7 "Days"

[Atreus]

If the word for day in genesis is "Yom," and Yom carries a broader meaning than "day" in the strict 24 hour sense, but rather means something like 'a period of time,' then could it be that creation did not take place in a conventional week?

In Christ

 

[ChetSinger]

Our language sometime uses "day" like that: "in the days of my father", for example.

But when we quantify "day" by pairing it with a number, then we consider it to be actual days.

I've heard that when "yom" is quantified with a number then it actually does refer to actual days. I'd be curious to know if there are any quantified occurrences of "yom" that aren't understood as actual days.

 

[Assyrian]

If the word for day in genesis is "Yom," and Yom carries a broader meaning than "day" in the strict 24 hour sense, but rather means something like 'a period of time,' then could it be that creation did not take place in a conventional week?

In Christ

Sure. the bible uses numbers with symbolic days, look at Ezekiel's days. It can also use numbers with time periods in parables like the parable of the labourers in the vineyard, where the time measurement only has meaning within the narrative itself and don't symbolise any sort of time period when we look at the meaning of the parable.

 

[SkyWriting]

If the word for day in genesis is "Yom," and Yom carries a broader meaning than "day" in the strict 24 hour sense, but rather means something like 'a period of time,' then could it be that creation did not take place in a conventional week?

In Christ

Did any of these listed events take place in "a conventional time frame"?

Water made wine (John 2:1-11)
The confusion of languages (tongues) at Babel (Gen. 11:1-9)
Lot's wife turned into a "pillar of salt" (Gen. 19:26)
The burning bush not consumed (Ex. 3:3)
Red Sea divided (Ex. 14:21-31)
Water from the rock at Rephidim (Ex. 17:5-7)
The sun and moon stayed. (Josh. 10:12-14)
Jeroboam's hand withered. (1 Kings 13:4)
Naaman cured of leprosy, Gehazi afflicted with it (2 Kings 5:10-27)
Cure of two blind men (Matt 9:27-31)
Lazarus raised from the dead (John 11:38-44)
Two blind men cured (Matt 20:29; Mark 10:46; Luke 18:35)

If even one of these events take place in conventional time frame
then are they not just mother nature doing her thing?

 

[Johnnz]

The Genesis account seems pretty clear that a 24 hour period was in mind "There was evening... there was morning .."

But it is not a story about 'how' and 'when' but 'why' earth was created. Science deals with the first two issues, Scripture with the last one. 'Day'' is possibly a literary device to frame the story.

John
NZ

 

[SkyWriting]

The Genesis account seems pretty clear that a 24 hour period was in mind "There was evening... there was morning .."

But it is not a story about 'how' and 'when' but 'why' earth was created. Science deals with the first two issues, Scripture with the last one. 'Day'' is possibly a literary device to frame the story.John
NZ

And because it hardly mentions "Why" at all, the bulk of it is "Who" and "how".
No, it doesn't mention "when" other than in the beginning.

 

[Johnnz]

And because it hardly mentions "Why" at all, the bulk of it is "Who" and how.
No, id doen't mention when,

Genesis 1 is about the ordering of creation, three days of creating three days of filling in an abc-abc poetic structure. It stands in contrast to the ancient mythologies in many ways, where competing gods were involved.

Look up John Walton on Genesis 1 on You Tube for an excellent presentation of this viewpoint.

John
NZ

 

[Smidlee]

If the word for day in genesis is "Yom," and Yom carries a broader meaning than "day" in the strict 24 hour sense, but rather means something like 'a period of time,' then could it be that creation did not take place in a conventional week?

In Christ

In another words you think God is a very slow speaker.
Instead of "Let there be light" it was really
"LLLLLLLLLLLeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeetttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt
ttttttttttttttttttthhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhheeeeeeeeeeeeeerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhtttttttttttttttttt"

 

[Calminian]

Opponents of a straightforward reading of Genesis always bring up the hebrew word yome as if there is some nuance in the hebrew that doesn't exist in the english word "day." But the truth is there is no real difference. Day in english can mean a variety of things depending on how it is used.

In my grandfather's day, he used to walk to school and back every day, and barely made it home before the day's end.

Here are 3 different uses of the word in one sentence. But more important is the fact that none of the 3 uses above are interchangeable. The first day must mean the period of time the grandfather was in school. The second must mean morning and evening days. The 3rd must mean the daytime before dusk. IOW's it doesn't matter what the semantic range of the word is, the context narrows their individual meanings.

There is nothing in the hebrew to solve this debate. We merely look at context just as we do for the sentence above. Both the use of morning and evening in Genesis as well as Moses' commentary in Exodus 20:10-11 make the meaning crystal clear. Like it or not, these were regular days. It's been said that if the author wanted to communicate literal days, he couldn't possibly have done a better job.

 

[Calminian]

Genesis 1 is about the ordering of creation, three days of creating three days of filling in an abc-abc poetic structure. It stands in contrast to the ancient mythologies in many ways, where competing gods were involved.

Look up John Walton on Genesis 1 on You Tube for an excellent presentation of this viewpoint.

John
NZ

But that doesn't speak to this debate, for God often did miracles in poetic ways. Poetry in and of itself, doesn't speak to the meaning of yome in this passage.

But I would agree, you have 3 days of creating abodes, and 3 days of creating creatures or hosts to abide in those abodes.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

The Genesis account seems pretty clear that a 24 hour period was in mind "There was evening... there was morning .."

But it is not a story about 'how' and 'when' but 'why' earth was created. Science deals with the first two issues, Scripture with the last one. 'Day'' is possibly a literary device to frame the story.

John
NZ

I agree. The Book of Genesis was written as an historical record of events. It was not meant to be exhaustive or a scientific text-book. But it is an accurate history inspired by a Person who was right there to witness everything that happened. This person is the God who is really there and He is not silent. He communicated with Moses over his lifetime and inspired him to write the first five books of the Bible as an historical record of His nature and dealings with mankind.

 

[Assyrian]

I agree. The Book of Genesis was written as an historical record of events. It was not meant to be exhaustive or a scientific text-book. But it is an accurate history inspired by a Person who was right there to witness everything that happened. This person is the God who is really there and He is not silent. He communicated with Moses over his lifetime and inspired him to write the first five books of the Bible as an historical record of His nature and dealings with mankind.

God was just as real when he led the Israelites out of Egypt, he was there, and he wasn't silent, yet look at how he described the events You yourselves have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles' wings and brought you to myself Exodus 19:4. This is who God really is and he loves to speak in parables and metaphors.

 

[Calminian]

God was just as real when he led the Israelites out of Egypt, he was there, and he wasn't silent, yet look at how he described the events You yourselves have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles' wings and brought you to myself Exodus 19:4. This is who God really is and he loves to speak in parables and metaphors.

Sounds like the rantings of Bishop Spong who mythologizes the entire Bible.

But I would suppose God loves to speak in all the various genres we find in the Bible.

 

[Assyrian]

Sounds like the rantings of Bishop Spong who mythologizes the entire Bible.

But I would suppose God loves to speak in all the various genres we find in the Bible.

If you think I have a point, then why the all or nothing fallacy to start off with? Oscarr assumed that since Genesis is God speaking and God was there then Genesis must be literal, but Exodus 19:4 shows this is simply not the case. God is quite happy to describe real events in metaphor and parable, Look at Jerusalem and her sisters in Ezekiel 16, Oholah and Oholibah in Ezekiel 23, or the song of Jeshurun in Deuteronomy 32 & 33.

It doesn't mean everything is a metaphor, it does mean you cannot assume a passage is literal because it is the word of God. You may think the genre of a passage is history, but the fact the God is so happy to speak in other genres means you can be mistaken. Once we realise there are other ways to interpret the Genesis creation accounts, that God spoke in metaphor, symbol, allegory, parable and poetry as well literally, there is to reason to have a problem with science showing us the earth is a lot more than 6000 years old.

 

[Calminian]

...God is quite happy to describe real events in metaphor and parable.....

And He's happy to reveal history as in Genesis, which includes narratives, genealogies, including chronological genealogies. The problem is not God's communication, it's those that refuse to believe Him, preferring man's ideas about history instead.

It doesn't mean everything is a metaphor....

Exactly, you just defeated your own reasoning. Oscar actually made a very good argument. God was there, and therefore is the most reliable witness we have for historical events. But since God's testimony contradicts your naturalistic beliefs about history, you try to dismiss God's testimony as metaphor. This is exactly what Bishop Spong does, yet more consistently, classifying virtually all the Bible as metaphor wherever it contradicts his beliefs. It's an age old tactic. Don't believe something in the Bible. Call in metaphor.

 

[Assyrian]

And He's happy to reveal history as in Genesis, which includes narratives, genealogies, including chronological genealogies. The problem is not God's communication, it's those that refuse to believe Him, preferring man's ideas about history instead.

Believing a misinterpretation is not believing God, it is misunderstanding him and abandoning a misinterpretation isn't refusing to believe God. Exodus is full of history and legal code, yet Exodus 19:4 isn't history it is metaphor. Just because you find historical narratives in Genesis, it doesn't mean all the narratives are literal history. If you have to resort to accusing those you disagree with of disbelieving God, you really don't have much of a basis for claiming the creation accounts must be literal.

Exactly, you just defeated your own reasoning.

No I haven't, because I wasn't claiming God can speak in metaphors so the creation account have to be metaphorical. The literal interpretation was a perfectly reasonable interpretation before we learned how old the earth was. But it wasn't the only interpretation and long before modern geology scripture scholars questioned how literally it was meant to be taken. But when there are different ways to interpret a text and you learn that one of the interpretation is wrong, why ever would you want to hold onto an interpretation that is shown to be wrong?

Oscar actually made a very good argument. God was there, and therefore is the most reliable witness we have for historical events.

Oscarr was wrong because he assumed that God who so often speaks in metaphor and parable must be speaking literally because he was there. God is everywhere. God was there when he led the Israelites out of Egypt. He did not use giant eagles, he described the history in metaphor.

But since God's testimony contradicts your naturalistic beliefs about history, you try to dismiss God's testimony as metaphor. This is exactly what Bishop Spong does, yet more consistently, classifying virtually all the Bible as metaphor wherever it contradicts his beliefs. It's an age old tactic. Don't believe something in the Bible. Call in metaphor.

Was the church doing a Spong when they changed their literal geocentric interpretation of Joshua's miracle because naturalistic astronomy showed them the sun doesn't go round the earth? I have never got an answer to this from Creationist. They claim the church was following science when it was geocentrist, or that Creationist are really the Galileo today. But they don't say whether the church was wrong to change their literal interpretation of Joshua when science showed it was wrong.

 

[miamited]

If the word for day in genesis is "Yom," and Yom carries a broader meaning than "day" in the strict 24 hour sense, but rather means something like 'a period of time,' then could it be that creation did not take place in a conventional week?

In Christ

Hi Atreus,

Yes, I would agree completely that if all we do is take the Hebrew word 'yom' and look for a definition of that word we find that it can have a couple of meanings. Similarly if we take the word 'fast' and deal strictly with that English word we will find that there are a couple of different meanings.

One can say, "I'm going to fast."

We go look up the word in the dictionary and we find that he means to say that he's going to move quickly. Then we walk away thinking we understand what the person meant.

Oh, but wait, the verb isn't in it's proper conjunction for that understanding. So, we look again and we see that he probably meant that he was going to withhold eating for a time. So, we use the contextual clues used surrounding the single word, when there is more than one meaning, to understand what the speaker, or in this case, the author is saying.

So, let's look at some of the contextual clues found with the word 'yom' that might give us some indication of which definition God intended in using that word in this text.

He defines each day as consisting of an evening and a morning. Well, that rather narrows down the definition a bit. One doesn't use the word 'day' to mean a long period of time or an age and define that period as consisting of an evening and a morning. 'Day' used in that way would actually have a number of evenings and mornings, right? One doesn't say, and I've often challenged others and will now challenge you to find such an example, In the evening and the morning of the day of some era.

Then we find that each day is numbered, and according to Hebrew translators, if the word 'yom' is attached to a number, then the definition of 'yom' is to be understood as an actual roughly 24 hour day. If I say in 10 days I'm going to do something, then the hearer automatically accepts that I mean that in 10 actual sun rising each morning days, I'm going to do whatever it is. If I say that this is the first day I've ever done such and such. Then the hearer should clearly understand that I mean to say that of all the days of my life up until now, on this actual roughly 24 hour sun rising day that I am currently standing in, I have for the first time done whatever it is that I'm speaking of.

So, as I understand the Scriptures, God has made it plain to us, but because of the wisdom of man we reject His explanation. Even though there really is plenty of contextual evidence to say that when He caused to be written 'yom' in the text of the creation He gave a couple of indicators that tell us which of the couple of definitions of 'yom' He intended us to understand.

So, if you want to continue with just arguing that 'yom' could mean an actual roughly 24 hour day or an age, then yes, absolutely you have a valid argument. However, if you'd rather rightly divide the word as Paul encourages us to do, then you may want to spend a bit more time, when you come across words that might have multiple meanings, studying the contextual clues that are given. I find that there are many places of Scripture that require we humbly go before our God and ask for the wisdom that He promises us through His Spirit. There doesn't really need to be any misunderstanding of God's word - for the child of God. James instructs us that if any of us lack wisdom we should ask God. He writes: If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him.

So, my encouragement for myself and all of God's children is to do just that. Go to God. Lay it out. Father I'm just not really sure that I understand this Scripture that you have written to me. Please give me the wisdom, by the power of your Spirit, to know and understand the truth. Then go back and study it and look for the clues that He has caused to be written to the one who is His child that he might understand. I often do that when I come across things that are difficult for my human mind to understand. I get right down on my knees and I hold the Scriptures between my hands and I bow my head and literally plead with God for the wisdom of His Spirit in my understanding. It really makes a big difference. The things of God just simply cannot be discerned by those who have not the Spirit of truth as their guide and teacher.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Calminian]

Believing a misinterpretation is not believing God, it is misunderstanding him and abandoning a misinterpretation isn't refusing to believe God. Exodus is full of history and legal code, yet Exodus 19:4 isn't history it is metaphor.

Indeed, and there are other metaphors all through scripture, including Genesis.

If you have to resort to accusing those you disagree with of disbelieving God, you really don't have much of a basis for claiming the creation accounts must be literal.

But I don't think this is an interpretation issue. Bishop Spong is not just merely misinterpreting God's word, but choosing man's ideas over God's. He's doing exactly what you're doing. Would you say he's merely got an innocent misinterpretation that he's getting wrong? Or is there something deeper?

Yes, I do feel that in a very real sense, denying Genesis 1-11 is rebellion. That's our nature, that's what we do. But I also believe Christ died for our sins, and therefore disbelieving Genesis is not a salvation issue (in and of itself). But you are missing a great blessing in rejecting God's truth in exchange for man's. You're not misinterpreting anything, you're choosing not to believe what is plainly written.

There's really no nicer way to say that. It's not personal, it's just what I firmly believe.

No I haven't, because I wasn't claiming God can speak in metaphors so the creation account have to be metaphorical. The literal interpretation was a perfectly reasonable interpretation before we learned how old the earth was. .....

Thank you. You just perfectly summed up my point. Man told you earth was old, so you relegated God's revelation to a metaphor. This is not merely an issue of interpretation. You didn't decide eagles were metaphorical because man told you something. This is an obvious figure of speech with a clear meaning.

Oscarr was wrong.....

Sorry, no he wasn't. He was right on the money.

Was the church doing a Spong when they changed their literal geocentric interpretation of Joshua's miracle because naturalistic astronomy showed them the sun doesn't go round the earth? I have never got an answer to this from Creationist. They claim the church was following science when it was geocentrist, or that Creationist are really the Galileo today. But they don't say whether the church was wrong to change their literal interpretation of Joshua when science showed it was wrong.

Geocentrism was man's idea also, in particular the aristotelian philosophers (the scientists of that day). You have to understand, geocentrism is a historic scientific idea. The theistic naturalists of that day tried to read that modern science into scripture, but that doesn't make it God's Word.

Joshua was merely describing movement, and he described it literally. There's no metaphor to be found in the sun stopping in the sky. That is literal. Joshua was not saying the sunshine of this heart skipped a beat or anything silly like that. It was not a metaphor He reported that the sun stood still, and indeed it did stop in the sky. That is a literal fact. All movement is relative and must be described by points of references. Modern astrophysicists would have used the same terminology to describe the event standing on earth and looking up. Looking at the even from a satellite or space ship would require different terminology.

So again, sorry, but Oscarr was correct.

 

[Aman777]

If the word for day in genesis is "Yom," and Yom carries a broader meaning than "day" in the strict 24 hour sense, but rather means something like 'a period of time,' then could it be that creation did not take place in a conventional week?

In Christ

Dear Atreus, God has but 6 periods of labor or Days and 1 Festival Day, the 7th Day which has no evening and no ending. The 7th Day is Eternity.

We live today at Gen. 1:27 for God is STILL creating mankind in Christ. We will not fulfill the prophecy of Genesis 1:28-31 until AFTER Jesus returns to this Planet. Isaiah 11:7

Each of God's Days or Ages is some 4.5 Billion years in length, in man's time. This means the BIg Bang was on the THIRD Day. This agrees with Gen. 2:4 which shows that other HeavenS (Plural) were made at the beginning of the THIRD Day.

At the end of the present 6th Day or period of labor, God will rest (Heb-Cease) from ALL of His creating. Since God is STILL creating mankind in Christ, His rest from ALL of His creating is FUTURE. Genesis 2:2 and 3

God doesn't rest because He's tired. He rests or Ceases to Create because the perfect Heaven has been finished (Heb-brought to perfection) and it is filled with ALL of the host of Heaven, which includes the last sinner to be saved. Genesis 2:1

I hope this helps. God wrote our complete History BEFORE the events at the end of the present 6th Day are fulfilled. It's Proof of God, since ONLY God knows the entire History of the creation of the perfect heaven, and told us about it, before the end events happen.

Our God is an Awesome God. His name is Jesus. In Him dwelleth ALL the fulness of the Godhead bodily. Colossians 2 (Blue Letter Bible: KJV - King James Version)

In Love,
Aman

 

[Assyrian]

Indeed, and there are other metaphors all through scripture, including Genesis.

But I don't think this is an interpretation issue. Bishop Spong is not just merely misinterpreting God's word, but choosing man's ideas over God's. He's doing exactly what you're doing. Would you say he's merely got an innocent misinterpretation that he's getting wrong? Or is there something deeper?

With Spong there may be something deeper though I haven't read any of his work. With the literal and figurative interpretation of Genesis in the church history, it is simply an honest attempt to understand scripture and how God speaks to us through his word. With flat earth teachings of people like Cosmas Indicopleustes and Lactantius, which went against the scientific evidence of the earth being a sphere as well as the church's acceptance of the science, I'd say there was a large slice of arrogance and spiritual pride especially in accusing the rest of the church of 'supping at the table of demons' for accepting the scientific evidence he dismissed as 'Greek philosophy'.

While it took Greek science to demonstrate the size and shape of the earth, the church didn't need Aristotle to think the sun went round the earth, the suns apparent motion was obvious to anyone who ever saw the sky above their head. Thinking Joshua described the sun going around the earth and stopping at Joshua's command was the obvious literal reading of the account of this miracle in a historical text. It was wrong interpretation, but an honest one, and until science showed us the the sun doesn't go around the earth, there simply wasn't any reason to question the plain literal reading.

We hit arrogance and spiritual pride again, and a terrible abuse of power, when the church put Galileo on trial for teaching heliocentrism, though at least in their favour science hadn't decided between geocentrism and heliocentrism yet. It is only when heliocentrism was established and and churches continued to preach geocentrism and attack science that we see the level of folly we had with Cosmas's flat earth.

Yes, I do feel that in a very real sense, denying Genesis 1-11 is rebellion. That's our nature, that's what we do. But I also believe Christ died for our sins, and therefore disbelieving Genesis is not a salvation issue (in and of itself). But you are missing a great blessing in rejecting God's truth in exchange for man's. You're not misinterpreting anything, you're choosing not to believe what is plainly written.

There's really no nicer way to say that. It's not personal, it's just what I firmly believe.

And as long as you listen to the voice of the accuser of the brethren, you won't be able to honestly search the meaning of these scriptures, you will be too bound by legalistic fears to hear the voice of one who so often speak to us in metaphor and parable as well as through literal texts. How can you possibly search the scriptures to understand what God is saying if you have already decided every other interpretation is rebellion?

Was it rebellion when Augustine and Aquinas searched the meaning of Genesis and interpreted the days figuratively? That is ridiculous. But it shows how desperately poor the case Creationism is if it has to resort to legalistic bondage to keep you in line.

Thank you. You just perfectly summed up my point. Man told you earth was old, so you relegated God's revelation to a metaphor. This is not merely an issue of interpretation. You didn't decide eagles were metaphorical because man told you something. This is an obvious figure of speech with a clear meaning.

The eagles in Exodus tell us that God can describe historical events figuratively. It doesn't tell you that every time God doesn't speak literally, that it is obvious. It wasn't obvious the geocentric description in Joshua and Eccl 1:5 aren't literal. In fact it was so unclear no one challenged the literal meaning of the text until science showed us the sun doesn't go around the earth.

Interestingly, if you look at the eagles passage. It seem to claim to be literal. Exodus 19:4 You yourselves have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles' wings and brought you to myself. Is there anything in the text that says it is a metaphor, or is it simply your rebellious heart that refuses to take God at his word? Of course there is the problem of this description contradicting the account of the exodus, but creationist go to great lengths trying to reconcile passages like Genesis 1 & 2 that they think have to be interpreted literal. Why not do this here when not only was God present to witness to the events, he claims the Israelites saw it themselves too.

Sorry, no he wasn't. He was right on the money.

I have shown you why he was wrong, simply claim he was right isn't an answer.

Geocentrism was man's idea also, in particular the aristotelian philosophers (the scientists of that day). You have to understand, geocentrism is a historic scientific idea. The theistic naturalists of that day tried to read that modern science into scripture, but that doesn't make it God's Word.

If Aristotle never existed and there was no Greek science, do you seriously think the church would all have been heliocentrists? Do you seriously think everybody who saw the sun apparently move across the sky would realise of course that it was the world, so seemingly solid and immobile under their feet, that was spinning?

But the fool on the hill sees the sun going down,
and eyes in his head sees the world spinning round.
​

Don't you realise how obvious geocentrism seemed and that people took the apparent motion of the sun at face value without needing Greek philosophers to tell them the sun goes round the earth? The only people who felt the earth spinning were drunk. It took science to show us it is the earth that rotate and orbits the sun.

Joshua was merely describing movement, and he described it literally. There's no metaphor to be found in the sun stopping in the sky. That is literal.

God has lots of of different ways of speaking to us, not just literal or metaphor. What Joshua shows us is a literal interpretation that was shown by science to be wrong. And when they found out their literal interpretation was wrong, they needed to come up with a different interpretation. It didn't have to be a metaphorical interpretation, just a different interpretation that wasn't contradicted by science. When we learned the age of the earth and it showed us the literal interpretation of Genesis was wrong, we needed to come up with a better interpretation too. It didn't have to be the same interpretation. You need to go to the text to find another interpretation. The problem the church had with Joshua and heliocentrism showed we need to find a better interpretation when science overturns our traditional interpretation, it does not tell you what the new interpretation should be.

Joshua was not saying the sunshine of this heart skipped a beat or anything silly like that. It was not a metaphor He reported that the sun stood still, and indeed it did stop in the sky. That is a literal fact. All movement is relative and must be described by points of references. Modern astrophysicists would have used the same terminology to describe the event standing on earth and looking up. Looking at the even from a satellite or space ship would require different terminology.

No it isn't a metaphor, it isn't literal either. The sun didn't stop. Joshua though it was the sun moving across the sky when it was really the earth rotating, they are not the same. The forces and acceleration behind the two descriptions are very different, and the geocentric model is simply wrong.

It is interesting how you have to rely on modern science to try to reinterpret Joshua, even then you get the science completely wrong.

But you haven't answered my question:

Was the church doing a Spong when they changed their literal geocentric interpretation of Joshua's miracle because naturalistic astronomy showed them the sun doesn't go round the earth? I have never got an answer to this from Creationist. They claim the church was following science when it was geocentrist, or that Creationist are really the Galileo today. But they don't say whether the church was wrong to change their literal interpretation of Joshua when science showed it was wrong.
​

So again, sorry, but Oscarr was correct.

Again saying so doesn't make it true. Oscarr assumed because God was there he must have been speaking literally. God was there during the exodus but he didn't describe it literally in Exodus 19.