The sun stood still

dad · Sep 2, 2005

I was on another forum, and had this issue unresolved. Someone suggested that Joshua, and the miracle of the sun standing still was only possible in a merged world. I said it was merely a local intervention of the spiritual, of earth, and the moon. But is this impossible? I asked if perhaps the axis of the earth may have been changed, to make it so the day lasted longer. Anyone able to weigh in here?

Here is something I found on google.
"Donald Patten and his colleagues believe that the planet Mars passed by Earth in an unusually close orbit that caused the Earth to tilt on its axis (1973, pp. 172-198). Viewed from the right geographical location, the Sun actually would hang in the sky longer than normal." http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2189

Now, personally, I never considered mars as what did it, but what about the idea in general?

Gracchus · Sep 2, 2005

The idea is baseless in science. A more accurate assessment would get me banned, as truth is no defense in Christian Forums.

:wave:

ebia · Sep 2, 2005

Mars came closer to us in 2003 than it has done for the last 60,000 years. I didn't notice the sun standing still or the earth's axis of rotation being disturbed then.

Douglaangu v2.0 · Sep 2, 2005

but what about the idea in general?

Or....it never happened, and was an effective piece of poetic imagery.

dad · Sep 2, 2005

Gracchus said:
The idea is baseless in science. A more accurate assessment would get me banned as truth is no defense in Christian Forums.

Right, ha ha ha. So, which ide is that? I already said, first of all, that I never envisioned mars as having anything to do with it. So, as far as the axis changing, for whatever reasomn, what about it? Why would you think this would not fit the bill?

dad · Sep 2, 2005

Douglaangu v2.0 said:
Or....it never happened, and was an effective piece of poetic imagery.

Right, we can always try the ostrich approach. Fine. You can't contribute to the actual idea, but would like to register your faith.

dad · Sep 2, 2005

ebia said:
Mars came closer to us in 2003 than it has done for the last 60,000 years. I didn't notice the sun standing still or the earth's axis of rotation being disturbed then.

Well, despite the assumptions being invalid that your dates are based on, and the fact I have said I thought mars had nothing actually to do with it, I guess you get a 'b'' for typing words out here.

Douglaangu v2.0 · Sep 2, 2005

dad said:
Right, we can always try the ostrich approach. Fine. You can't contribute to the actual idea, but would like to register your faith.

Whats so appaling about the idea that something for which there is no evidence ever for, and an account that is untrustworthy at best, not actually occuring?

Afterall, its a card you like to play alot.

dad · Sep 2, 2005

Douglaangu v2.0 said:
Whats so appaling about the idea that something for which there is no evidence ever for, and an account that is untrustworthy at best, not actually occuring?

Afterall, its a card you like to play alot.

Well, your beliefs are your own. I thought that if the world would rip apart, or something, someone might realize it, and rule it out for reasons of science, if they could. But perhaps an axis shift is a possibility?

Douglaangu v2.0 · Sep 2, 2005

But perhaps an axis shift is a possibility?

You're missing the point.

What evidence is there that the 'sun stood still', or that something happened that made it appear to?

Its a number between 0 and 0.

dad · Sep 2, 2005

OK, since I am not yet promoting a precise view on this, here is the deep dark doubts that one poster on another forum posted "There is no way to turn it that would maintain the rotation necessary ro prevent the disaster I outlined.If you were to introduce a motion that could do so {say by shifting rotation of axial centers towards the equator} then you have introduced an additional motion beyond the mere stopping of the earth.You have now stopped rotation about the poles of the earth and translated it to a new position that introduces additonal forces that increase the damage."
The OP link seems to be at odds with this view. Would the earth break up if the orbit or axis changed to make a day longer? (In a regular old physical only universe)

dad · Sep 2, 2005

Douglaangu v2.0 said:
You're missing the point.

What evidence is there that the 'sun stood still', or that something happened that made it appear to?

Its a number between 0 and 0.

Actually, the point here is whether this was possible scientifically. Not that it happened, and someone has to prove it.

ebia · Sep 2, 2005

A major change like that in the rotation of the earth would cause far more major upheavals than just making the sun appear to stand still. A rather long working day would be the least of their worries.

dad · Sep 2, 2005

ebia said:
A major change like that in the rotation of the earth would cause far more major upheavals than just making the sun appear to stand still. A rather long working day would be the least of their worries.

OK. And why is that? Also, by 'rotation' do you mean axis? Would it depend on how the change was acheived?

FSTDT · Sep 2, 2005

dad said:
I was on another forum, and had this issue unresolved. Someone suggested that Joshua, and the miracle of the sun standing still was only possible in a merged world. I said it was merely a local intervention of the spiritual, of earth, and the moon. But is this impossible? I asked if perhaps the axis of the earth may have been changed, to make it so the day lasted longer. Anyone able to weigh in here?

Here is something I found on google.
"Donald Patten and his colleagues believe that the planet Mars passed by Earth in an unusually close orbit that caused the Earth to tilt on its axis (1973, pp. 172-198). Viewed from the right geographical location, the Sun actually would hang in the sky longer than normal." http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2189

Now, personally, I never considered mars as what did it, but what about the idea in general?

Its basically bunk. The pull that Mars has on the Earth is negligible, and even it it wasnt the torque required to rotate the earth perpendicular to rotational inertia would have to be simply tremendous. Even if we allow that it is possible in some bizarro universe, then it would be impossible for Earth's axis to return back to normal without a contradiction in the laws of rotational inertia as we know them.

Although not specifically related to Joshua's Day, here is a relevant excerpt from AnswersInGenesis - Arguments We Think Creationists Should NOT Use:

Earths axis was vertical before the Flood. There is no basis for this claim. Seasons are mentioned in Genesis 1:14 before the Flood, which strongly suggests an axial tilt from the beginning. Some creationists believe that a change in axial tilt (but not from the vertical) started Noahs Flood. But a lot more evidence is needed and this idea should be regarded as speculative for now. Furthermore, computer modelling suggests that an upright axis would make temperature differences between the poles and equator far more extreme than now, while the current tilt of 23.5° is ideal. The Moon has an important function in stabilizing this tilt, and the Moons large relative size and the fact that its orbital plane is close to the Earths (unlike most moons in our solar system) are design features.

ebia · Sep 2, 2005

dad said:
OK. And why is that?

Put it this way, I wouldn't want to be standing anywhere near the beach at the time.

Also, by 'rotation' do you mean axis?

A change in the axis is a change in the rotation.

Would it depend on how the change was acheived?

Yes and no. However it was achieved, it wouldn't be viable.

dad · Sep 2, 2005

FSTDT said:
Its basically bunk. The pull that Mars has on the Earth is negligible,

Bunk all right, since mars has nothing to do with it, as I've said, in my opinion. The cause is easy, all I wonder about is a good reason this could have been localized, rather than require a universal change.

and even it it wasnt the torque required to rotate the earth perpendicular to rotational inertia would have to be simply tremendous.

Without a localized spiritual interference, yes. But more than only the physical was at work.- Locally, in the earth.

Even if we allow that it is possible in some bizarro universe, then it would be impossible for Earth's axis to return back to normal without a contradiction in the laws of rotational inertia as we know them.

Another piece of cake. These laws locally would have been temporarily superceded.

Although not specifically related to Joshua's Day, here is a relevant excerpt from AnswersInGenesis - Arguments We Think Creationists Should NOT Use:

I looked at this, and could not find anything relevant, perhaps you could point out what I missed?

dad · Sep 2, 2005

ebia said:
ebia said:

Put it this way, I wouldn't want to be standing anywhere near the beach at the time.

Click to expand...

Hey, lots of people, I think even evos, argue local floods. Who knows?

A change in the axis is a change in the rotation.

Click to expand...

Fair enough, but so what?

Yes and no. However it was achieved, it wouldn't be viable.

Click to expand...

Oh really? And why not?

FSTDT · Sep 2, 2005

dad said:
Without a localized spiritual interference, yes. But more than only the physical was at work.- Locally, in the earth.

Another piece of cake. These laws locally would have been temporarily superceded.

There is no way that could ever be known. And even if the laws were temporarily superceded, then what would be the point in referring to Mars or any physical objects at all if the process was inheritly non-physical?

dad said:
I looked at this, and could not find anything relevant, perhaps you could point out what I missed?

The source you cited in the opening post says that the earths axis did change - however according to the quote from AiG I cited, the current consensus is that the earths axis has remained unchanged since creation, and that there is no reason to believe otherwise. That basic disagreement is why the quote is relevant.

dad · Sep 2, 2005

FSTDT said:
There is no way that could ever be known.

Oh, I have an inkling. All I look for now, is to see if any can mount a challenge.

The source you cited in the opening post says that the earths axis did change - however according to the quote from AiG I cited, the current consensus is that the earths axis has remained unchanged since creation,

Well, thats all Jim dandy, but can you tell us why, exactly this is a 'concensus'?

and that there is no reason to believe otherwise. That basic disagreement is why the quote is relevant

No observable reason, perhaps. But what reason is ther to say there was not? I guess then the answer is none? If the axis changing could fit the bill, we must consider it, whether aig, and science can detect a reason or not. The reason would be God fought with men that day. Sorry, aig, I find that a good reason, whether you do or not.

aig said "Seasons are mentioned in Genesis 1:14 before the Flood, which strongly suggests an axial tilt from the beginning. "
Now what have we here? A conclusion we had seasons and a tilt from the start. Fine. So what????!!!! The localized spiritual intervention of God in Joshua's day could have seen the tilt go from one place, to another, and simply end up (again?) where it is. Like grabbing a tennis ball, and rotating it around a lamp, so as that it kept facing the light. Doesn't matter what angles we hold it at, the effect would be the same, and if God had it end up close to where it was, or even somewhat different, the battle was still won! So--why not?

The sun stood still

Undefeated!

Senior Veteran

Senior Contributor

Senior Member

Undefeated!

Undefeated!

Undefeated!

Senior Member

Undefeated!

Senior Member

Undefeated!

Undefeated!

Senior Contributor

Undefeated!

Yahweh

Senior Contributor

Undefeated!

Undefeated!

Yahweh

Undefeated!

Similar threads