Dec 6th 2009, 07:07 AM
I think stopping the earth's rotation might have a few consequences. You can't halt something moving at a thousand miles per hour and expect everything to be exactly the same. And, as mentioned, "stopping the sun" makes no actual scientific sense. This is why it's nice to not be a biblical literalist.

Athanasius
Dec 6th 2009, 06:27 PM
I think stopping the earth's rotation might have a few consequences. You can't halt something moving at a thousand miles per hour and expect everything to be exactly the same. And, as mentioned, "stopping the sun" makes no actual scientific sense. This is why it's nice to not be a biblical literalist.

Here's the first question we must ask: is it possible for God to stop the sun and maintain order as if the sun wasn't stopped? For all those who claim their view of God is more grandiose and awe-inspiring because of their understanding of science, I find in other ways its diminished because of their rejection of miracles -- is it really beyond the ability of God to do these things? Of course, we'd be entering into a philosophical argument at that point, rather than a scientific one.

Because here's the thing, I really don't understand the notion that everything God does in the natural world has to make 'scientific sense'.

Desperaux
Dec 6th 2009, 07:25 PM
I think stopping the earth's rotation might have a few consequences. You can't halt something moving at a thousand miles per hour and expect everything to be exactly the same. And, as mentioned, "stopping the sun" makes no actual scientific sense. This is why it's nice to not be a biblical literalist.


Science has shown there to be a missing day. It happened. There was no ill effect. God is the God of all nature, and He is governor over us. He loves us, and He will have protected us, if there really were forces that would be destructive in that act.

AndrewCothran
Dec 6th 2009, 07:56 PM
I think stopping the earth's rotation might have a few consequences. You can't halt something moving at a thousand miles per hour and expect everything to be exactly the same. And, as mentioned, "stopping the sun" makes no actual scientific sense. This is why it's nice to not be a biblical literalist.

Well it is true that God would be able to do anything unless it contradicts his will and his word however you bring up a valid point about biblical literalism
Language context and the understanding of the authors regarding the natural world and the heavens should certainly be taken into consideration here.

ClayInHisHands
Dec 6th 2009, 08:30 PM
Here's the first question we must ask: is it possible for God to stop the sun and maintain order as if the sun wasn't stopped? For all those who claim their view of God is more grandiose and awe-inspiring because of their understanding of science, I find in other ways its diminished because of their rejection of miracles -- is it really beyond the ability of God to do these things? Of course, we'd be entering into a philosophical argument at that point, rather than a scientific one.

Because here's the thing, I really don't understand the notion that everything God does in the natural world has to make 'scientific sense'.


AMEN! God Almighty made science.

teddyv
Dec 9th 2009, 10:21 PM
Science has shown there to be a missing day. It happened. There was no ill effect. God is the God of all nature, and He is governor over us. He loves us, and He will have protected us, if there really were forces that would be destructive in that act.
If you are referring to the chain mail letter about the missing day - that is unequivocally false.

http://www.snopes.com/religion/lostday.asp

I don't have a problem with a miracle in this instance. God is above his creation. But I also don't see a problem with a non-literal interpretation either.

markedward
Dec 10th 2009, 12:41 AM
Science has shown there to be a missing day.What? Are you serious?

I have no problems with believing that God "stopped the sun in the sky" in a literal sense... but to actually claim that "science" has proved "there to be a missing day" is beyond absurd.

webhead
Dec 10th 2009, 04:40 AM
Lets look at the Hebrew.

Josh 10:13 And the sun stood still (דָּמָם) , and the moon stayed (עָמַד,) 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.


דָּמָם = to be silent, be still, wait, be dumb, grow dumb.

עָמַד = to stand, remain, endure, take one's stand.

What's so hard to believe about God keeping the sun from going down?:confused

How does this make the Bible and science not compatible?:confused

markedward
Dec 10th 2009, 04:52 AM
By definition, a "miracle" is something scientifically impossible... happening.

If we believe enough that God is the creator of all things, that he set things into motion, that he is infinitely more powerful than his creation, and that he is capable of raising his Son from the dead...

Why is it so hard for the "scientifically astute" to believe that, if God stopped the earth's rotation for several hours, that he could not also have preserved the earth and everything upon it during that time? It's a miracle.

Claiming that God stopping the sun is "scientifically impossible" or doesn't make "scientific sense" is a drastic underestimation of the Lord Of All Creation...

Desperaux
Dec 10th 2009, 05:03 AM
What? Are you serious?

I have no problems with believing that God "stopped the sun in the sky" in a literal sense... but to actually claim that "science" has proved "there to be a missing day" is beyond absurd.

Well, I believe the claims. Even if they are not scientifically proven yet, they will be. Nonetheless, there is a missing day, due to the fact that it is in the scriptural record. Nothing from scripture has ever been proved false yet.

Desperaux
Dec 10th 2009, 05:04 AM
If you are referring to the chain mail letter about the missing day - that is unequivocally false.

http://www.snopes.com/religion/lostday.asp

I don't have a problem with a miracle in this instance. God is above his creation. But I also don't see a problem with a non-literal interpretation either.

I am not referring to any chain mail letter. I read the book written by the one who claimed it, and he is above reproach, IMHO. Snopes is not reliable in this instance.

webhead
Dec 10th 2009, 05:05 AM
By definition, a "miracle" is something scientifically impossible... happening.

If we believe enough that God is the creator of all things, that he set things into motion, that he is infinitely more powerful than his creation, and that he is capable of raising his Son from the dead...

Why is it so hard for the "scientifically astute" to believe that, if God stopped the earth's rotation for several hours, that he could not also have preserved the earth and everything upon it during that time? It's a miracle.

Claiming that God stopping the sun is "scientifically impossible" or doesn't make "scientific sense" is a drastic underestimation of the Lord Of All Creation...

The best part is that the "science vs God and the Old Testament" Christian crowd has no problem believing in the resurrection of Christ they say, but they have a problem with the Genesis account of creation? Really?:confused

So, Christ can raise himself from the grave after being dead and mummified for 3 days, but can't stop the earth, or create in 6 yowm(days)?

The resurrection spits in the face of science as well, but it's true? Really? Why is this? The 6 day creation is false, but the resurrection is true? If one is false, so is the other, because neither can be proven by science according to man's observation.

teddyv
Dec 10th 2009, 03:30 PM
I am not referring to any chain mail letter. I read the book written by the one who claimed it, and he is above reproach, IMHO. Snopes is not reliable in this instance.
OK, here is Answers in Genesis take on it. They do not consider it credible, and if they don't, it definitely ain't.


The 1989 Bible-Science Newsletter article also reports that “Dr. Bolton Davidheiser wrote the NASA office at Greenbelt, Maryland, where all of this was supposed to have happened. They replied that they knew nothing of Mr. Harold Hill and could not corroborate the ‘lost day’ reference. … The concluding paragraph of NASA's letter read, ‘Although we make use of planetary positions as necessary in the determination of space-craft orbits on our computers, I have not found that any “astronauts and space scientists at Greenbelt” were involved in the “lost day” story attributed to Mr. Hill’” (p 12). All efforts to confirm the genuineness of this story have failed. Its origin is dubious; the facts do not fit the actual truth of the matter; and those who were supposedly involved in the finding of the “lost” day of Joshua 10 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=JOSH+10&language=english&version=KJV&showfn=on) know nothing about such events. Furthermore, anyone claiming that computers could somehow “find” a lost day fails to understand how computers work. The only conclusion that one can draw, respecting the facts, is that this story is false. That being the case, it should not be repeated. We do a disservice to God's Word when we attempt to “defend” it with stories such as these which, with a bit of common sense and the tiniest bit of in-depth research, are easily shown to be without any factual foundation whatsoever. The Word of God can, and must, be defended. But let us make sure we do not defend it with a “broken sword."http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1117.asp

Desperaux
Dec 10th 2009, 08:22 PM
It is an article written by somebody!

I believe Harold Hill. He is a man, in my opinion, who has integrity and his life bears spiritual fruit. Enough said.

Athanasius
Dec 10th 2009, 09:38 PM
It is an article written by somebody!

I believe Harold Hill. He is a man, in my opinion, who has integrity and his life bears spiritual fruit. Enough said.

There is no possible way to determine whether or not we're missing something as small as a 'day' using contemporary cosmology and astrophysics, or let alone 'science' for that matter. Further, just because we (earth) might be missing a day does not mean that everything else is missing a day -- it could have been business as usual.

ClayInHisHands
Dec 10th 2009, 09:56 PM
God could stop the Earth's rotation to enable a simple battle mission in the Middle East to be won right now for His divine purpose and the rest of the world and even those in the midst of it wouldn't even know it was happening. He can do anything He chooses to do.....or can he?:hmm:

Desperaux
Dec 10th 2009, 10:13 PM
There is no possible way to determine whether or not we're missing something as small as a 'day' using contemporary cosmology and astrophysics, or let alone 'science' for that matter. Further, just because we (earth) might be missing a day does not mean that everything else is missing a day -- it could have been business as usual.

It was a global event.

Athanasius
Dec 10th 2009, 10:32 PM
It was a global event.

And one beyond the ability of science. If geologists approximate a 4-5billion year old earth, I doubt - highly doubt - their science is so fined tune that they know whether or not a period of 12-24 hours is missing.

Desperaux
Dec 10th 2009, 10:53 PM
And one beyond the ability of science. If geologists approximate a 4-5billion year old earth, I doubt - highly doubt - their science is so fined tune that they know whether or not a period of 12-24 hours is missing.

Science is only the application of knowledge that is God-given... do we really presume to know that this kind of scientific knowledge is outside of our grasp? Earth as we know it, as God has crafted it for humanity, outfitted for time, is about 6000 years old.


As scripture tells us the "the sun stood still, And the moon stopped", they did, and that brings global effects.

markedward
Dec 10th 2009, 10:55 PM
Scripture does tell us that God "stopped" the sun.

But there is simply no way for as to verify that using scientific measurements... let alone using a program at NASA that never existed... the guy who told the story openly admitted that he has no proof that the NASA program took place, and the people he claimed were a part of the NASA program have all stated that it didn't happen. Face it, the guy made up a story to "prove" the God stopped the sun.

The story in Scripture took place. No one is disputing that.
The story at NASA did not take place.

webhead
Dec 11th 2009, 03:50 AM
Science is only the application of knowledge that is God-given.

Science is only an observational testing method created by mankind to explain the Universe that God created. Science is not fact, and God is not confined to a man made observational testing process. Mankind created the observational testing system know as science, not God.

All of the testing methods are based upon pre-supposed truths. God is not a pre-supposed anything.

Desperaux
Dec 11th 2009, 05:10 AM
Science is only an observational testing method created by mankind to explain the Universe that God created. Science is not fact, and God is not confined to a man made observational testing process. Mankind created the observational testing system know as science, not God.

All of the testing methods are based upon pre-supposed truths. God is not a pre-supposed anything.

Exactly! Good post!

Luke34
Dec 14th 2009, 06:49 AM
I believe Harold Hill.Wait, like the guy from The Music Man? It must be! No-one else could conceivably have that name!

Anyway, I guess it's "possible" that God could've stopped the earth's rotation without affecting anything, if he really wanted to, but I see no reason to assume that's the case. God created the laws of physics and they are thus good things (since they, you know, make it possible for matter to exist on every level, from the atomic to the macrocosmic), and I don't think he'd flagrantly violate them without an extremely good reason. Especially since there must be about a thousand easier ways for an omnipotent being to make sure it's light out for one battle in the Middle East. It's not that I object to the very idea, it's just that (not being a Biblical literalist because that makes no sense to me) I see no reason to think that it happened. Especially since I suspect the passage in question is poetic in intent, anyway (not a concrete thing, but just a stylistic hunch).

Also, yes, there is absolutely no way to determine if there's a "missing day" in Earth's history. That is impossible.

Luke34
Dec 14th 2009, 06:54 AM
Science is only an observational testing method created by mankind to explain the Universe that God created. Science is not fact, and God is not confined to a man made observational testing process. Mankind created the observational testing system know as science, not God.

All of the testing methods are based upon pre-supposed truths. God is not a pre-supposed anything.The only absolute presupposition of science is "We can use our senses to observe the world around us," and if we can't accept that as a prima facie principle or at least as a useful assumption, well then, I'm not really sure what to say.

Also, science is not actually fact, because that statement doesn't make sense, but it does contain facts. If we can know anything to an absolutely certainty, it is scientific facts (like: hydrogen contains one electron. Most of the earth is covered by water. Earth orbits the sun. Etc).

greenrangerx
Dec 15th 2009, 03:51 PM
I seem to remember hearing Native American stories about a prolonged night. If there was a prolonged day in the Middle East, then a prolonged night in the Americas would make sense.

Steve M
Dec 15th 2009, 04:12 PM
Also, yes, there is absolutely no way to determine if there's a "missing day" in Earth's history. That is impossible.

Let us simply reason through the original hypothesis of the story.

NASA is going to 'turn back time' by taking current star positions and working backwards, using known drift.

When they finish... they are off.

Off... from what? If I give you a picture of two stars in the sky, and tell you they move at about a rate of THIS FAR per day, and then tell you to count back six thousands years worth of days... to what do you compare your outcome to determine if you got it right?

Do you have a picture of where the stars were? Um... no, you don't.

Do you have... any sort of idea where the ancients would have placed them in the night sky? Um, no, not really. Certainly not back six thousand years.

What do you have to compare your model of where they should be?

Nothing. Zip. Nada.

So HOW COULD WE FIND A MISSING DAY IN THERE?

The basic logic of the story fails, somehow, to explain exactly how you would identify a missing day. It's... COMPUTERS. And... SCIENCE.

The the OP question... why? What is the point in this story?

The point the story is trying to hammer home on us is that God was showing His presence to the Israelites. This is supposed to show us that in the time and place that He showed with no possibility of doubt that He was present... mankind still had no faith. They still turned on Him.

Think about it. Read through this story, and read through what happens later.

And think about how that relates to our search for proof, to the story of searching for proof that this day is missing, scientific proof of miracles. The Israelites had proof that was incontrovertible; and it didn't make them believe (see their turning to false gods). It didn't make them obedient.

Desperaux
Dec 16th 2009, 09:51 PM
Wait, like the guy from The Music Man? It must be! No-one else could conceivably have that name!

Huh? It's the man's name. Be civil.


Anyway, I guess it's "possible" that God could've stopped the earth's rotation without affecting anything, if he really wanted to, but I see no reason to assume that's the case. God created the laws of physics and they are thus good things (since they, you know, make it possible for matter to exist on every level, from the atomic to the macrocosmic), and I don't think he'd flagrantly violate them without an extremely good reason. God had good reason. He is supernatural---which means "above nature"! :lol:



Especially since there must be about a thousand easier ways for an omnipotent being to make sure it's light out for one battle in the Middle East. It's not that I object to the very idea, it's just that (not being a Biblical literalist because that makes no sense to me) I see no reason to think that it happened. Especially since I suspect the passage in question is poetic in intent, anyway (not a concrete thing, but just a stylistic hunch). So you know that something is hard for God and what's easy?

God's ways are above our ways. It doesn't have to make sense to our feeble-by-comparison minds for us to believe it.


Also, yes, there is absolutely no way to determine if there's a "missing day" in Earth's history. That is impossible.

No one can say it is impossible. As God is the giver of all knowledge, we can know anything He deems that we can know.

Luke34
Dec 17th 2009, 05:11 AM
Huh? It's the man's name. Be civil.Is it uncivil to point out that he has the same name as the protagonist of The Music Man? Because he does.


God had good reason. He is supernatural---which means "above nature"!That's not a "reason," it's a possibility. Being able to do something is not a reason to do it.



So you know that something is hard for God and what's easy?Don't be so literal. I didn't mean "easy" as in the opposite of difficult, I meant "less-complicated." I believe that, typically, God does not flagrantly or obviously violate nature, because a) God created natural laws and they are thus good and b) Otherwise we couldn't trust the laws of nature and nothing would make any sense. So yes, God could have rigged up a massive violation of all the laws of physics in which the earth halted its rotation but absolutely nothing happened because of it, just to give more light to a battle in the Middle East, but absent any evidence logical or physical that this happened, I do not believe that he did.


God's ways are above our ways. It doesn't have to make sense to our feeble-by-comparison minds for us to believe it."God's ways are above our ways" is the biggest cop-out ever, because you can literally make any claim and then say that in ostensible support. And if something doesn't have to make sense for you to believe it, then how do you decide whether to believe anything? Why not just choose beliefs arbitrarily if they don't have to make sense?


No one can say it is impossible. As God is the giver of all knowledge, we can know anything He deems that we can know.Well, apparently he didn't deem that we could know this. Because we don't. And can't. There are over 1,679,000,000,000 days in the universe's history; to claim that we could discover one missing is preposterous. Like creationism and young-earthism, it's fine to believe there's a missing day, but you can't claim that science supports it, because it absolutely does not.

Desperaux
Dec 17th 2009, 05:18 AM
That's not a "reason," it's a possibility. Being able to do something is not a reason to do it.

He had a reason to do it, just as He has a reason to do many things---we ask Him to. He answers prayer!



Don't be so literal. I didn't mean "easy" as in the opposite of difficult, I meant "less-complicated." I believe that, typically, God does not flagrantly or obviously violate nature, because a) God created natural laws and they are thus good and b) Otherwise we couldn't trust the laws of nature and nothing would make any sense. So yes, God could have rigged up a massive violation of all the laws of physics in which the earth halted its rotation but absolutely nothing happened because of it, just to give more light to a battle in the Middle East, but absent any evidence logical or physical that this happened, I do not believe that he did.

"God's ways are above our ways" is the biggest cop-out ever, because you can literally make any claim and then say that in ostensible support. And if something doesn't have to make sense for you to believe it, then how do you decide whether to believe anything? Why not just choose beliefs arbitrarily if they don't have to make sense?Why is a cop-out? It is scriptural truth. That God who created all things by gis spoken word can't override any of it the same way? Let Him out of his box, will ya?


Well, apparently he didn't deem that we could know this. Because we don't. And can't. There are over 1,679,000,000,000 days in the universe's history; to claim that we could discover one missing is preposterous. Like creationism and young-earthism, it's fine to believe there's a missing day, but you can't claim that science supports it, because it absolutely does not.We can certainly know whatever he wishes us to know...so far we have soared in the knowledge department and the learning curve for mankind has shot vertical over the past 50 years.


While it has been refuted what Mr Hill has reported, I trust the man's integrity because I trust what he has said on every other point he has made in his writings. So, unless he backs down, I choose to support the man...even if he is wrong, and especially because he is a brother in the Lord and the Lord has touched me deeply by his ministry. I am not even sure if he is still alive.

webhead
Dec 18th 2009, 09:00 PM
Like creationism and young-earthism, it's fine to believe there's a missing day, but you can't claim that science supports it, because it absolutely does not.

Again, who cares what science says? Fallen mankind created the scientific observational process, so it is very flawed, and some very wicked men use false observations to try and erase God from everything. They also spit in the face of the very observational methods they claim to uphold as their God.

Only a fool would believe anything a man without a personal relationship with Christ has to say about reality. If you are lost, you live in fantasy land, and reality and science do not apply to you whatsoever.

Luke34
Dec 20th 2009, 02:53 AM
Again, who cares what science says? Fallen mankind created the scientific observational process, so it is very flawedHere's the scientific observational process: Look at things, and develop conclusions based on them. Then test those conclusions. You do this multiple times every single day. Your computer won't start? Maybe the charge is gone. Plug it in. Does it start? If not, maybe the battery needs to be reseated. Reseat it. Does it start? The point is, there is absolutely nothing "flawed" about the scientific process, because it consists of one of the most basic of human endeavors: Trying to figure out the world around us based on the evidence of our senses, our reasoning ability, and our prior knowledge. Just because some scientists have reached false conclusions (like Lamarckian evolution) doesn't mean the method is flawed, any more than abortion-clinic bombers mean Christianity is flawed (not that I'm comparing mistaken scientists to abortion clinic bombers; Jean-Baptiste Lamarck was a smart man working in good faith who happened to formulate an incorrect hypothesis).


, and some very wicked men use false observations to try and erase God from everything. They also spit in the face of the very observational methods they claim to uphold as their God.Since you're speaking in generalities here, I can't really contradict you. I'm assuming you're talking about evolution and the like, in which case a) Evolution is not false, and the observations it's based on are not even contested by the most removed-from-reality creationist; b) Evolution does not "erase God from" anything; c) Assuming that everyone who disagrees with you is a wicked person trying to undermine your religion is really a very uncharitable and mean thing to do.


Only a fool would believe anything a man without a personal relationship with Christ has to say about reality. If you are lost, you live in fantasy land, and reality and science do not apply to you whatsoever.This is preposterous. Jonas Salk was Jewish--is the polio vaccine thus ineffective? Neither Francis Crick nor James Watson was/is religious--is the structure of DNA thus not a double helix? Einstein thought the Bible was "pretty childish"--is the energy of an object thus not equal to its mass times the speed of light in centimeters per second squared? It's fine to disagree philosophically and religiously with scientists, but not respecting or believing their work because of this is the height of foolishness.

Luke34
Dec 20th 2009, 03:03 AM
He had a reason to do it, just as He has a reason to do many things---we ask Him to. He answers prayer!You keep responding with religious generalities instead of answering the actual question. No-one asked God to stop the planet's rotation but have this not affect anything else--they asked him for help with the battle. And without evidence, I won't assume that he did this by breaking his own natural laws, not as long as I prefer another explanation.


Why is a cop-out? It is scriptural truth. That God who created all things by gis spoken word can't override any of it the same way? Let Him out of his box, will ya?You're doing it again. Just because something is "true" doesn't mean it necessarily applies to the situation at hand. And "God's ways are above our ways" is a cop-out, because it saves you the necessity of answering any theological question at all, ever. Let's say I believe that when Jesus called the Pharisees "whitewashed tombs," God literally changed them into whitewashed tombs for a second, but they didn't notice anything. Why do I believe this? Because God's ways are above our ways. (Keep in mind that no matter what position you support with this, it supports the exact opposite position equally as well.)


We can certainly know whatever he wishes us to know...so far we have soared in the knowledge department and the learning curve for mankind has shot vertical over the past 50 years.Okay...but...what? What does this have to do with the possibility or otherwise of finding one missing day in 1.6 trillion?


While it has been refuted what Mr Hill has reported, I trust the man's integrity because I trust what he has said on every other point he has made in his writings. So, unless he backs down, I choose to support the man...even if he is wrong, and especially because he is a brother in the Lord and the Lord has touched me deeply by his ministry. I am not even sure if he is still alive.Supporting him even though he's wrong doesn't make sense. Just because you respect and agree with the majority of a person's writings doesn't mean you have to automatically support whatever they put out--I love Mere Christianity and find the majority of it surpassingly well-argued, but that doesn't change the fact that some passages (like Lewis's defense of the male-headed marriage) are weak. "Integrity" has got nothing to do with it--sometimes people with unimpeachable integrity are still simply wrong.

Desperaux
Dec 20th 2009, 03:44 AM
You keep responding with religious generalities instead of answering the actual question. No-one asked God to stop the planet's rotation but have this not affect anything else--they asked him for help with the battle. And without evidence, I won't assume that he did this by breaking his own natural laws, not as long as I prefer another explanation.

What is the generality in this, pray tell?---
Joshua 10:12-13a
On the day the Lord gave the Israelites victory over the Amorites, Joshua prayed to the Lord in front of all the people of Israel. He said, “Let the sun stand still over Gibeon,
and the moon over the valley of Aijalon.”
So the sun stood still and the moon stayed in place until the nation of Israel had defeated its enemies.


God is pleased to hear us and answer, and he wants us to be direct in our requests.




You're doing it again. Just because something is "true" doesn't mean it necessarily applies to the situation at hand. And "God's ways are above our ways" is a cop-out, because it saves you the necessity of answering any theological question at all, ever. Let's say I believe that when Jesus called the Pharisees "whitewashed tombs," God literally changed them into whitewashed tombs for a second, but they didn't notice anything. Why do I believe this? Because God's ways are above our ways. (Keep in mind that no matter what position you support with this, it supports the exact opposite position equally as well.)God's ways are certainly far above our ways and it is no cop-out--it is an understatement of fact.

My theology is based on just that fact and it stands me in good stead. When I cannot fathom something, I rest in the fact that God knows and he has it all in hand. It is a belief and a trust that augments faith.



Okay...but...what? What does this have to do with the possibility or otherwise of finding one missing day in 1.6 trillion?If God wants us to find the proof, we will be given the knowledge as to how, just as he has bestowed all knowledge so far.


Supporting him even though he's wrong doesn't make sense. Just because you respect and agree with the majority of a person's writings doesn't mean you have to automatically support whatever they put out--I love Mere Christianity and find the majority of it surpassingly well-argued, but that doesn't change the fact that some passages (like Lewis's defense of the male-headed marriage) are weak. "Integrity" has got nothing to do with it--sometimes people with unimpeachable integrity are still simply wrong.I support Harold Hill because I know what he is made of and Who he belongs to. He is my brother, and has taught me many wonderful truths about God. I don't care about this point. It isn't worth denigrating him. He is a brilliant man who has proven to be blessed with much God-given knowledge and expertise.

Steven3
Dec 20th 2009, 03:53 AM
Hi Jeffinator
In Joshua 10:1-15 in order to win a battle against his enemies Joshua asked God to stop the sun and moon in its tracks so they could keep fighting. Except for the sun and the moon dont move, the earth does. Is this just old world thinking about how everything revolves around the earth??

Plz help.The Bible doesn't necessarily say that the sun literally stopped, it's more likely a poetic way of describing how God in the geography and strategy of the battle aided Joshua to let the battle go on:

This comment was probably inserted into the original historical record of Joshua by scribes in the days of Solomon-to-Hezekiah hundreds of years later when the Book of Jashar was around. The Book of Jashar was a book of poetry:



Josh 10:13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? "The sun stopped in the midst of heaven and did not hurry to set for about a whole day."


2 Sam 1:18 and he said it should be taught to the people of Judah; behold, it is written in the Book of Jashar. He said:
19 “Your glory, O Israel, is slain on your high places!
How the mighty have fallen!
20 Tell it not in Gath,
publish it not in the streets of Ashkelon,
lest the daughters of the Philistines rejoice,
lest the daughters of the uncircumcised exult.
21 “You mountains of Gilboa,
let there be no dew or rain upon you,
nor fields of offerings!
For there the shield of the mighty was defiled,
the shield of Saul, not anointed with oil.
22 “From the blood of the slain,
from the fat of the mighty,
the bow of Jonathan turned not back,
and the sword of Saul returned not empty.
23 “Saul and Jonathan, beloved and lovely!
In life and in death they were not divided;
they were swifter than eagles;
they were stronger than lions.
24 “You daughters of Israel, weep over Saul,
who clothed you luxuriously in scarlet,
who put ornaments of gold on your apparel.
25 “How the mighty have fallen
in the midst of the battle!
“Jonathan lies slain on your high places.
26 I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan;
very pleasant have you been to me;
your love to me was extraordinary,
surpassing the love of women.
27 “How the mighty have fallen,
and the weapons of war perished!”

Luke34
Dec 20th 2009, 05:06 AM
What is the generality in this, pray tell?---
Joshua 10:12-13a
On the day the Lord gave the Israelites victory over the Amorites, Joshua prayed to the Lord in front of all the people of Israel. He said, “Let the sun stand still over Gibeon,
and the moon over the valley of Aijalon.”
So the sun stood still and the moon stayed in place until the nation of Israel had defeated its enemies.


God is pleased to hear us and answer, and he wants us to be direct in our requests.That's not what the word "generality" referred to; it referred to you saying things like "God answers prayers" instead of hazarding a guess as to why I ought to believe he answered one in the most unnecessarily baroque way ever when I can think of several superior explanations. I'm still not sure why (particularly as the sun and moon are much to large and distant to literally stand "over" any geographic feature, giving me more reason to wonder why this should be taken literally).



God's ways are certainly far above our ways and it is no cop-out--it is an understatement of fact.

My theology is based on just that fact and it stands me in good stead. When I cannot fathom something, I rest in the fact that God knows and he has it all in hand. It is a belief and a trust that augments faith.Just because God's ways are above our ways surely doesn't mean that we shouldn't at least try to understand, does it? Otherwise the field of theology would not even exist. And it is a cop-out in response to certain questions. It's like if someone pressed me on a scientific point and I said "We will never understand all the secrets of the natural world." I mean, it's "true," but it's completely unhelpful and doesn't answer the question.

Also, my point was that it can augment any statement of faith, at all. Even obviously made-up ones like the one I thought of above. Statements that can be used to support any position at all are not much use if you're trying to convince someone.


If God wants us to find the proof, we will be given the knowledge as to how, just as he has bestowed all knowledge so far.Yes, but no such knowledge currently exists, and as such it is, as far as we know, impossible. And so it is completely wrong in every way for anyone to state that we "can" or "have" found a missing day--you can't predicate science on things that might, or might not, happen in the future.


I support Harold Hill because I know what he is made of and Who he belongs to. He is my brother, and has taught me many wonderful truths about God. I don't care about this point. It isn't worth denigrating him. He is a brilliant man who has proven to be blessed with much God-given knowledge and expertise.I'm not denigrating him, I'm just saying he's wrong. No shame in being wrong, but he still is. And as you only brought him up in relation to this discussion, it doesn't make much sense to then say you don't care about this point because he's a wonderful man anyway. Great, but that doesn't have any bearing whatsoever on the subject.

ALSO THIS IS MY FIFTEEN HUNDREDTH POST WOO FOR ME

Desperaux
Dec 20th 2009, 10:10 PM
That's not what the word "generality" referred to; it referred to you saying things like "God answers prayers" instead of hazarding a guess as to why I ought to believe he answered one in the most unnecessarily baroque way ever when I can think of several superior explanations. I'm still not sure why (particularly as the sun and moon are much to large and distant to literally stand "over" any geographic feature, giving me more reason to wonder why this should be taken literally).

What is more superior an explanation than God, who loves His own, answers their earnest requests? We who have accepted His Son are in a relationship with Him, just as His dear prophets were in the OT.

Who are anyone of us to judge or dictate how He can meet our requests? I am positive He enjoys doing the magnificently dramatic to prove His majesty.

This is a literal account of what God did in response to an earnest cry.



Just because God's ways are above our ways surely doesn't mean that we shouldn't at least try to understand, does it? Otherwise the field of theology would not even exist. And it is a cop-out in response to certain questions. It's like if someone pressed me on a scientific point and I said "We will never understand all the secrets of the natural world." I mean, it's "true," but it's completely unhelpful and doesn't answer the question.
You cannot possibly hope to ever have all the answers. But we have a relationship with the One who does.


Also, my point was that it can augment any statement of faith, at all. Even obviously made-up ones like the one I thought of above. Statements that can be used to support any position at all are not much use if you're trying to convince someone.Statements of faith are a dime a dozen. I am talking about real, living faith in the living Jesus Christ.


Yes, but no such knowledge currently exists, and as such it is, as far as we know, impossible. And so it is completely wrong in every way for anyone to state that we "can" or "have" found a missing day--you can't predicate science on things that might, or might not, happen in the future.
It may not exist now. But as I said, if we are to know, we will be given the knowledge to discover it.


I'm not denigrating him, I'm just saying he's wrong. No shame in being wrong, but he still is. And as you only brought him up in relation to this discussion, it doesn't make much sense to then say you don't care about this point because he's a wonderful man anyway. Great, but that doesn't have any bearing whatsoever on the subject.

ALSO THIS IS MY FIFTEEN HUNDREDTH POST WOO FOR MEI'm not sure Mr. Hill is wrong. He hasn't admitted it, and frankly, he has been abused. We can move on from this discussion of him.

The subject is regarding the reason why God caused the rotation of the earth to slow or stop for a day (he did it another time as well, for a smaller increment of time), and the reason why He did it was to answer the cry of Israel for help in defeating the enemy. he gladly obliged and they gained an incredible victory. It was an easy thing for God to do, and a great miracle for Israel.

Luke34
Dec 21st 2009, 04:48 AM
What is more superior an explanation than God, who loves His own, answers their earnest requests? We who have accepted His Son are in a relationship with Him, just as His dear prophets were in the OT. Well, anything, because that's not an explanation for what we're talking about, at all. Again, it's just a perfectly nice religious sentiment that hasn't got anything to do with anything. I'm looking for an explanation as to why I should believe this is literal, rather than figurative, which I believe is much likelier. Surely you can see that "God answers prayers" is in no way even a response to this, let alone an explanation.


Who are anyone of us to judge or dictate how He can meet our requests? I am positive He enjoys doing the magnificently dramatic to prove His majesty.Again. I didn't say God couldn't do it, I just see no reason to believe that he did. And you are not giving me one.


This is a literal account of what God did in response to an earnest cry.Why do you think that it's literal?



You cannot possibly hope to ever have all the answers. But we have a relationship with the One who does.Not related to anything I said. I didn't say anything about having all the answers, I just said that "God's ways are above our ways" is, in relation to this discussion, a cop-out. Because it totally is.


Statements of faith are a dime a dozen. I am talking about real, living faith in the living Jesus Christ.No...you're not. Neither am I. We're talking about reasons to believe that God performed a specific miracle in a specific way, and whether "We can't know because it's God" is a satisfactory response to a question. My point was that that response can be used to support anything in the entire world, and therefore it is basically useless right now.


It may not exist now. But as I said, if we are to know, we will be given the knowledge to discover it.You did say that. But you also can't respond to a question by saying that something we might someday discover, but maybe not, might support your position. I mean, theoretically, we could discover tomorrow that bears are smarter than humans. If we were having the argument "Are bears smarter than humans?", would that convince you? (It shouldn't.)


I'm not sure Mr. Hill is wrong. He hasn't admitted it, and frankly, he has been abused. We can move on from this discussion of him.What does him "admitting" it have to do with being wrong? People who are wrong do not realize that they are wrong. That's what makes them wrong. Again, I'm sure he's a lovely person, but he is incorrect on this topic. Isaac Newton was also a lovely person, and a great scientist, but he was wrong about alchemy, even though he never "admitted" it (which would mean he realized it and became no longer wrong). How on earth this is "abusing" him, I cannot fathom.


The subject is regarding the reason why God caused the rotation of the earth to slow or stop for a day (he did it another time as well, for a smaller increment of time), and the reason why He did it was to answer the cry of Israel for help in defeating the enemy. he gladly obliged and they gained an incredible victory. It was an easy thing for God to do, and a great miracle for Israel.That's not the subject. Your version of the "subject" presupposes the object of the actual discussion, which is, did God stop the earth's rotation, and what evidence, logical or physical, is there for this?

Desperaux
Dec 21st 2009, 05:04 AM
Well, anything, because that's not an explanation for what we're talking about, at all. Again, it's just a perfectly nice religious sentiment that hasn't got anything to do with anything. I'm looking for an explanation as to why I should believe this is literal, rather than figurative, which I believe is much likelier. Surely you can see that "God answers prayers" is in no way even a response to this, let alone an explanation.

Well you have a choice to take it literally or not. Christians widely accept his as a literal event. There is no reason not to do so.

The answer that "God answers prayers" is the answer to the why of it.


Again. I didn't say God couldn't do it, I just see no reason to believe that he did. And you are not giving me one.

There is NO reason to believe God didn't do it--except unbelief.


Why do you think that it's literal?

I know God and His word tells me He did just that very thing. I believe Him. It is a simple matter of trusting Him. There is no reason for my brain to begin mixing it up and assigning the metaphorical to the event.



Not related to anything I said. I didn't say anything about having all the answers, I just said that "God's ways are above our ways" is, in relation to this discussion, a cop-out. Because it totally is.

No it isn't. It is obvious that God's ways are above our won. He calls us to accept that, and in this particular story, we do.


No...you're not. Neither am I. We're talking about reasons to believe that God performed a specific miracle in a specific way, and whether "We can't know because it's God" is a satisfactory response to a question. My point was that that response can be used to support anything in the entire world, and therefore it is basically useless right now.

It is because God has proven Himself to me that I can believe all the miraculous events that are recorded for us--recorded for us to know Him as the God of the universe who supersedes all natural laws to prove His majesty to us.


You did say that. But you also can't respond to a question by saying that something we might someday discover, but maybe not, might support your position. I mean, theoretically, we could discover tomorrow that bears are smarter than humans. If we were having the argument "Are bears smarter than humans?", would that convince you? (It shouldn't.)

That is sophomoric.


What does him "admitting" it have to do with being wrong? People who are wrong do not realize that they are wrong. That's what makes them wrong. Again, I'm sure he's a lovely person, but he is incorrect on this topic. Isaac Newton was also a lovely person, and a great scientist, but he was wrong about alchemy, even though he never "admitted" it (which would mean he realized it and became no longer wrong). How on earth this is "abusing" him, I cannot fathom.

He has been castigated for his statements and treated poorly, IMO. He stood by his statements, but claims he has lost his proof. If he knew he was wrong, he would have admitted it.

I am done with Harold Hill, please!


That's not the subject. Your version of the "subject" presupposes the object of the actual discussion, which is, did God stop the earth's rotation, and what evidence, logical or physical, is there for this?

Have you read the OP lately? The question is,"Why did God stop the sun??" It presupposes that the event DID in fact, occur.

I have answered it simply and biblically.

Luke34
Dec 21st 2009, 06:11 AM
Well you have a choice to take it literally or not. Christians widely accept his as a literal event. There is no reason not to do so. "A lot of people do it" is not a reason. My reason for not taking it literally is this: The language is already metaphorical, since the sun cannot literally "stop." The halting of the sun of the sky is, to me, a highly poetic image, and (like many other Biblical passages that other people have decided to take literally) makes way more sense, in a literary way, than the literal interpretation does. And I don't believe God usually flagrantly violates natural laws--self-evident, and because they are intrinsically good and allow life to exist--so because of all this, and since there is no evidence whatsoever to the contrary, I choose not to take it literally.


There is NO reason to believe God didn't do it--except unbelief.Sigh. Once again, metaphorical interpretations are assigned to the category of "unbelief" or "lack of belief," instead of a recognition of the Bible's status as a multi-genred literary work and a recognition that God can speak to us in ways that are not "I DID THIS EXACTLY LIKE THIS."

I simply do not understand why metaphorical interpretations are so vilified among a particular brand of Christians--as if historical account were automatically more valuable than poetry, allegory, myth, and other literary genres/devices. I think it probably results from the fallacy that something has to be factual for it to be true. Which is, of course, nonsensical. Even worse is the fallacy that "If you decide that one part of the Bible isn't literally true, how do you know whether ANY OF IT is??" First of all, this ignores the fact that the Bible is the work of multiple authors with varying backgrounds and styles, and even if it weren't, does the existence of the highly metaphorical and symbolic Heart of Darkness mean that Joseph Conrad's Congo Diaries are historically suspect? Can we not trust the factual accounts in David Foster Wallace's nonfictional essays because he also wrote short stories and novels? What about C.S. Lewis's Mere Christianity versus the Chronicles of Narnia? Etc., I'm sure you get the point.


I know God and His word tells me He did just that very thing. I believe Him. It is a simple matter of trusting Him. There is no reason for my brain to begin mixing it up and assigning the metaphorical to the event.I've always hated the "just believe it happened because it's in the Bible" argument--it removes our obligation to try to engage with the text at a deeper level, to understand it on a historical and literary level, and to have actual defensible reasons for the things we believe. Biblical scholarship would be in a fine state if everyone just said "Well, it's in the Bible. I guess it happened exactly and literally that way, and I won't investigate any further." I just do not and never will understand the mindset that accepting things at face value is better than investigating them, learning about them, exploring other approaches, etc. If after all of this you still find the literal interpretation to be the most satisfactory on a theological, historical and literary level, then great. But don't just assume that it's the right one because you think literal things are "more true" than non-literal things or that you have greater faith if you take things literally. Not to keep being pretentious, but to me this is like reading Moby-Dick and coming away thinking "That sure was an entertaining adventure story about hunting whales!"

Also, this is yet another example of the fallacious assumption that taking something metaphorically is "mixing up" or obscuring the meaning of the text. Sometimes, writing literally describes a historical event. Other times it does not. That is not something you can argue with. Exploring non-literal meanings of a story is not some highfalutin scholarly thing that people only do because they can't believe in miracles, it is an honest attempt to find out which interpretation is most "true" (again, there's absolutely no reason to assume it's the literal one) and what, exactly, we ought to get out of the text.


No it isn't. It is obvious that God's ways are above our won. He calls us to accept that, and in this particular story, we do.But can't you see that all you're saying is "You should interpret this the exact same way I do because the literal interpretation is always best, and if you don't agree, that's because you don't understand God"? Just because God is ultimately unknowable doesn't mean we shouldn't even try to learn anything about him, that we should take the simplest and easiest possible interpretation of everything in the Bible because, after all, God's ways are above ours. How on earth does that statement entail an automatic preference for the literal?


That is sophomoric.No, it's a reductio ad absurdum. It is the exact same tactic you are using to demonstrate that it is "possible" to know if there's a missing day: Because maybe, we might know how to figure it out in the future, at some point, somehow.


He has been castigated for his statements and treated poorly, IMO. He stood by his statements, but claims he has lost his proof. If he knew he was wrong, he would have admitted it.Did you even read what I wrote? Here's the entirety of everything I've said about the man: "He is incorrect." If that's castigation, then, well, it's not castigation at all, actually, so never mind. And if he "knew he was wrong," he wouldn't be wrong. I said that too.


Have you read the OP lately? The question is,"Why did God stop the sun??" It presupposes that the event DID in fact, occur.And the discussion soon evolved into a slightly broader one, i.e., "What is the meaning of the Biblical passage in which God stops the sun?" That is what we have been discussing, not the OP.


I have answered it simply and biblically.
Simplicity is not inherently desirable. That's another fallacy: That highly complex analyses of Biblical/theological issues are "overly complicated," and that the truth is always simple. God is complex, and so the study of him necessarily will often be complex itself.

Desperaux
Dec 21st 2009, 06:58 AM
"A lot of people do it" is not a reason. My reason for not taking it literally is this: The language is already metaphorical, since the sun cannot literally "stop." The halting of the sun of the sky is, to me, a highly poetic image, and (like many other Biblical passages that other people have decided to take literally) makes way more sense, in a literary way, than the literal interpretation does. And I don't believe God usually flagrantly violates natural laws--self-evident, and because they are intrinsically good and allow life to exist--so because of all this, and since there is no evidence whatsoever to the contrary, I choose not to take it literally.

So, because the writer of the OT passage in question wasn't scientifically up to snuff regarding our solar system, it is become a metaphorical piece? We are aware that there is a poetic bent to the passage.

God regularly supersedes natural law in order to fulfill His will, and it is always the response to the prayer of the righteous.


Sigh. Once again, metaphorical interpretations are assigned to the category of "unbelief" or "lack of belief," instead of a recognition of the Bible's status as a multi-genred literary work and a recognition that God can speak to us in ways that are not "I DID THIS EXACTLY LIKE THIS."Yes, they often are. We must begin to discern what is metaphor and what isn't.


I simply do not understand why metaphorical interpretations are so vilified among a particular brand of Christians--as if historical account were automatically more valuable than poetry, allegory, myth, and other literary genres/devices. Christians the world over are not branded. We grasp the fact that there is a varied usage of literary devices in the writing of scripture.


I think it probably results from the fallacy that something has to be factual for it to be true. Which is, of course, nonsensical. Even worse is the fallacy that "If you decide that one part of the Bible isn't literally true, how do you know whether ANY OF IT is??" First of all, this ignores the fact that the Bible is the work of multiple authors with varying backgrounds and styles, and even if it weren't, does the existence of the highly metaphorical and symbolic Heart of Darkness mean that Joseph Conrad's Congo Diaries are historically suspect? Can we not trust the factual accounts in David Foster Wallace's nonfictional essays because he also wrote short stories and novels? What about C.S. Lewis's Mere Christianity versus the Chronicles of Narnia? Etc., I'm sure you get the point.I don't think we ignore the obvious, that there are some 40 authors of scripture.



I've always hated the "just believe it happened because it's in the Bible" argument--it removes our obligation to try to engage with the text at a deeper level, to understand it on a historical and literary level, and to have actual defensible reasons for the things we believe. Never tried that argument. Sounds good, though, and wouldn't stop me engaging in deep, provoking thought.



Also, this is yet another example of the fallacious assumption that taking something metaphorically is "mixing up" or obscuring the meaning of the text. There is no reason to take it as metaphor.



But can't you see that all you're saying is "You should interpret this the exact same way I do because the literal interpretation is always best, and if you don't agree, that's because you don't understand God"? Just because God is ultimately unknowable doesn't mean we shouldn't even try to learn anything about him, that we should take the simplest and easiest possible interpretation of everything in the Bible because, after all, God's ways are above ours. How on earth does that statement entail an automatic preference for the literal?God is entirely KNOWABLE. He reveals Himself to us--even in this story, and it is obvious that the depth of intimacy He shares with His people is lost on some.


No, it's a reductio ad absurdum. It is the exact same tactic you are using to demonstrate that it is "possible" to know if there's a missing day: Because maybe, we might know how to figure it out in the future, at some point, somehow.Simply put again: if God deems we can know this, we will be given the ability to discover it as we have been given the ability to discover so many countless mysteries through scientific means.


Did you even read what I wrote? Here's the entirety of everything I've said about the man: "He is incorrect." If that's castigation, then, well, it's not castigation at all, actually, so never mind. And if he "knew he was wrong," he wouldn't be wrong. I said that too.Duh. The castigation wasn't from yourself. No further comment is necessary.


And the discussion soon evolved into a slightly broader one, i.e., "What is the meaning of the Biblical passage in which God stops the sun?" That is what we have been discussing, not the OP.I understand the movement of the discussion--but I am adhering to the OP. Feel free to ignore my posts if they don't jive with the evolution of this discussion.


Simplicity is not inherently desirable. That's another fallacy: That highly complex analyses of Biblical/theological issues are "overly complicated," and that the truth is always simple. God is complex, and so the study of him necessarily will often be complex itself.False. While there are many complexities about God--He is easy to know through Jesus Christ, His image.

Colossians 1:15-16
Christ is the visible image of the invisible God.
He existed before anything was created and is supreme over all creation, for through him God created everything
in the heavenly realms and on earth.
He made the things we can see
and the things we can’t see—
such as thrones, kingdoms, rulers, and authorities in the unseen world.
Everything was created through him and for him.

GSG
Dec 21st 2009, 08:26 PM
If the seas can part the sun can stop in the sky. Granted he did use a poetic sentiment to talk about what happened. Clearly if something stopped it would be the earth....however man at the time did not know about heliocentric truth. ON earth since we veiw the sun as moving across the sky it would not make since if it said the earth stopped spinning so he could win the battle.

so my point is that

A-The event happened...either the earth stopped moving or God froze the sun in the skye.

b-it is written in a poetic way....

David Taylor
Dec 21st 2009, 09:00 PM
**Mod Note**

Moved from AE (not really related to apologetics and evangelism) to BC....should get more answers and more involvement here.

Carry on.

Wintermute
Dec 22nd 2009, 05:53 AM
I see no reason why the event with Joshua would not have world wide significance. God uses such things to get the attention of the world, so they investigate to find the reason for this event. Especially in ancient times, astronomy and astrology was a fulcrum of pagan religion. So when something goes wrong with their predictions or expectation of celestial activity, a story about such a prayer by Joshua bears notice because it tells the surrounding nations who's God is more powerful. This is why when Hezekiah prays, and the sun goes backward, the next thing you find is that the Babylonians are showing up wanting to find out about the God that controls the sun. Unfortunately, Hezekiah didn't show them the house of God, but rather his own house; and it took dragging Israel off to Babylon for the Babylonians to finally truly discover the God that rules the Universe.

Regarding science. If people had listened to the following verses, some of the misconceptions about our solar system, planet and science might have cleared up much earlier.

Job 26:7-10 He stretches out the north over empty space; He hangs the earth on nothing. He binds up the water in His thick clouds, Yet the clouds are not broken under it. He covers the face of His throne, And spreads His cloud over it. He drew a circular horizon on the face of the waters, At the boundary of light and darkness.

Isaiah 40:22 It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.

Job 28:25 To establish a weight for the wind, And apportion the waters by measure.

Your Advert here


Hosted by Webnet77