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

[ChristianTrader]

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

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

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

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

CT

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

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

You are confusing motion with the ability to find a non arbitrary reference point. If God says in the Bible, that the earth is fixed and everything else moves around it, our concept of motion does not/would not change. The only thing that would change is our view of what is the absolute reference point.

CT

 

[Confessor]

You are confusing motion with the ability to find a non arbitrary reference point.

I'm not sure with this means, but I understand the rest of your post, so I'm not sure it's a problem.

If God says in the Bible, that the earth is fixed and everything else moves around it, our concept of motion does not/would not change. The only thing that would change is our view of what is the absolute reference point.

I agree with this absolutely. I do not know why I did not mention it earlier. I should have moved from my position that motion always depends on an arbitrary reference point to the fact that God has decreed that Earth is the reference point -- thus it is non-arbitrary in the truest sense of the term. Thanks for the correction.

As Rev. Winzer said, if Joshua ordered that the sun stop, then he ordered that the sun actually stop. Earth is in fact the reference point.

I still wonder whether it be permissible to "pretend" that the sun is the reference point for the pragmatic purposes of astronomical equations...I mean, if we use the assumption just to make equations nicer, and all the while realize God's decree of Earth as the center, then it can't be wrong, can it?

 

[MW]

I still wonder whether it be permissible to "pretend" that the sun is the reference point for the pragmatic purposes of astronomical equations...I mean, if we use the assumption just to make equations nicer, and all the while realize God's decree of Earth as the center, then it can't be wrong, can it?

It wouldn't be the first time faith must think on a different "trajectory" from sight.

 

[Hamalas]

 

[Theognome]

I still wonder whether it be permissible to "pretend" that the sun is the reference point for the pragmatic purposes of astronomical equations...I mean, if we use the assumption just to make equations nicer, and all the while realize God's decree of Earth as the center, then it can't be wrong, can it?

Offhand, I'd say that God is the reference point for the faithful purposes of biblical equations. Measuring God's Word by the minuscule knowledge of scientific man to make His Scripture fit into our own presumptions is akin to saying, "God, we know better now. You better make what you said fit into our current understanding or we'll go build a better god for ourselves."

Does this mean I don't value science? No, but it does mean that science is not the measure of God or His word.

Theognome

 

[Confessor]

Offhand, I'd say that God is the reference point for the faithful purposes of biblical equations. Measuring God's Word by the minuscule knowledge of scientific man to make His Scripture fit into our own presumptions is akin to saying, "God, we know better now. You better make what you said fit into our current understanding or we'll go build a better god for ourselves."

Does this mean I don't value science? No, but it does mean that science is not the measure of God or His word.

Theognome

I'm not advocating denying a proposition in Scripture because "science says so"; I am advocating that we pretend something contrary to what is the case, and knowing that it is contrary to the case, for the purpose of making equations easier to understand. Then, once we understand the equations under the (false) assumption of heliocentrism, we convert this back to the correct view of geocentrism. It's kind of like speaking through a translator. We change our view to heliocentrism for the sake of understanding, then do our equations and stuff, then change it back to geocentrism.

This is adamantly not a concession or compromise to any view contrary to Scripture, nor is it a denial of biblical propositions. Rather, it is merely an accommodation for man to better understand the universe by putting specific equations in a different scope.

 

[Theognome]

Offhand, I'd say that God is the reference point for the faithful purposes of biblical equations. Measuring God's Word by the minuscule knowledge of scientific man to make His Scripture fit into our own presumptions is akin to saying, "God, we know better now. You better make what you said fit into our current understanding or we'll go build a better god for ourselves."

Does this mean I don't value science? No, but it does mean that science is not the measure of God or His word.

Theognome

I'm not advocating denying a proposition in Scripture because "science says so"; I am advocating that we pretend something contrary to what is the case, and knowing that it is contrary to the case, for the purpose of making equations easier to understand. Then, once we understand the equations under the (false) assumption of heliocentrism, we convert this back to the correct view of geocentrism. It's kind of like speaking through a translator. We change our view to heliocentrism for the sake of understanding, then do our equations and stuff, then change it back to geocentrism.

This is adamantly not a concession or compromise to any view contrary to Scripture, nor is it a denial of biblical propositions. Rather, it is merely an accommodation for man to better understand the universe by putting specific equations in a different scope.

(emphasis added)

Brother, if this is not a concession or compromise, then what is? You made it clear that 'pretending' the scripture promotes one thing is needed to understand what it is promoting. How is that different that simply stating, "I don't believe what God wrote"?

This issue is much larger than just the miracle given in the OP, for such methodology will be applied all over God's word to the detriment of the faithful. How many cults have their beginnings in just this kind of isogesis?

Theognome

 

[lynnie]

Dr Bob- not sure of the names but aware of detractors. My favorite young earth creationist is Malcolm Bowden who lays out fairly the critics for many points and also the problems with parts of the creationist model as well.

EVERY model has some problems.

What you have to come back to is the electromagnetic spectrum. Waves behave a certain way when velocities are involved. This is how radar uses radio waves to measure how fast your car is speeding.

If you measure the lightwaves from a star while the earth is (allegedly)moving around the sun towards the star, and then six months later when it is moving away from the star, you would expect to get a speed of c plus or minus the speed of the earth as it orbits the sun. This is basic physics. But you don't, it is zero.

So, you can believe Einstein that the visible light suddenly has this freaky characteristic where when you measure the speed from a moving object you don't add and subtract velocities, the way you do with other waves. Or, you can face the simple fact that we are not orbiting the sun. Take your pick. It's all well laid out in the Association of Biblical Astronomy materials for anybody who wants to find out more.

And like I said before, both models (geo and helio) work perfectly to predict solar system events. Copernicus didn't come up with a more accurate model, he came up with a different one that works just as well. You've been hoodwinked and lied to that his model works better. It doesn't. They both work, and neither can be "proved" by observation standing on the earth. Both are equally acceptable.

I am really a novice at this stuff, so again, I defer any deeper discussion to the authors like Gerhardus Bouw, Bowden, etc.

 

[Confessor]

Brother, if this is not a concession or compromise, then what is? You made it clear that 'pretending' the scripture promotes one thing is needed to understand what it is promoting. How is that different that simply stating, "I don't believe what God wrote"?

If I were compromising, I would state that what the Bible states is actually wrong and I'm not going to treat it as correct in what it says.

What I am advocating is that, for the sake of clarity and general cleanness in astronomical equations, we pretend the sun is stationary, do our equations, then convert them back to a geocentric form. This is done all the time with mathematical equations and arguably language translation; everyone realizes that it is only done to make things easier and not to claim that they actually represent reality.

For instance, if I were to attempt to solve the equation (e^x)^2+2e^x+1=0, I could substitute y=e^x to make the equation a bit easier, thus making it y^2+2y+1=0, with the answer being y=-1. Then I could substitute this back into the equation to solve for x, finding that x=ln(-1), which is actually an imaginary number, but whatever. The point is that we can use methods which make equations easier without assuming that, for instance, the equation really is y^2+2y+1=0. We never forget that the equation is in terms of x, and we never forget that the y and x are connected in a specific way (y=e^x) so that we can change the equation back to its original form. It's all a matter of ease of use, not of denying any truths in any way, especially those found in Scripture.

How many cults have their beginnings in just this kind of isogesis?

Zero, because they are changing the meaning permanently, and they are not changing for the sake of ease in dealing with equations. In fact, I'm not eisegeting at all. I have already stated that I believe the earth is objectively the center of the universe, and I am only changing this view temporarily to make astronomical equations easier, after which I immediately convert them back to the geocentric model.

 

[MW]

They both work, and neither can be "proved" by observation standing on the earth. Both are equally acceptable.

That's basically what I would have thought, but it is good to know there are sound inductive reasons for thinking it.

 

[discipulo]

EVERY model has some problems.

If you measure the lightwaves from a star while the earth is (allegedly)moving around the sun towards the star, and then six months later when it is moving away from the star, you would expect to get a speed of c plus or minus the speed of the earth as it orbits the sun. This is basic physics. But you don't, it is zero.

.

Is there no measurable Doppler effect – red vs blue difference of frequency ?

Very interesting!!!

Exactly we make models, which is fine really, but it is not Truth.

Einstein realized that gravity affects Light, even if photons have a near zero mass, and behave both like particles while Light is also a wave.

Does present Physics completely understands the origin of gravity?

One would say: of course Newton even got an apple on his head right?

The mass principle applies, but one of CERNs new toy is to understand better
theory of particles concerning the discrepancy between electromagnetism and gravity.

In fact how gravity force is propagated is virtually unknown since there is only vacuum and some black matter between stars and planets...

Is there a Gravity wave??????

well like there is an electromagnetic wave or a Light ray? We don't know yet...

We talk about gravitational fields, but we don't know what it really is...

So to apply such an uncertain knowledge to Joshua's passage in detriment of Revealed Truth has very serious epistemological consequences.

And In my humble opinion is very unwise.

 

[Confessor]

If you measure the lightwaves from a star while the earth is (allegedly)moving around the sun towards the star, and then six months later when it is moving away from the star, you would expect to get a speed of c plus or minus the speed of the earth as it orbits the sun. This is basic physics. But you don't, it is zero.

All this would mean is that, relatively speaking, neither Earth nor the star is moving in relation to one another. As far as what that scientific discovery entails, it could allow that both Earth and the star be moving at billions of miles per hour -- so long as they both are moving at the same speed and in the same direction.

Thus, while the test of light waves could disprove some single fact (namely that the star is moving in relation to Earth, or vice versa), it cannot in principle disprove heliocentrism, seeing as heliocentrism is based on an arbitrary selection of the sun as the immovable reference point by which motion is understood.

Scripture says that the earth should be the reference point; therefore it is, but based solely on scientific findings there's no way you can disprove heliocentrism, unless you prove the sun doesn't exist or something.

 

[Wannabee]

I've held off making comments in this thread because it's all over the map. But, I do have a couple of observations. Hopefully they'll be helpful.

First, there are some who seem threatened that anyone would attempt to understand how God did something. I know that's not the intention, but it comes across that way.

Second, it CAN be very dangerous to explain God's providences through modern science. Scripture does not submit to science. True science validates the claims of Scripture. If we approach science with this perspective then we should not be threatened by anything true science puts forth. Much of the problem is the irresponsibility of "scientists" today who depart from true science and justify their own hypotheses and research through misleading information and avowals of ideas as facts. This has shaded our view in many ways.

Overlapping number two, Scripture is absolutely correct in all it's claims. It's not only the measure of faith and practice, but also true in all it's scientific, geographic and historical claims as well. If it fails in any aspect of any of these then it can no longer be trusted. However, since it is the measure then all else must be tested against it, rather than the other way around. Scripture proves nothing. It is not designed to prove anything. It proclaims truth without apology. All else proves Scripture, and therefore God, true.

Explaining certain aspects of God's working is vain and futile. Some of these include the virgin birth, the hypostatic union, resurrections, healings and even the miracles of vicarious atonement, faith and salvation. We can understand it based on what God has given us, and must accept it on faith. If we cannot accept these truths on faith then our faith is no faith at all, but merely judgment of what we deem as true based on our self-proclaimed expertise. Again - vanity.

There are certain miracles that are edifying to discuss and seek out greater understanding. One would be the nature of the flood. Why was there no rain before the flood? What does God mean by water coming from the deep? Was there an ice canopy? What happened to it? Was it a meteor? Was it the hand of God directly moving, creating, breaking down or in some other fashion bringing about this cataclysmic event? In light of this, which is the greater miracle? Is it more miraculous for God to cause the floods to come through direct manipulation of "nature" at the tie of the event? Or, is it a greater miracle for God to set a meteor on course to impact an ice dome that surrounds the earth at the precise moment that would allow all the animals to be in the ark and Noah's family to be safely inside; and to set all of this in motion in the first days of creation? Wow! Either one is mind-blowing, and neither one takes away anything from the power or character of God.

For young-earthers, of which I'm one, have you ever thought of the fact that a star observed going super-nova never really happened? If the light takes 500,000 years to reach the earth from that star and you watch it through a telescope then it couldn't have actually happened if creation is only 6,000 years old. Rather, God created everything, including light rays from supernovas, in an aged condition. Or, perhaps the atrophy of light could somehow explain it. Is there any danger in exploring this possibility? I think it's awesome. The heavens declare the glory of God!

When did God prepare the locusts? Did He create them the moment Moses pronounced the plague, or were the eggs laid normally, but in abundance and nurtured for this purpose? What about the flies? What is burning hail? Is it possible today? Some can explain it with modern science, from what I've heard. But it's beyond me. In some ways I don't care how God did it. Regardless of His means, it's still a miracle because He did it how He did it and when He did it. Even if I can explain that it was a normal cycle in the habits of locusts, the miracle isn't diminished. God timed it all from the foundation fo the world to intersect according to His divine plan. Wow!

In the end all of these discussions must start and end with God. If we start with science then we are idolaters. If we question the verity of God's Word then we are idolaters. If we in any way judge God's Word then we are idolaters. We must begin with Scripture defining our reference points and all else must submit to God as revealed in Scripture. All else must prove Scripture true. If it in any way denigrates Scripture, no matter how persuasive the discussion and research is put forth, or how diligent the scientists are, it must be rejected as anti-Christ.

So, to those on every part of this map, isn't any discussion within these parameters edifying? Can we not strive to know more about God's creation through responsible science, as long as that science begins with God and submits to Scripture first? On the other hand, delving into possibilities based on criteria contrary to Scripture must be avoided at all costs as dangerous to all involved.

Again, may God be true and every man a liar.

As for how God did it, I don't have a clue. Daylight lasted longer than it normally does because God willed it to be so according to His design and for His own good purposes. I'd be interested in knowing how He did it. But all the speculations give us are possibilities of His means. Basically, the biggest miracle here is that the prayer of a man was a means by which God accomplished His purposes. Now that's awesome!

 

[govols]

If the light takes 500,000 years to reach the earth from that star and you watch it through a microscope then it couldn't have actually happened if creation is only 6,000 years old.

Great post but I would love for someone to view a super nova under a microscope. Now that would be awesome.

Sorry - couldn't pass it up - carry on.

 

[discipulo]

If the light takes 500,000 years to reach the earth from that star and you watch it through a microscope then it couldn't have actually happened if creation is only 6,000 years old.

Great post but I would love for someone to view a super nova under a microscope. Now that would be awesome.

Sorry - couldn't pass it up - carry on.

in fact it is basically the same thing upside down

 

[Wannabee]

Thanks guys. It's a case of passion overriding clarity, I suppose. Heh, it's not the first time... At least someone was reading it. It's amended, but I'll treasure you posts for posterity... and humility's sake.

 

[LawrenceU]

I'm not an astrophysicist. I'm merely a pastor. But, I do wonder how we are able to use a heliocentric model of the solar system and its resultant physics thereby placing probes precisely on spot at the far reaches of that solar system if the solar system is in fact geocentric. It seems to me that we would be way off target. I've read some on this and the mathematical arguments just don't seem to work.

 

[Nate]

In the end all of these discussions must start and end with God. If we start with science then we are idolaters. If we question the verity of God's Word then we are idolaters. If we in any way judge God's Word then we are idolaters. We must begin with Scripture defining our reference points and all else must submit to God as revealed in Scripture. All else must prove Scripture true. If it in any way denigrates Scripture, no matter how persuasive the discussion and research is put forth, or how diligent the scientists are, it must be rejected as anti-Christ.

Exactly!

I have to admit, the geocentric arguments brought up by lynnie etc are new to me and profoundly confusing. For instance, I'm sure that since Copernicus's time, measurements have been taken from points removed from the surface of the earth (regarding her last post).
Don't we have a Professor of physics who is extremely trustworthy on matters of Faith and science somewhere here on the PB? Does anyone know his take?

 

[lynnie]

"Don't we have a Professor of physics who is extremely trustworthy on matters of Faith and science somewhere here on the PB? Does anyone know his take? "

Malcolm Bowden is fully Reformed and co authored a (non creationism) book with the same Dr. Law who wrote some abridged versions of John Owen for Banner of Truth. I'm not quoting some wierd Dispensational dope here

 

[Nate]

"Don't we have a Professor of physics who is extremely trustworthy on matters of Faith and science somewhere here on the PB? Does anyone know his take? "

Malcolm Bowden is fully Reformed and co authored a (non creationism) book with the same Dr. Law who wrote some abridged versions of John Owen for Banner of Truth. I'm not quoting some wierd Dispensational dope here

Sorry, my post probably came out more disrespectful than I intended. I wouldn't expect you to quote some Dispensational dope. I'll need to do some reading by the authors you provided to try and see if I have been hoodwinked.

 

[lynnie]

Nah, you weren't disrespectful. It was a fair question but I don't know of any recent developments with space probes. But you got me interested in reading up more myself, it's been a while

 

[Hebrew Student]

Hey Everyone!

A variation of this view, points out that in the ancient Near East the simultaneous appearance of the sun and moon in the sky was viewed as a good omen. Hence, Joshua is praying for a visible sign of victory (Boling, p. 284). But it is unlikely that Joshua would have followed an ancient superstition which viewed the sun and moon as deities.

One of the professors here at Trinity, Dr. James Hoffmeier, believes that this was, not Joshua following the pagan superstitions, but asking God to give them an omen that, even in their religious context, would have meant bad news for them. Hence, from the perspective of the pagans, it would be a good sign for their enemies, and a bad omen for them.

I say that this is possible, but not necessary. Because I am not a naturalist, I am willing to consider both interpretation #1 or #2. We have to be careful, because we believe that God controls all things, and he can certainly bring about his purposes by ordaining things to happen as he has before. However, because he is a personal God, he is not obligated to do that. Hence, I am not going to throw an interpretation out because it is consistent with naturalism, but I am also not going to accept it just because it is the only interpretation that is consistent with naturalism.

God Bless,
Adam

 

[Brian Withnell]

VII. God knows mechanical law better than man will ever hope to, so we will never understand it (Theognome).

I've had this argument here before. To try to define the miraculous in particular terms that mere man can define under his understanding of mechanical law is presumptuous at best. God does not need to explain His knowledge of the workings of the universe, and science will never proceed to a point where it can define the miraculous. For mankind to be able to do so, man would need comprehensive knowledge of mechanical law- something which man, in his finitude, will never attain. In short, it is a fools discussion, for only a fool would state what God has done through His infinite knowledge.

Theognome

While God is certainly capable of working without means, it is certainly possible for him to work within means as well. While we can never hope to understand everything that God has done in terms of means, that in no way ought to preclude our investigation into what might be understood in terms of his producing extraordinary providence through means. Some things are beyond means (the virgin birth, the resurrection, and many others) it is a fools errand to look into them, but while that is absolutely true, it is also true that some of what God did might have been by means. 2 Kings 3 is an example where scripture itself tells of the means God used in an extraordinary providence in delivering victory to Israel.

That said, it is also possible that God can work without or against means; when he commands, the universe has no choice but to obey. This specific instance does need an additional possible post ... God chose to work without means and stopped the rotation of the earth with a miracle that did involve not destroying the earth (suspending inertia) or displacing the sun and moon. For all we know, he could have allowed the Israelites to have worked within a time warp in which the rest of the universe was stopped in time, while what they saw was time not changing.

There are two types of errors that I can see as possible. One is insisting that all the details must be able to be understood through ordinary means (the atheist mechanistic universe world view). It is in error because God is not only transcendent, but also imminent. He is beyond creation, but condescends to his creators in revealing himself and interacting with them. The other error is to presume that because we cannot know everything, that we shouldn't bother understanding what is revealed. What is revealed is to us and our children that we may obey God word. All revelation, regardless of special or general, is for us. If God used means, it is perfectly acceptable to look into it, and right for us to do so. If we find that God did not use means, then we glorify him still in his sovereign control of the universe, knowing he is not limited to means.

I find it no less extraordinary that Joseph was called to save his family through means (the "only" miracle was Joseph being told ahead of time what would occur, the rest was through the means of actions by others). God sovereignly worked out his will and accomplished his eternal plan through means in that case. I see no reason why we should not look into the history in order to gain knowledge of external events (even to know why there were seven good years followed by seven bad years if we can discover it ... which might be possible).

It is certainly error to think that we can "explain away" all that is miraculous in scripture; Jesus taking on a human nature is beyond explanation in the extreme. But if a passage talks of something that occurred with means, rather than beyond or against means, it is good to know what God has revealed. While those within "Science" (capital "S") reject God, there is no reason we should not use science (small "s") to understand what we can of how God has accomplished what we can understand.

-----Added 3/22/2009 at 07:24:30 EST-----

Speed is not an issue, actually. What these scholars are doing is quite obvious.

Are you saying you know the hearts of all these men? I would not go there.

Brother, tread carefully.

 

[Brian Withnell]

But, from the perspective of a Hubble telescope, the sun does not revolve around the earth.

But Dr. Bob, from the Hubble telescope, the Earth revolves around the Hubble telescope. By observing the relational movements of heavenly bodies we can deduce mathematically that from the surface of the Sun the Earth revolves around it, that from the surface of the Moon the Earth revolves around it, that from the surface of Jupiter it's moons revolve around it, that from the center of the Milky Way, the Solar system revolves around it, etc. & etc. & etc.

Brad,

From the perspective of the Cassini space probe, the Earth revolves around the Sun. It is past the orbit of Saturn, and it had to track the position of the Earth the entire time it was in space in order to send back the pictures (it had to have the antenna pointed in the correct direction or it would not have been able to communicate). That leaves us with one of two conclusions: 1) the Earth is the center of the solar system, and God decided to hide that fact from man with every deep space probe we have launched; 2) the heliocentric view of the solar system is correct and those probes do not require continual extraordinary providence in order to keep their antennas pointing toward the Earth as they exit the Earth's orbit around the sun.

Either is fully possible. Yet I doubt that the condescension of God extends to making false presumptions of the mechanics of the universe operate the way we would expect them to operate ... that is, I doubt God would intervene in the moment by moment positioning of the satellite's position to assure the antenna would point back to the earth. Is it possible? Of course it is possible. Is it reasonable to think that? I'm not sure. Is it possible that some of the rejection of science is a fear of "the camel's nose" rather than truly being concerned about a proper view of scripture? I think this may be the case.

In any case, it is the Lord's day, and my heart longs for the corporate worship of God. I look forward to hearing his word.

 

[Brian Withnell]

Dr Bob- Thanks.

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

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

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

Please be careful when you start stating "facts" about science. The sun does in fact convert mass into energy (figuratively "burn" off mass) at a rate of 4 million tons a second. But the mass of the sun is about 2 time 10 to the 30th power. In other words, it "burns" off less than a millionth of its mass every million years.

While I don't doubt you believe the person that gave the information to you, it just isn't true. The sun should be growing in size due to reduction in gravity (less mass = less gravity, and the sun will not compress its gas as much over time). The people that originate these things harm the cause of Christ by making it seem Christians will lie to support illogical beliefs. I don't doubt many are duped by such things; I hear "scientific evidence" that just doesn't make sense in many cases.