When the sun stood still: could it have been an eclipse?

I think the context implies that it stood still. In the NKJV it says,
So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day Joshua 10:13
I have no idea how to read Hebrew but I thought that eclipses dont usually last for a whole day. Also, I'm not sure that an eclipse would really help the isrealites, except of course if it made the weather more fair and pleasant. I live in Northern California and we were close enough to Oregon to experience a decent change in the weather during the last total solar eclipse that crossed the United States. I was helping tamp some gravel at a friends house and it had been rather warm out but the ecplise was a nice relief.

Open Heart said:

In examining the ancient Hebrew, it actually means that the sun and moon stopped doing what they normally do. Although this has traditionally been interpreted to mean moved, it COULD mean SHINE.

This would date Joshua between 1500 to 1050 BC.

Also using eclipse data, the Exodus would have been 1207 BC

Solar eclipse mentioned in Bible DID occur 3,224 years ago | Daily Mail Online

Click to expand...

IMO More like to have been a gyroscopic wobble of the earth. The event has parallels in other ancient stories from other parts of the world. Joshua’s long day - creation.com

31gH9N.9. said:

I have no idea how to read Hebrew but I thought that eclipses dont usually last for a whole day. Also, I'm not sure that an eclipse would really help the isrealites, except of course if it made the weather more fair and pleasant.

Click to expand...

I agree.
Yes, it would be cooler but also darker which is the opposite of what the Israelites needed.

In the Hebrew, the 'stand still' is H1826 in Strong's which is to be dumb, silent, etc.,
Psa 107:29 He maketh the storm a calm, so that the waves thereof are still.
In this verse 'calm' is the same Hebrew word in the feminine gender. H1827.

There are stories where a deity stops the sun but this story is unique because it also mentions the role of the moon. It could have referred to a solar eclipse, during which the moon passes in between the sun and the earth, blocking the sunlight but like another poster said, where was the darkened sky and why so long? It has to be in the translation. They interpreted the word “dom,” which only occurs one other time in Psalms 37:7, not as “stand still,” but to mean “become dark.” which would make more sense when you think eclipse.

Dr. Hezi Yitzhak found that there was only one total solar eclipse that occurred in the region between the years 1500-1000 BCE, when the Israelites are believed to have entered the land. The eclipse allowed them to date the battle precisely to 4:28 p.m. on October 30, 1207 BCE, in their paper, which was published in the most recent edition of Beit Mikra. Journal for the Study of the Bible and Its World. Eclipse ‘stopped the sun’ for biblical Joshua, Israeli scientists say

Anguspure said:

IMO More like to have been a gyroscopic wobble of the earth. The event has parallels in other ancient stories from other parts of the world. Joshua’s long day - creation.com

Click to expand...

Yes the earth does have a gyroscopic wobble --- the technical term is gyroscopic precession. It has a period of over 20,000 years and is not something that can be noticed on a day to day basis. I am unaware of the "other ancient stories" that you mentioned.

I think it means exactly what it says: the sun stopped moving and the moon stopped moving as well

I find it interesting that it doesn't say the earth stood still. Maybe because the earth isn't moving & the sun/moon are...

Dkh587 said:

I think it means exactly what it says: the sun stopped moving and the moon stopped moving as well

I find it interesting that it doesn't say the earth stood still. Maybe because the earth isn't moving & the sun/moon are...

Click to expand...

Or was it a perception... In the illustration of the sun can go backwards.... which happened recently and was recorded, which illustrated that it is Joshua and crowd's perception of movement of the sun and moon.. not the actual movement of the sun and moon.

JackRT said:

Yes the earth does have a gyroscopic wobble --- the technical term is gyroscopic precession. It has a period of over 20,000 years and is not something that can be noticed on a day to day basis. I am unaware of the "other ancient stories" that you mentioned.

Click to expand...

We are talking about an unusual event here, not precession.

• In Polynesian lore the demigod Maui slowed down the sun because his days were not long enough;
• Ovid tells of an unusually long day;
  
• The Chinese have a long day story;
• Babylonians and Persians the same;
• The Central and South American cultures also record a long night.

visionary said:

Or was it a perception... In the illustration of the sun can go backwards.... which happened recently and was recorded, which illustrated that it is Joshua and crowd's perception of movement of the sun and moon.. not the actual movement of the sun and moon.

Click to expand...

It could have been, but the scriptures are inspired by the Ruach. I don't see how they could be Ruach-inspired, but at the same time, be written in a way that the writer doesn't really understand what's going on, or writing things based on their perception

The Ruach was at creation - the Ruach should know whether the sun and moon move or whether it's actually the earth moving.


Why wouldn't the Ruach inspire the writer to record that the earth stood still, and not the sun and moon?

The text flat out says "the sun & moon stood still".

Just like with the flood, the scripture plainly states what happened, but many don't want to accept what it says.

Open Heart said:

It's phenomenological language. The sun doesn't move around the earth in the first place.

Click to expand...

Not according to what the Scriptures say - the writer says Joshua commanded the sun and moon to be still, and that they stopped.

Doesn't sound phenomenological at all to me. IMO, it's not sound scholarship to discredit the scriptures for what they are truly saying to us by attempting to explain away things that fly in the face of modern science & doctrine.

I personally accept that the scriptures teach that the sun moves above/around us. So for me, it's no problem at all to accept the basic/plain/literal explanation offered by the scriptures.

people do this with the Torah all the time - they don't want to accept the literal creation story, so they create 50 million excuses as to why it didn't happen the way that Moses wrote that it happened.

people do the same thing with the flood - even the Pharoah & his sorcerers turning their staffs into snakes, turning water into blood, and bringing frogs up onto the land.

The sorcerers could do some of the same stuff Moses & Aaron did - but some people go as far as to say it was an optical illusion instead of accepting The plain literal reading of the Torah

It seems to me that when a plain literal reading of the Scripture doesn't align with certain doctrines or world views, that's when we tend to make excuses for what it says instead of accepting and standing upon what it says

Dkh587 said:

It could have been, but the scriptures are inspired by the Ruach. I don't see how they could be Ruach-inspired, but at the same time, be written in a way that the writer doesn't really understand what's going on, or writing things based on their perception

The Ruach was at creation - the Ruach should know whether the sun and moon move or whether it's actually the earth moving.


Why wouldn't the Ruach inspire the writer to record that the earth stood still, and not the sun and moon?

The text flat out says "the sun & moon stood still".

Just like with the flood, the scripture plainly states what happened, but many don't want to accept what it says.

Click to expand...

I still agree with the text that the sun and moon stood still. The presentation in the video showed the sun going back then forward across the sky, illustrating the visual from earth. There is another video that shows how that is possible. but I have not been able to find it at the moment. It is the relative speed with which the two pass [earth and sun] which gives the perspective from earth that the sun went backwards. The earth can not stop moving as that is what makes up our gravitation forces.

Open Heart said:

In examining the ancient Hebrew, it actually means that the sun and moon stopped doing what they normally do. Although this has traditionally been interpreted to mean moved, it COULD mean SHINE.
This would date Joshua between 1500 to 1050 BC.
Also using eclipse data, the Exodus would have been 1207 BC

Click to expand...

What solar eclipse lasts 24 hours? NONE.

The most recent eclipse traversed the entire continental US in 4 hours, lasting no more than a few minutes in any one location.

visionary said:

The earth can not stop moving as that is what makes up our gravitation forces.

Click to expand...

For it to have lasted 24 hours, it HAD to stop. Of course near the equator people are moving at about 1000 miles per hour with the rotation of the earth. To suddenly stop from that speed has its own inertia problems.

The other alternative is that God made some kind of a localized "time bubble" where time was sped up to the point that 24 hours elapsed inside the bubble; but outside only a few minutes passed.

Dave-W said:

For it to have lasted 24 hours, it HAD to stop. Of course near the equator people are moving at about 1000 miles per hour with the rotation of the earth. To suddenly stop from that speed has its own inertia problems.

The other alternative is that God made some kind of a localized "time bubble" where time was sped up to the point that 24 hours elapsed inside the bubble; but outside only a few minutes passed.

Click to expand...

Did you see the video where it is the perception that makes the sun go backwards, and that is the same principle that can hold the view of the sun as standing still and still have the earth moving.

visionary said:

The earth can not stop moving as that is what makes up our gravitation forces.

Click to expand...

The earth would have the same gravity whether it was moving or not. I think you are confusing momentum with gravity. The forces necessary to overcome the earth's momentum in a short time span are so incredibly large that it would likely destroy all life on earth.

JackRT said:

The earth would have the same gravity whether it was moving or not. I think you are confusing momentum with gravity. The forces necessary to overcome the earth's momentum in a short time span are so incredibly large that it would likely destroy all life on earth.

Click to expand...

Yep, and that is why the earth never stopped spinning.