Did Joshua Stop the Sun?

[JackRT]

Too far away to be seen? But the sun does not get smaller and smaller and then wink out --- it is always the same size.

 

[Petros2015]

Well, I imagine the miracle would be a lot easier to perform under the Flat Earth model...

 

[A_Thinker]

Too far away to be seen? But the sun does not get smaller and smaller and then wink out --- it is always the same size.

If this was directed to my last comment (A_Thinker), ... note that I am only presenting the flat earth position, ... not affirming my agreement with it ...

I agree with the reasoning in your comment here (i.e. the sun does not get smaller and smaller and then wink out ...).

P.S. It would help if you used the reply option to the comment you are addressing ... ;^)

 

[Job 33:6]

Hi dale,

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.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

Jesus living and dying is not in opposition to any scientific concept we know. So believing that he lived and died, gets a free pass because there is nothing scientifically unbelievable about it.

Not believing that the ressurection occurred as a ressurection of a physical body, in a literal sense, does not run contrary to belief in Jesus as our savior.

So it is not true to suggest that people who take science over testimony, automatically "wouldn't believe in Jesus". Rather belief in Jesus may simply exclude the ressurection of the physical body of Jesus.

 

[NobleMouse]

Jesus living and dying is not in opposition to any scientific concept we know. So believing that he lived and died, gets a free pass because there is nothing scientifically unbelievable about it.

Not believing that the ressurection occurred as a ressurection of a physical body, in a literal sense, does not run contrary to belief in Jesus as our savior.

So it is not true to suggest that people who take science over testimony, automatically "wouldn't believe in Jesus". Rather belief in Jesus may simply exclude the ressurection of the physical body of Jesus.

I'm not so sure... the resurrection of a physical body is what is required in order for it to be a "resurrection".

Then he [Jesus] said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe." (John 20:27)

The resurrection of a dead body after 3 days is in opposition to the 2nd law of thermodynamics and flies in the face of all life that has died since the beginning of creation.

Had Jesus not risen from the dead, we would all remain dead in our sins, and all of creation under the curse of sin. It is ONLY by grace through faith in Jesus Christ we are saved and it is only by His death/burial/resurrection that our sins are paid.

 

[miamited]

Jesus living and dying is not in opposition to any scientific concept we know. So believing that he lived and died, gets a free pass because there is nothing scientifically unbelievable about it.

Not believing that the ressurection occurred as a ressurection of a physical body, in a literal sense, does not run contrary to belief in Jesus as our savior.

So it is not true to suggest that people who take science over testimony, automatically "wouldn't believe in Jesus". Rather belief in Jesus may simply exclude the ressurection of the physical body of Jesus.

Hi komatiite,

I didn't ask about Jesus living or dying, I asked about the resurrection.

You then wrote:

Not believing that the ressurection occurred as a ressurection of a physical body, in a literal sense, does not run contrary to belief in Jesus as our savior.

Well, that's your understanding of what is or isn't important to believe about the resurrection. I think you'd be hard pressed to offer any proof through God's word that it isn't an important understanding concerning the resurrection. Needless to say, neither I, nor I would contend pretty much all born again believers, would agree with your assessment.

Further, the testimony of the Scriptures is that Thomas literally put his finger in the holes in Jesus' flesh. It is claimed in the Scriptures that Jesus was seen alive by over 500 people. That he was standing on the shore of a lake and invited his disciples to eat fish with him. That he stood on the Mount of Olives and rose bodily into heaven as the disciples looked on. You're welcome to your understanding of course.

Thanks for playing.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[Job 33:6]

Hi komatiite,

I didn't ask about Jesus living or dying, I asked about the resurrection.

You then wrote:


Well, that's your understanding of what is or isn't important to believe about the resurrection. I think you'd be hard pressed to offer any proof through God's word that it isn't an important understanding concerning the resurrection. Needless to say, neither I, nor I would contend pretty much all born again believers, would agree with your assessment.

Further, the testimony of the Scriptures is that Thomas literally put his finger in the holes in Jesus' flesh. It is claimed in the Scriptures that Jesus was seen alive by over 500 people. That he was standing on the shore of a lake and invited his disciples to eat fish with him. That he stood on the Mount of Olives and rose bodily into heaven as the disciples looked on. You're welcome to your understanding of course.

Thanks for playing.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

But you did say "because the only 'proof' we have for his life, death, resurrection and claim to be the Son of God..."

And so my response follows by acknowledging your statement of the life, death, resurrection and claim to be the Son of God. So while you didnt ask about Jesus life and death, you did include it in your discussion. If you didn't want to talk about it, perhaps you shouldn't have mentioned it.

"Needless to say, neither I, nor I would contend pretty much all born again believers, would agree with your assessment."

Well, that is why you are not God and are but a man with an interpretation, just like the rest of us.

At the end of the day, scripture, in the most literal sense, is ink on paper. And our ability to imagine something, such as...someone walking on water, can not, and should not, be taken as truth over what is for lack of better terms "observable reality".

With that said, if hypothetically, Jesus, were to come before us, on this day, and were to walk on water before our eyes, we would truly have no excuse to question the literal truth of such an observation (assuming it were repeatable, observable and demonstrated to not be any sort of magic trick).

But as it stands, what we currently have is an imaginary idea based on words of ink, on paper (in the most literal sense).

 

[Job 33:6]

I'm not so sure... the resurrection of a physical body is what is required in order for it to be a "resurrection".

Then he [Jesus] said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe." (John 20:27)

The resurrection of a dead body after 3 days is in opposition to the 2nd law of thermodynamics and flies in the face of all life that has died since the beginning of creation.

Had Jesus not risen from the dead, we would all remain dead in our sins, and all of creation under the curse of sin. It is ONLY by grace through faith in Jesus Christ we are saved and it is only by His death/burial/resurrection that our sins are paid.

Only if you believe it to be.

Miamated suggested that belief in a literal resurrection was necessary for someone to be a follower of Christ.

He said "Whoever said that, apparently wouldn't believe in Jesus".

But indeed, this is not true.

It is correct that, whoever puts physical observation before written testimony, may not believe in a physical/literal resurrection. But this does not preclude other forms of belief of how the resurrection occurred, or alternate perspectives on the meaning of scripture at large. And it certainly doesnt preclude belief in Christ.

 

[Jonaitis]

I'm just here to answer the title, even though I did read some of the OP.

"Did Joshua Stop the Sun?"

Actually, Joshua prayed and it was God who stopped the sun. Is this according to natural science? Nope, it is according to the ground perspective that it appeared to have stopped.

As Christians, we should stop trying to discredit these miracles by confining them to the limitations of science. I believe we do great damage to our witness when we compromise what is clearly written in Scripture.

 

[Job 33:6]

Hi komatiite,



Further, the testimony of the Scriptures is that Thomas literally put his finger in the holes in Jesus' flesh. It is claimed in the Scriptures that Jesus was seen alive by over 500 people. That he was standing on the shore of a lake and invited his disciples to eat fish with him. That he stood on the Mount of Olives and rose bodily into heaven as the disciples looked on. You're welcome to your understanding of course.

Thanks for playing.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

Also, I just wanted to point one other thing out. Both you and mouse responded with scripture about Thomas putting his fingers into Jesus' flesh.

I think this is a powerful passage. Scripture is expounding on the idea that death has been defeated by Christ. This is fantastic and it is truly meaningful.

I want to point out though, from a logical stance, it is a fallacy to use scripture in an attempt to justify truth in scripture, or in itself. You cant say "well because scripture says X, therefore X must be literally true". Hypothetically, I could write on a piece of paper "dragons are real in my garage, this writing is truth" and I could say that the paper clearly states that the writing is truth, therefore dragons in the garage are real.

But as we all know, we can't use scripture to justify itself, that's circular reasoning.

And as Christian's, we cannot fall back on scripture to demonstrate itself, because it is, as stated before, in the most literal sense, ink on paper. Not to the extent that it can be regarded as truth above what is physical reality, as we know it.

 

[NobleMouse]

Only if you believe it to be.

I will agree that not everyone may believe this to be true; however, it is necessary that Jesus physically rose from the dead in order for Him to be who He claimed He was [the Son of God] and in fulfillment of what Jesus said as recorded in John 2:19.

Miamated suggested that belief in a literal resurrection was necessary for someone to be a follower of Christ.

He said "Whoever said that, apparently wouldn't believe in Jesus".

In order to be a follower of the Christ (the one as described and quoted in the Bible), I agree with MT. One can choose to believe what they want about everything being billions of years old or that God brought about life through billions of years of life, death, random mutations, carnage, etc... and have no bearing on salvation, but at some point the distortions need to stop lest we find ourselves no longer a Christian of the Bible and a follower of the Christ of the Bible, but rather a follower of our own self-deluded religion, an aberration of Christianity.

It is correct that, whoever puts physical observation before written testimony, may not believe in a physical/literal resurrection. But this does not preclude other forms of belief of how the resurrection occurred, or alternate perspectives on the meaning of scripture at large. And it certainly doesnt preclude belief in Christ.

I have a hard time believing that for the vast majority of us here having grown up in the American school system (public or private, Christian or secular) that fundamental skill sets of reading comprehension could vary so widely that when two people read the same words of the Bible that one believes the claims of the Bible, and the other has some distorted, irreconcilable, self-contradicting, nebulous-nowhere-found-in-biblical-doctrine, view. No, that does not happen. What instead happens, is the one whose view is distorted is clearly being willingly ignorant (when the Bible says "willingly ignorant" this means an intentional choice) of the truth. There were false teachers in Jesus' day and both He and His disciples had the discernment to recognize this and call it out.

In fact, this is one of the reasons God gave us His word, that we would know what is true and have the discernment to recognize and reject all that which is false, and so... the notion that Jesus did not physically rise from the dead is being called out. The idea Jesus was raised just some mystical spirit is not biblical doctrine, Jesus Himself claimed He would raise Himself from the dead, and He did. It is of no wonder to me that so many have such a distorted view of heaven and of creation.

I cannot be certain, but I believe one possible reason why one would reject a physical resurrection of Jesus (not at all implying this is the case for who MT was discussing) is because this affirms the idea that the new heaven and new earth will be a literal, physical restoration of our bodies, and not just us who are made in the image of God, but all of creation - the earth will be restored, all of creation [the universe] will be restored. But restored to what, why reject that? It will be restored to what the earth & creation was before sin, and one would reject that because this would imply that the creation as described in Genesis actually did happen, did exist, was not allegorical/poetic. And why reject Genesis as being true to what is claimed to have taken place? Because people feel the need for things to reconcile in order for them to be "true", and ultimately if one believes the assertions of the historical sciences over what the Bible says, one believes there is an "irreconcilable difference" (and we all see this). Rather than question the musings and imaginations of man; however, one instead questions the Bible and redefines what it says to force things to "reconcile" their ultimate authority, which are the assertions of man rather than the word of God. This is consistent with every interaction I've had with any Christian, anywhere - if they believe in billions of years, big bangs, evolution, etc... I always see where they are distorting scripture somewhere along the way.

 

[Dale]

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.

I'm not going to address all of the concerns you raise about authorship but I'm respond to a few.

You are correct about Hebrews. It was definitely written by a member of the Jewish priesthood who became a Christian, not by Paul. It does agree with Paul that the time for animal sacrifice, the Jewish law, and the Jewish priesthood is past.

You say that 2 Corinthians was originally six letters. What I have been told by knowledgeable people is that First and Second Corinthians were originally four letters. Some scholars believe that the four letters were condensed into two without any real loss of content. Others believe that some content has been lost. Either way, Paul wrote to the Corinthians on four occasions but we have two letters to the Corinthians in our Bible today.

You give the impression that the authorship of Colossians is highly debatable. I looked at Harper's Bible Dictionary, hardly a reactionary source. Harper's is quite confident that Colossians was written by Paul.

 

[Job 33:6]

I will agree that not everyone may believe this to be true; however, it is necessary that Jesus physically rose from the dead in order for Him to be who He claimed He was [the Son of God] and in fulfillment of what Jesus said as recorded in John 2:19.


In order to be a follower of the Christ (the one as described and quoted in the Bible), I agree with MT. One can choose to believe what they want about everything being billions of years old or that God brought about life through billions of years of life, death, random mutations, carnage, etc... and have no bearing on salvation, but at some point the distortions need to stop lest we find ourselves no longer a Christian of the Bible and a follower of the Christ of the Bible, but rather a follower of our own self-deluded religion, an aberration of Christianity.


I have a hard time believing that for the vast majority of us here having grown up in the American school system (public or private, Christian or secular) that fundamental skill sets of reading comprehension could vary so widely that when two people read the same words of the Bible that one believes the claims of the Bible, and the other has some distorted, irreconcilable, self-contradicting, nebulous-nowhere-found-in-biblical-doctrine, view. No, that does not happen. What instead happens, is the one whose view is distorted is clearly being willingly ignorant (when the Bible says "willingly ignorant" this means an intentional choice) of the truth. There were false teachers in Jesus' day and both He and His disciples had the discernment to recognize this and call it out.

In fact, this is one of the reasons God gave us His word, that we would know what is true and have the discernment to recognize and reject all that which is false, and so... the notion that Jesus did not physically rise from the dead is being called out. The idea Jesus was raised just some mystical spirit is not biblical doctrine, Jesus Himself claimed He would raise Himself from the dead, and He did. It is of no wonder to me that so many have such a distorted view of heaven and of creation.

I cannot be certain, but I believe one possible reason why one would reject a physical resurrection of Jesus (not at all implying this is the case for who MT was discussing) is because this affirms the idea that the new heaven and new earth will be a literal, physical restoration of our bodies, and not just us who are made in the image of God, but all of creation - the earth will be restored, all of creation [the universe] will be restored. But restored to what, why reject that? It will be restored to what the earth & creation was before sin, and one would reject that because this would imply that the creation as described in Genesis actually did happen, did exist, was not allegorical/poetic. And why reject Genesis as being true to what is claimed to have taken place? Because people feel the need for things to reconcile in order for them to be "true", and ultimately if one believes the assertions of the historical sciences over what the Bible says, one believes there is an "irreconcilable difference" (and we all see this). Rather than question the musings and imaginations of man; however, one instead questions the Bible and redefines what it says to force things to "reconcile" their ultimate authority, which are the assertions of man rather than the word of God. This is consistent with every interaction I've had with any Christian, anywhere - if they believe in billions of years, big bangs, evolution, etc... I always see where they are distorting scripture somewhere along the way.

What you are doing is simply expressing an opinion about what you believe scripture to mean.

That is fine.

The problem is that you are placing your interpretation of scripture, above your perception of physical reality. Not everyone is willing to abandon physical reality for an idea purely based on man-made interpretations of scripture.

Thats about it.

And it is only considered distorted to those who have different imagined ideas. Yes, if Jesus truly did walk on water, it would be distorted to suggest that he did not. But in this case, it is one perceived idea against another with no sense of physical reality to confirm either way. The exception however is that reality as we know it, does not permit dense objects to have less density than water. The same goes with someone rising from the dead.

For those who aren't willing to abandon reality in favor of testimony, this is not distorted at all, but is simply...reality.

 

[Dale]

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.

I personally avoid the Patheos forum.

I once made the mistake of picking up a book on the Bible endorsed by the New York Times. They don't stop at throwing out miracles. That guy doesn't believe that Jesus was a carpenter. He doesn't believe that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Etc.

There is no simple answer on how to deal with scholarship. Some of their conclusions make sense and others do not.

 

[Dale]

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...

NobleMouse:

"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."

and

"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 are raising some complex issues here. I do notice that your thinking depends on an Original Sin scenario that says that everything changed after the Fall of Man. I don't believe in Original Sin to begin with. I don't believe it is in the Bible, and this has nothing in particular to do with not being a creationist. I may do a thread on this sometime but that would be in a different forum.

Since we differ on this basic subject, the points you are making don't hit home.

 

[Dale]

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.

"There is nothing in this verse saying God told Joshua anything about astronomy here. "

I certainly agree.

Fezzilla: " ... 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."

You are jumping to conclusions about the Book of Jasher. As I understand it, it was most likely a book of history. We don't know if it contained religious teaching. As you correctly point out, we really don't have this book, although there is some kind of forgery available.

Fezzilla: "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."

Why would we be interested in Aztec or Mayan myths, if that is what we are dealing with here? We don't know what inspired them, so there is no way to be sure that something seen in the sky is the source of these stories. They could just as easily have other purposes in the cultures they come from.

If I cited Aztec myths for any other reason, someone would say it is the doctrine of demons.

 

[NobleMouse]

NobleMouse:

"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."

and

"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 are raising some complex issues here. I do notice that your thinking depends on an Original Sin scenario that says that everything changed after the Fall of Man. I don't believe in Original Sin to begin with. I don't believe it is in the Bible, and this has nothing in particular to do with not being a creationist. I may do a thread on this sometime but that would be in a different forum.

Since we differ on this basic subject, the points you are making don't hit home.

Thank you for clarifying - yes, sounds like a good discussion for another thread.

 

[FEZZILLA]

Fezzilla: " ... 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."

You are jumping to conclusions about the Book of Jasher. As I understand it, it was most likely a book of history. We don't know if it contained religious teaching. As you correctly point out, we really don't have this book, although there is some kind of forgery available.

Yes, there is a $25 forgery of the book which was most likely forged by Mormons, as I've been led to believe. I have the forgery and it isn't hard at all to tell its a forgery. The book is a fake. As for the real Book of Jasher, we simply do not have enough information other than what is quoted in Scripture.

Fezzilla: "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."

Why would we be interested in Aztec or Mayan myths, if that is what we are dealing with here? We don't know what inspired them, so there is no way to be sure that something seen in the sky is the source of these stories. They could just as easily have other purposes in the cultures they come from.

If I cited Aztec myths for any other reason, someone would say it is the doctrine of demons.

There are Flood ancient Flood accounts all over the world. Likewise, there is a day twice the natural length (or in some cases a night twice the natural length) all over the world and these legends go back to the time of Joshua.

The moving sun in the passage isn't itself the prophecy--if indeed we are truly dealing with prophecy which it appears to be by Joshua's fulfilling statement. However, with such a lack of information its very hard to properly examine the passage without having the actual Book.

The author of the Book is also in question.

 

[JackRT]

There are Flood ancient Flood accounts all over the world.

Of course there are. The ending of the last ice age 12,000 YBP caused a sea level rise of 200m and that in turn caused the flooding of the Arabian Gulf 10,000 YBP and of the Black Sea basin 7,600 YBP. There were other similar flooding events all over the world. Extended periods of darkness can be caused by volcanic events.

 

[FEZZILLA]

Of course there are. The ending of the last ice age 12,000 YBP caused a sea level rise of 200m and that in turn caused the flooding of the Arabian Gulf 10,000 YBP and of the Black Sea basin 7,600 YBP. There were other similar flooding events all over the world. Extended periods of darkness can be caused by volcanic events.

And you believe that? I don't care if you are reading from the Bible or the Babylonian accounts, the Flood is global and that is geologically proven by how the fossil record is found in sedimentary rock. Only modern day atheists reject the Flood.