NobleMouse

We have nothing, if not belief in the Lord
Sep 19, 2017
662
230
47
Mid West
✟47,512.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Modern analytical bible scholars have intensively studied the text of those epistles that are generally attributed to Paul. By closely examining vocabulary, grammar and thought themes they are in agreement that the following epistles are genuinely from Paul. They are 1 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, Philemon and Romans. Two more letters, Colossians and 2 Thessalonians are in dispute. Hebrews does not reflect Paul’s style and content whatsoever. Ephesians does not reflect the style of Paul but is very much Pauline in content and is thought to have been written by a close follower of Paul’s. The Pastoral letters (Titus, 1 Timothy and 2 Timothy) are attributed to Paul, but someone writing in Paul’s name wrote them around AD120, some 60 years after Paul’s death. Each letter uses vocabulary Paul is not known to have used; each has a different concept than Paul had of key matters such as faith; and each refers to Paul’s close friends Timothy and Titus in formal rather than friendly terms. They assume that Christian churches are governed by the kind of carefully organized authority structures that developed decades after Paul’s time. They are similar in style and in content and in the issues they raise. Scholars generally believe them to have been written by the same person. In addition two of Paul’s epistles are thought to be composed of what were originally several smaller letters. In particular Philippians is composed of three and 2 Corinthians is composed of six. Chapter 16 of Romans seems to be a later addition but genuinely by Paul.
Yes, I am familiar with those doubts. They are also mentioned in the link I referenced, at length, and are addressed. Did you read the link? This seems similar to the balance where people either look for reasons to believe or reasons to doubt. I've spent a great deal of time out on the Patheos forum and every single atheist I've come across has done exactly this with the Bible, looking for reasons to doubt... to the extent they've written the whole thing off as a myth / fairytale. You and I of course know 100% of them are as wrong as one could possibly be. There is plenty of evidence, more than enough, supporting in favor of Paul being the author, but if you are looking for evidence against the authenticity of the Bible, the ~1 billion atheists in the world show that anybody can do it.
 
Upvote 0

Hieronymus

Well-Known Member
Jan 12, 2016
8,427
2,998
52
the Hague NL
✟69,862.00
Country
Netherlands
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Except that we live in a heliocentric solar system, and the earth is in orbit around the sun, and it's never stopped rotating. So, I don't take the sun and moon standing still as literal.

So, short answer to the initial question: Did Joshua stop the sun? No.
From Joshua's point of view, the sun stopped.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Phil.Stein
Upvote 0

Dale

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Apr 14, 2003
7,161
1,223
71
Sebring, FL
✟657,505.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
And most important of all, Yahweh Says they are by Paul, inspired and breathed by Yahweh, as His Word Clearly Says.

Even if all men on earth contradicted God's Word, God's Word is TrUTH, as written, "God cannot lie, as God is not a man, though all men be liars" ....
(may be paraphrased of two verses)


Jeff, you apparently believe that every word of the Bible was dictated by God. I don't think that this view holds up.

23 Whenever Jehudi had read three or four columns of the scroll, the king cut them off with a scribe’s knife and threw them into the firepot, until the entire scroll was burned in the fire. 24 The king and all his attendants who heard all these words showed no fear, nor did they tear their clothes. 25 Even though Elnathan, Delaiah and Gemariah urged the king not to burn the scroll, he would not listen to them.
Jeremiah 36:23-34 NIV


Three or four columns on the scroll? God surely knows whether it is three or four but the author of Jeremiah did not.


19 When they had rowed about three or four miles, they saw Jesus approaching the boat, walking on the water; and they were frightened.
--John 6:19 NIV

Three or four miles on the lake? God must know the exact distance but the author of the Gospel of John did not claim to.

The claim that the Bible was dictated by God from beginning to end doesn't hold up.
 
Upvote 0

Dale

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Apr 14, 2003
7,161
1,223
71
Sebring, FL
✟657,505.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Hi again dale,

Just wanted to let you know that I did go ahead and continue skimming the remainder of your initial posts. No, I did not learn anything else from them that pertains to this issue that I've questioned you on.

It's really just a very simple yes or no question. Do you believe that you can prove the resurrection of Jesus using scientific methodology? You've made the claim that you can't seem to understand why anyone would place testimonial evidence over and above the evidence provided through scientific methodology. Ok. So, can you prove Jesus resurrection through scientific methodology?

Just a very simple short and sweet yes or no will suffice. You are welcome to elaborate on your yes or no if you'd like, but it really isn't necessary. However, if you do, I promise that I will read your entire response to me on this question.

God bless,
In Christ, ted



<< Do you believe that you can prove the resurrection of Jesus using scientific methodology? >>

Ted, you are demanding that I back up an assertion that I never made.


<< No, I did not learn anything else from them that pertains to this issue that I've questioned you
on. >>
<< ? You've made the claim that you can't seem to understand why anyone would place testimonial evidence over and above the evidence provided through scientific methodology. >>


Maybe you should read post #3 more carefully. I showed that creationists are willing to appeal to "long night" myths of North American Indians and Chinese myths of a sun that did not set to back up the story in Joshua. While glorifying miracles and testimony, they reject everything that we know about the physical world only to make use of pagan myths. I can imagine no reason that you would disagree with the point that I made, yet you apparently reject it.
 
Upvote 0

Dale

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Apr 14, 2003
7,161
1,223
71
Sebring, FL
✟657,505.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
That's nonsense.
The point is that the supernatural is not limited by natural laws.
(Otherwise it would not be called supernatural.)



Maybe you haven't been in all the discussions that have with creationists. You can point out that light from distant galaxies has taken billions of years to get to earth. To a creationist, this means nothing. To them the speed of light isn't fixed, God can fiddle with it at any time. The same goes for the rate of radioactive decay, and all other constants. To creationists, there are no constants. To them, all calculations are useless since there are no constants to start from.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

JackRT

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 17, 2015
15,722
16,445
80
small town Ontario, Canada
✟767,295.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Unorthodox
Marital Status
Married
Maybe you haven't been in all the discussions that have with creationists. You can point out that light from distant galaxies has taken billions of years to get to earth. To a creationist, this means nothing. To them the speed of light isn't fixed, God can fiddle with it at any time. The goes for the rate of radioactive decay, and all other constants. To creationists, there are no constants. To them, all calculations are useless since there are no constants to start from.

Basically it is what I call "magical thinking" --- any scientific finding that they consider in the least bit troubling to them is just waved away with an appeal to a magical "But what if ..." Works for them every time. There is no way to refute magical thinking.
 
Upvote 0

NobleMouse

We have nothing, if not belief in the Lord
Sep 19, 2017
662
230
47
Mid West
✟47,512.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Maybe you haven't been in all the discussions that have with creationists. You can point out that light from distant galaxies has taken billions of years to get to earth. To a creationist, this means nothing. To them the speed of light isn't fixed, God can fiddle with it at any time. The goes for the rate of radioactive decay, and all other constants. To creationists, there are no constants. To them, all calculations are useless since there are no constants to start from.
Doesn't the pointing out of light traveling from distant galaxies assume the following:

1) We know the exact nature of all the universe such that we know light travels at the same speed it does here in a vacuum?
2) The laws of nature have always been constant.
3) God brought light from the distant galaxies by natural means... better yet, he did nothing other than "turn them on" and let them do what He made them to do.
4) That the present creation follows all the exact same rules of the creation God made, before the curse of sin came over the whole of creation.
5) Etc...

I do believe there are constants, things that can be observed here, now, in the present, but the Bible does seem to indicate that creation was quite a bit different when God first created it and it does seem to suggest that things were created in ways beyond that of slow gradual processes. If the eternal state of the new earth and new heaven are a resurrected/restored version of this creation, and that it is a place of no suffering, pain, death, decay, etc... you have to ask what it is being restored TO. Obviously creation will be restored to a state in which it once existed, before the curse of sin and this present reality is not that same state.

You and I trust God with our future, and I would propose it's quite reasonable to trust Him with our past. If He rolled out the heavens like a scroll, that the sun, moon & stars were created on day 4, and we know He has the ability to do such claims... then perhaps He did. To the natural man, such ideas are folly, I know...
 
Upvote 0

Phil.Stein

Active Member
Oct 28, 2018
223
194
Texas City
✟13,372.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
The next creationist source I want to look at is an odd one because geocentricity.com apparently rejects Copernicus. They believe that the astronomers have it wrong and the sun revolves around the earth. One of the references cited is Primitive Baptist, which is apparently the origin of these views.
Even Copernicus rejected Copernicus. Why do you think it odd that others should not? Neither Copernicus (nor anyone since) has been able to prove his odd theory about the revolution of the Earth about the sun. Why should anyone put their faith in this?

One of the reasons I must disagree with their approach is that they drag in pagan myths from around the world to back up the account in Joshua.
The basic approach of geocentricity does not rely on the pagan myths you mention. To reject it on this count without considering the scientific case is illogical.

Doesn't the pointing out of light traveling from distant galaxies assume the following:
In a geocentric Earth, the stars are much closer. Totally solves your distant galaxy problem.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Hieronymus

Well-Known Member
Jan 12, 2016
8,427
2,998
52
the Hague NL
✟69,862.00
Country
Netherlands
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
There's an odd thing about the galaxies though.
No matter how many billions of light years they are away from earth, they apparently all have a similar amount of spin in the 'arms', on average.
The far away ones should look younger (less spin) than the nearer ones if the speed of light is and always was a constant in every situation.

One of the reasons I must disagree with their approach is that they drag in pagan myths from around the world to back up the account in Joshua.
But that would be a good thing i.m.o.
Why not "drag in" corroborating stories?
If the story is true, the whole world must have noticed it.
 
Upvote 0

miamited

Ted
Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hi dale,


Thanks for your response. You responded:
Ted, you are demanding that I back up an assertion that I never made.

I apologize if I made an error here. I thought it was you who wrote:
I don't know why anyone would put testimony above scientific analysis,

It would seem that there is something wrong with the CF programming because I went back and that quote is found in a post attributed to you. You may want to see if someone has hijacked your profile.

Whoever said that, apparently wouldn't believe in Jesus because the only 'proof' we have for his life, death, resurrection and claim to be the Son of God who can provide us with our own eternal salvation would have to believe that on testimony because all scientific analysis that we so far have on bringing people back to life after they have died says that it's impossible. So, anyone who would hold scientific analysis over testimony cannot believe that Jesus was resurrected from the grave.

Again, I sincerely apologize if I'm attributing all of this to the wrong person. Hopefully, whoever the interloper is who has taken your identity will read it and understand the point of it. That is, that if one believes in the truth of God, then they pretty much have to do so through testimony, over any scientific analysis.

God bless,
In Christ, ted
 
  • Agree
Reactions: NobleMouse
Upvote 0

miamited

Ted
Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hi jerry,

Ok, you're finished discussing, apparently YOUR claim made in post #2.
I don't know why anyone would put testimony above scientific analysis, unless this expresses a basic hostility to science.

So, you want me to discuss all the disinformation that you're posting as truth in your post #3? OK.
Where does this leave the creationists? They reject science, they reject any body of knowledge that relies on observation, measurement or calculation. At the same time, they go out of their way to search for primitive myths of pre-literate peoples.

As I've mentioned previously, your 'assumption' that creationists reject science just because they believe that God does have the power and authority to work outside of the natural laws and processes of His creation, does not in anyway mean, infer, or should be understood as, creationists reject science. I believe in the scientific methodology without any doubt. I just don't believe that the things that God does can be explained through scientific methodology. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth in six days is something that the scientific methodology cannot prove and so, because they can't prove it using the scientific methodology, then the default is that it just didn't happen because they believe as you do. If something can't be explained through science then it didn't happen.

That creationists reject ANY body of knowledge that relies on observation, measurement or calculation is just a stupid use of over generalization. I accept and work with all kinds of things every day that rely or came about, by relying on observation, measurement and calculation. That's got to be just the most asinine use of a generalization that I believe I may have ever heard. I keep telling you that you can't even believe in Jesus without abandoning scientific analysis and depending instead on testimonial evidence.

Go ahead, ask any scientist you know. How can a dead person come back to life? A person who was dead for at least three days, how can they be brought back to life? Go ahead. Ask any biologist or whatever kind of scientist would deal with that aspect of life. Prove me wrong!!!! Get back to me and tell me that you've got a scientist who has analysed dead people who are assured to be dead and he has brought them back to life. That you believe in the resurrection of Jesus not because of only testimonial evidence, but that you actually have scientific analysis that can prove that Jesus came back to life from being dead. I'll be right here waiting.

Further, there is no proof that there was ever a generally illiterate society of mankind. As far as we know, Adam could write. No, creationists don't go out of our way to search for primitive myths of pre-literate people. We merely believe what the Scriptures say because we believe that the author of the Scriptures is not some pre-literate people as you suppose, but rather the God who sent His Son to die for our sin and save us from his Father's wrath. We believe that those same Scriptures were written to us so that we might know all that God has done leading up to Jesus, and all that He will be doing till the day of His judgment on all of His creation. In other words, creationists believe that God wrote the Scriptures for His purpose. That we might know who He is and what He asks of us.

As far as born again believers understand, the Scriptures began in the days of Moses and the Hebrew people were then, and have always since been, able to read and write. Scriptural creationists don't believe that the folks charged with writing the Scriptures have ever been a pre-literate people.

God bless,
In Christ, ted
 
  • Agree
Reactions: NobleMouse
Upvote 0

Dale

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Apr 14, 2003
7,161
1,223
71
Sebring, FL
✟657,505.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Hi jerry,

Ok, you're finished discussing, apparently YOUR claim made in post #2.


So, you want me to discuss all the disinformation that you're posting as truth in your post #3? OK.


As I've mentioned previously, your 'assumption' that creationists reject science just because they believe that God does have the power and authority to work outside of the natural laws and processes of His creation, does not in anyway mean, infer, or should be understood as, creationists reject science. I believe in the scientific methodology without any doubt. I just don't believe that the things that God does can be explained through scientific methodology. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth in six days is something that the scientific methodology cannot prove and so, because they can't prove it using the scientific methodology, then the default is that it just didn't happen because they believe as you do. If something can't be explained through science then it didn't happen.

That creationists reject ANY body of knowledge that relies on observation, measurement or calculation is just a stupid use of over generalization. I accept and work with all kinds of things every day that rely or came about, by relying on observation, measurement and calculation. That's got to be just the most asinine use of a generalization that I believe I may have ever heard. I keep telling you that you can't even believe in Jesus without abandoning scientific analysis and depending instead on testimonial evidence.

Go ahead, ask any scientist you know. How can a dead person come back to life? A person who was dead for at least three days, how can they be brought back to life? Go ahead. Ask any biologist or whatever kind of scientist would deal with that aspect of life. Prove me wrong!!!! Get back to me and tell me that you've got a scientist who has analysed dead people who are assured to be dead and he has brought them back to life. That you believe in the resurrection of Jesus not because of only testimonial evidence, but that you actually have scientific analysis that can prove that Jesus came back to life from being dead. I'll be right here waiting.

Further, there is no proof that there was ever a generally illiterate society of mankind. As far as we know, Adam could write. No, creationists don't go out of our way to search for primitive myths of pre-literate people. We merely believe what the Scriptures say because we believe that the author of the Scriptures is not some pre-literate people as you suppose, but rather the God who sent His Son to die for our sin and save us from his Father's wrath. We believe that those same Scriptures were written to us so that we might know all that God has done leading up to Jesus, and all that He will be doing till the day of His judgment on all of His creation. In other words, creationists believe that God wrote the Scriptures for His purpose. That we might know who He is and what He asks of us.

As far as born again believers understand, the Scriptures began in the days of Moses and the Hebrew people were then, and have always since been, able to read and write. Scriptural creationists don't believe that the folks charged with writing the Scriptures have ever been a pre-literate people.

God bless,
In Christ, ted



Miamited: " Further, there is no proof that there was ever a generally illiterate society of mankind. As far as we know, Adam could write."


There is no reason to take this seriously, but if we do, it rests on a whole series of unjustified assumptions. You are assuming that God speaks Hebrew, that God directly invented the Hebrew language, and taught Adam and Eve to write as well as speak.


Where does the Bible say anything of the sort?
 
Upvote 0

FEZZILLA

Well-Known Member
Jun 24, 2003
1,031
131
53
Wisconsin
✟16,495.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Joshua 10: 12-14,

Ҧ Then spake Joshua to the Lord, in the day when the Lord gave the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stay thou in Gibeon, and thou Moon, in the valley of Aijalon.
And the Sun abode, and the moon stood still, until the people avenged themselves upon their enemies: (is not this written in the book of Jasher?) so the Sun abode in the midst of the heaven, and hasted not to go down for a whole day. And there was no day like that before it, nor after it, that the Lord heard the voice of a man: for the Lord fought for Israel" (Joshua 10: 1-13, 1599 Geneva Bible).


This passage has been used since the Galileo incident to prove how the sun moves around the earth....around the sphere of the earth, that is. The prophecy, coming from a lost Book of the Bible, presumably lost in one of the burning libraries of history, is hard to examine because it no longer exist. All that remains of Jasher is what is quoted in the Bible, and the $25.00 forgery you can buy which contains the same account cited in Joshua 10 which proves its a modern forgery, probably a Mormon forgery. The prophecy, however, is about a long day, twice the natural length. This prophecy fulfills here in Joshua 10 and there is ample historical proofs from various ancient nations from the time of Joshua which either speak of such a day, or, as in countries like Mexico etc, speak about a long night twice the natural length. The sun that stops is only from the human perception. There are many who say that the sun stopping is an expression, and this may indeed be true about the passage. But even in the event this sun which stops in the middle of the sky is to be taken literally, as I believe is most likely to be the case here, it is not God telling Moses (presumably the author of Jasher) that the sun moves or stops, but comes from the perspective of Moses or whoever wrote the Book of Jasher. Again, the prophecy is about a day twice the natural length which was a miracle and one that God made happen. How exactly God made this happen is unknown. Perhaps God had slowed down the earth’s rotation or even froze time somehow. This cannot be explained in strict terms of modern science since this miracle is one done by God.

Then the question still lingers on what exactly what written in Jasher? But putting questions we can't answer aside, some flat earthers say verse 12 is saying God told Joshua the sun circles the earth:

"Then spake Joshua to the Lord, in the day when the Lord gave the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stay thou in Gibeon, and thou Moon, in the valley of Aijalon."

There is nothing in this verse saying God told Joshua anything about astronomy here. Joshua's faith and obedience was not measured by his knowledge of astronomy. By faith, Joshua called the LORD to join him and the Israelites in battle against their enemies. God wasn't concerned about Joshua's knowledge of astronomy. If a vast knowledge of astronomy was needed for God to interact with ancient man then God probably would have destroyed the world!

Lastly, It was God Who performed the miracle at Joshua's command. Did Joshua believe the sun circled the earth? He probably did believe that. But, not being a Divine Bully, God did not hold Joshua's lack of astronomical knowledge against him. So there is nothing wrong with the passage.

*Note: Sorry for the use of the Geneva Bible. At the time I was writing this article I was also studying the Geneva Bible. Its by far the worst translation of the 16th century. However, the Puritans who translated the Geneva Bible did manage to get some passage correct and Joshua 10 is translated just fine which is why I haven't switch it out for a different translation.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Phil.Stein

Active Member
Oct 28, 2018
223
194
Texas City
✟13,372.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
From Joshua's point of view, the sun stopped.
And from God's point of view.

Joshua's words in bold.
Joshua 10:12 Then spake Joshua to the Lord in the day when the Lord delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.

God's words in bold.
Joshua 10:13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.
 
Upvote 0

miamited

Ted
Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Miamited: " Further, there is no proof that there was ever a generally illiterate society of mankind. As far as we know, Adam could write."


There is no reason to take this seriously, but if we do, it rests on a whole series of unjustified assumptions. You are assuming that God speaks Hebrew, that God directly invented the Hebrew language, and taught Adam and Eve to write as well as speak.


Where does the Bible say anything of the sort?

Hi dale,

No, I'm not assuming that God speaks Hebrew. I'm assuming that God understands and can speak whatever language a person is using should God choose to interact with that person in some way. As far as I know, Adam likely didn't speak Hebrew, but it would seem obvious that he did communicate in words with Eve. I just can't imagine that they spent 900 and some years together just grunting at each other like some would have us believe that neanderthal man did.

You see, I believe, that the reason that birds fly south in the winter and north in the spring is that God put in their understanding the need to do this. That bears hibernate because it's a part of the nature that God created within the bear to do this. I also firmly believe that when God created Adam and then Eve, that He put within their nature, a knowledge of how to communicate to one another in some form of language and likely as their progeny increased, turning that verbal language communication ability into a written form of communication with one another.

Now, that written form of communication could have first been what we see on cave walls, but such evidence seems to mean that from very early on, man was not an illiterate creature. The written communication was certainly different, just as it is across the globe today. But the fact and reality of one person being able to write something down, even it it's pictures, and another person in that day to understand what it was they were writing would mean that they weren't illiterate.

I was watching a Japanese show the other day and some of it showed Japanese writing. Let me tell you, I couldn't understand a word of it. All these pictures and characters running in a line just didn't make a bit of sense to me. Does that mean that I'm illiterate? Or that any of them are?

Illiterate basically means that a group of people cannot communicate in written form. I don't believe that has really ever been the case in the history of the world.

God bless,
In Christ, ted
 
Upvote 0

JackRT

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 17, 2015
15,722
16,445
80
small town Ontario, Canada
✟767,295.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Unorthodox
Marital Status
Married
Even today there a cultures that are largely illiterate. Historians and demographers estimate that the Jews of first century Judea and Galilee were only about 10% literate. Adam and Eve certainly spoke to each other but I am certain that they did not text.
 
Upvote 0

A_Thinker

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 23, 2004
11,911
9,064
Midwest
✟931,284.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Joshua 10:13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

The way this is worded is yet another indication that it is expressed from the observer's point of reference.

The citation testifies that the "sun ... hasted not to "go down" about a whole day.

In neither the globe earth heliocentric, ... nor the flat earth geocentric models, ... does the sun really "go down". It only appears that way to an earthly observer.

In the globe earth heliocentric model, the sun "appears" to go down because the Earth has revolved so that the sun is passing from the observer's viewpoint.

Alternately, in the flat earth geocentric model, the sun has simply traveled too far, all at a consistent distance from the surface of the earth, for the observer to see.

In neither case, does the sun actually "go down" ...
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums