ROTFLMFAO!
You guys are arguing over semantics, when the real issue is the absurdity of magically stopping the earth rotation and then restarting it.
2006-09-29 08:08:03
·
answer #1
·
answered by lenny 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
The "long day" of Joshua is a typical "error" skeptics use to try to debunk the Bible. However, the claim holds no weight. Any casual observer would tell you that the sun did appear to stand still. Even today, we talk about the sun rising, setting and moving across the sky. The writer accurately recorded his observations.
What would you want something written close to 3000 years ago to say? "And lo, the earth did cease to revolve about its axis and the moon stop in its orbit?"
The Bible was written and read by people without the scientific sophistication we have today. The point of the story is that God came to the aid of His people.
2006-09-29 15:51:45
·
answer #2
·
answered by Theodore R 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
You've got to realise two things here. 1) the level of understanding of the people present. 2) The perspective view.
The level of understading was at that time that the sun and moon moved and the earth was the centre of the universe. They were learning their science from cultures who could only rely on visual observation for answers. To them, the earth stood still and it appeared as if the sun and moon moved.
This was their perspective view. So, if we now imagine that it was actually the earth that stopped rotating in this event, it would apeear to their view that the sun and moon stopped moving.
We have only developed our understanding of how the solar system really works in the last thousand years. The bible was written over two thousand years ago. Science was in an earlier stage so it couldn't explain things.
As we grow, we learn and our understanding changes.
2006-09-29 19:03:19
·
answer #3
·
answered by ManoGod 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Well, to the bronze age mind set, it was quite logical to believe that the sun moved, because that is what it appears to do. It requires careful observation and logical thinking to work out that this is not the case.
So it is an excusable mistake in a very old myth.
No so excusable, however, in the 'inerrant word of god'! It joins a very, very long list of fallacies, contradictions and down right stupid ideas scattered throughout the bible, and theist have to fall back on sophistry and wealsing to explain them away!
2006-09-29 15:03:26
·
answer #4
·
answered by Avondrow 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
The sun standing still and the moon not moving is talking about what it looked like in the sky. Just because we say "sunrise" and "sunset" doesn't mean that the sun is actually moving.
2006-09-29 15:04:47
·
answer #5
·
answered by G W 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
In our so called enlightened age we still refer to a sun rise and sun set because that's what it appears to do.The Bible writer was merely describing events, as we still do, from an earthly standpoint
2006-09-30 11:54:03
·
answer #6
·
answered by I tell you whut! 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
the book is written in a language that the culture att he time would understand... people can't get that simple concept throught their tiny brains...
Back then, they didn't know that the sun was stationary. In reference frame to them, it moved every day.
Don't take thebible literally... it's bad for you.
2006-09-29 15:03:06
·
answer #7
·
answered by Onyx Dracona 3
·
2⤊
0⤋
I think it was more in a relation to it didn't move like it normally would across the sky for time purposes... in other words, time stood still.
2006-09-29 15:03:59
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Look up in the sky...we all percieve the sun to be moving... and perceptions can be altered... it would be a simple thing for God to alter the perceptions of any group to cause them to see or hear or feel any thing He wanted them to percieve to be... So. If God did this, How would those who "percieved" an event record it?.... as they percieved it... correct?
2006-09-29 15:05:47
·
answer #9
·
answered by IdahoMike 5
·
1⤊
1⤋
Yes I believe this without question.
2006-09-29 15:12:28
·
answer #10
·
answered by cnm 4
·
0⤊
0⤋