Okay how about this one? Joshua commanded the sun to stand still until the Israelis finished off the Amoris?

Question

Joshua 10:13 The sun stood still for about a day.
Do church people believe this?
Or maybe it meant to say that Joshua wished the sun would stand still, or maybe he imagined that it was standing still, or everything happened so fast it might as well have stood still, or what?
Is this preposterous or what?
How exactly do church people explain things like this?

I am but a simple troll, so tell it to me slowly.

Answer 1

The NASA report is a hoax that has been around for years but there is proof because I looked into it years ago and I will search again since it is a good question. What is even more fascinating though was this:
In II Kings, chapter 20, Hezekiah, on his death bed was visited by the prophet Isaiah who told him that he was not going to die. Hezekiah did not believe him and asked for a sign as proof. Isaiah said, "...shall the shadow go forward ten degrees or go back ten degrees?" Hezekiah replied, "It is a light thing for the shadow to go down ten degrees; nay, but let the shadow return backward ten degrees." (II Kings 20:9-10) Ten degrees is exactly 20 minutes. So, to bring the shadow back ten degrees then return the shadow back to it's original position through it's natural motion is 40 minutes!!

Answer 2

I read an interesting book many years ago. It postulated that the orbit of Mars changed a few thousand years ago. The orbit was once extremely elliptic, and passed very near the earth every few years. This explains how the ancients knew that Mars had two moons, even though they cannot be seen with the naked eye (!), since Mars got close enough to see the moons every few years. The final near miss actually caused the crust of the earth to slide on the magma and pause for a while, causing those on the ground to see the sun as stopped. This occurred the very day you ask about. The calculations in the book were convincing. God must have had something to do with this amazing concomitance. Sorry, can't remember the name of the book right now.

Interestingly, this book postulated that the near miss moved the earth outward a bit in its orbit while repositioning Mars to its current and more conventional orbit. This also explains why all ancient calendars (Sumerian, Aztec, Hebrew, Egyptian, Mayan and Incan) had only 360 days. Schools explain this as wishful thinking on the part of the ancients, but the their architectures demonstrated a clear resonance with astronomy. They could count days in a year. This 360 day year leads to the 360 degrees in our modern day circle.

The current 365 and one quarter day calendar did not surface until a bit over two thousand years ago.

By the way, for those of you who read Daniel and other ancient prophets, you need to adjust any calculations you make from the time of Christ until now. Daniel was using a 360 day calendar. We use a 365 day year. According to the Guinness World records book, the earth's rotation slows by two hundredths of a second per century, thereby taking five thousand years to slow down an entire second. This slowing does not even come close to five days in three thousand years. So, the year is now five and a quarter days longer than it once was. Maybe this explains why the book "The late, great planet earth" missed the tribulation date, as it forecast the tribulation as arriving in 1984. Oh wait! A longer year would push the date back, not forward. Oh well!

May the peace of the Lord be always with you!

Answer 3

Perhaps, as Joshua was a SPIRITUAL warrior, the sun standing still was a metaphor for maintain the inner Light which is the basis for the workings of all people of the spirit. Not everything in the Bible is to be taken literally. The languages in which it was written often had several levels of meaning within the very cahracters which made up the words, adding to the allegorical value while telling an interesting portrayal of a historical event. When Aesop did this we praised it as fable and never wondered why some people believed that the fox really tried to get those sour grapes in the first place ;-)

Answer 4

Surprise! This account has been verified by Nasa. Some years ago Nasa was running into a problem with the spacial calculations necessary for getting the rockets into the air without running into space debris. It seemed that there was a 24 hr glitch in the system, they couldn't account for the glitch until a christian member of the team mentioned the Joshua incident. Surprisingly enough when the calculations were modified to include the Joshua incident the program ran perfectly. But don't believe me, check it out with NASDA . They confirmed it to a reporter some 15 years ago.

Answer 5

Well I don't go to church a lot but I do believe that since it is in the book of Joshua in the Bible. It is even says in the Bible that His word is God breathed which means that the Bible is God breathed which means that God used different people in the Old and New Testament. I don't know if people who go to church would believe that since it seems like most people just go to church as a rountine and it's hard to figure out if they believe anything or not.

Answer 6

This triggers a discrepancy that the little affair with Giordano Bruno wasn't enough to silence.

How accurate could be a religion that STILL portrays the sun as revolving around the earth?

That's precisely the point, isn't it?

Answer 7

How about a supernatural light like the star of Bethlehem.Or a supernova,that looked like the sun.Joshua was relating to what he saw and could percieve.It looked like the sun so to him it was the sun.
In Revelation ,John sees a "Star fall from heaven "and poison the waters,the name of the star is Wormwood.The name Wormwood in Russian is Chernobyl.You think that is a co-incidence?John saw a nuke hitting the earth.He didn't know what a nuke was,to him it was a star.

Answer 8

It is quite simple God made the sun stand still for about a day. What is so difficult? God is all powerful he can control such things. That it is a small task for God.
Ye old Basher that is good that should get them every time. I'll have to remember that one. xx

Answer 9

i don't know... but i think you're right... i wish there was a direct way for this to be exlpained.... but my dad's a minister...and he can't explain it and says GOD is all powerfull and can do whatever he wants... but take this... he says he also invented the laws of the universe... (gravity, time, ect.) so wouldn't the sun standing still be against these laws... so why compromise more contreversy against his disbelief giving atheist, or others against GOD... mor eevidence... of why they don't think he exist... then i really don't get it... i wish he could just talk to us... well dad say to just ask... and he'll answer... so i don't know... give it a try.

Answer 10

Well its kind of like the Big Bang

The Big Bang has not met the requirements to be classified as a scientific Theory due to lack of supporting evidence. In the scientific community a method is used to produce a step-by-step process to explain an observation. These are the most common steps; Observation, Question, Hypothesis, prediction, experiment, analysis, decision. When an experiment is proven to be 100% reliable it becomes a scientific Law. This method being referred to is known as the Scientific Method. As Antonio Zamora explains ”The scientific method requires that theories be testable. If a theory cannot be tested, it cannot be a scientific theory”. One might reply to this statement, just because scientist haven’t found proof for the big bang doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. In regards to this logic, if scientists produce documented, testable proof using the accepted scientific method, that the Big Bang is possible, then one can claim the Big Bang to be a scientific Theory.
The idea of the Big Bang is described in the textbook The Unity and Diversity of Life “This Incredibly hot, dense state lasted only for an instant. What happened next is known as the Big Bang, a stupendous, nearly instantaneous distribution of matter and energy throughout the universe.” Scientists have yet to create something out of nothing. According to this big bang idea, between 14 and 18 billion years ago, all of the matter in the universe was smashed into a tiny space. This dot spun faster, and faster until it exploded, thus creating the Universe, and everything in it. This claim cannot be proven; observed, or tested by the scientific Laws provided by scientist, at best the Big Bang is a Hypothesis. Scientific Laws hold a much higher authority than a theory, due to the fact that a scientific Law has been proven 100% true, and tested time, and time again. According to Ross E. Koning a college professor at Eastern Connecticut State University “The scientific method is based upon evidence rather than belief. This distinguishes science from faith. A scientist is suitably skeptical of anything but good evidence”.
In the First Law of Thermodynamics: matter cannot be created or destroyed. In the beginning to the Big Bang, there is nothing present to explode, and zero energy to explode it. There are zero observations, or documented test results for spontaneous generation, let alone matter from nothing. Expecting to have matter, and energy just show up, when none is present is like taking an absolutely empty box, and after billions of years, or any other amount of time, expect to open that box, and inside have a operational world in all its complexity. Spontaneous generation something out of nothing, used to support the Big Bang is in direct conflict with the first scientific Law of Thermodynamics.
Lets examine the Second Law of Thermodynamics: Everything tends towards disorder. In the Big Bang we have a huge universe-creating explosion. Nothing orderly has ever come from a random matter explosion of any magnitude. Explosions are anything but orderly, the larger the explosions the more random the matter distributions become. If a person made a claim that thousands of bricks were set in motion by a tornado, which ultimately resulted in the orderly design, and complexity of this Spokane Falls Community College school building, people would think he was crazy. To take the point of complexity a little further, this well-designed school-building students attend is far inferior to the human eyes function; let alone the precision of the planetary orbits.
Another scientific Law is Conservation of angular momentum: According to the definition in Word Book “Objects executing motion around a point possess a quantity called angular momentum. This is an important physical quantity because all experimental evidence indicates that angular momentum is rigorously conserved in our Universe: it can be transferred, but it cannot be created or destroyed”. This spinning ball of matter, which supposedly created the earth, stars, and planets, would all need to spin in the same direction as the single object it exploded from. However their are two planets in our immediate space, Venus, and Uranus that spin backwards. Some planets even have moons that not only spin backwards, but also travel backward around their own planets. Even NASA’s scientists on their website ponder the many differing orbits of planetary bodies in our amazing universe.
Some newly discovered planets follow unusual orbits. Most planets travel around their stars on nearly circular paths, like those of the planets in our solar system. But a planet around the star 16 Cygni B follows an extremely elliptical orbit. It travels farther from its star than the planet Mars does from our sun, and then draws closer to the star than Venus does to our sun. If a planet in our solar system traveled in such an extreme oval, its gravity would disrupt the orbits of the other planets and toss them out of their paths.
The reason for this paper is not to push any agenda, or to now tell you I have all the right answers. The reason for this paper is to examine what we are being told by many mainstream scientists, using their own methods, models, and proven Laws. When using proven scientific evidence, along with scientific Laws in a precise, but simple order, the Big Bang holds no more ground than a belief. There is no supporting evidence to classify the Big Bang as a scientific Theory. Please refer back to the first quote stated by a member of the scientific community ” The scientific method requires that theories be testable. If a theory cannot be tested, it cannot be a scientific Theory”. To me science is evolving, and dynamic. I imagine a student writing a paper 1500 years ago on the flawed theory held that the earth is flat, and being scoffed at by that days mainstream scientific thinkers. True thinkers, and scientist should always be willing to examine what they believe to be true, and why they hold that idea to be true or false. They should also be wiling to fix a mistake if found. Nobody likes to be told what to think, and how to think it, especially when it doesn’t make logical scientific sense.