Did Joshua Stop the Sun?

[JackRT]

And you believe that?

Yes, I am convinced by geology and the fossil record.

I don't care if you are reading from the Bible or the Babylonian accounts, the Flood is global

Yes, the Bible does have a global flood narrative. I am not familiar enough with Gilgamesh epic to say that it was a global flood.

and that is geologically proven by how the fossil record is found in sedimentary rock.

No, it is not. There are geological records of massive local floods but no evidence at all of a global flood.

Only modern day atheists reject the Flood.

I am a Christian and I reject a global flood but consider it possible that the story might be based on the tribal memory of one of those large local floods. See my next post.

 

[NobleMouse]

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.

I agree the view I follow is indeed an interpretation. I will also add that what is written in scripture heavily favors this view and would be happy to discuss scripture and what it says about Joshua and the sun standing still, original sin, Jesus physically rising from the dead, etc...

If you believe my alias is "Noble Mouse", that I live in the United States, am married and identify as being a Christian, then you are successfully applying the same principles here in CF as I use in interpreting scripture.

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.

My ideas are not "imagined" (since scripture actually has the words written in it), but I will agree one has to ignore what is written and favor their own imagination to believe things like Jesus not raising physically from the dead. It is written in scripture that Jesus did in fact walk on water, did in fact rise from the dead, that our bodies (which are physical) will in fact be raised imperishable, the sun did in fact stand still in the sky. There is no "IF" as it relates to these subjects. The Bible is the word of God, believed not only as truth, but authoritative by the authors who wrote them down. Holding a low view of scripture, one where it is regarded as just another text... like yet another book from McGraw Hill publishing, is NOT the view of a Christian. The Christian views this as a sacred text and holds it in highest regard - it is how God has chosen to communicate His message of truth, hope and salvation.

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

This is basically describing an atheist - look again at the words I've quoted here and see if it would fit the view of someone who does not believe a god exists at all. You are familiar with the adage, "perception is reality", so since reality is nothing more than one's perception and therefore cannot serve as the foundation of ultimate truth (again, because perception is biased by one's views, experiences, and beliefs... rational or not), we need an external source - something that transcends perception (not affected by bias) as an appropriate foundation by which truth is defined and built upon. Matthew 7:24 "Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock." Jesus made the claim that His word is that truth, is that solid rock [upon which truth... and wisdom, is built].

I'm not sure about others here, but these discussions have actually been very helpful for me. For a long time I had found it challenging and had sometimes questioned whether what I believed was actually true but as I've engaged in these forums, I've come to find that those who are in opposition to what I believe have flawed and unscriptural views on even fundamental doctrines of the Bible, and/or define the basis of their arguments on their perception (reality) - which your latest response here has again affirmed, so thank you.

 

[JackRT]

There may be several grains of truth to the flood mythology of Noah and similar mythologies from elsewhere in the ancient Middle East. About 25 years ago it was discovered (" Noah's Flood" by Ryan and Pitman) that in antiquity the Black Sea was a freshwater lake with a water level at least 155 meters (510 feet) below its present level. It was cut off from the Mediterranean Sea by a silt plug in the Straits of Bosporus. This plug broke through about 7600 YBP due primarily to the dramatic rise in sea levels caused by the melting that ended the last ice age.. It created an immense waterfall whose sound was most likely audible for 100 or more miles. The Black Sea basin filled to its present level over a period of several weeks. It is estimated that the shore line advanced at the rate of a mile or more per day. For the people living around the lake it was a catastrophe of immense magnitude. It was likely the single most memorable flood in all of human history. The racial memory of this event probably inspired the Gilgamesh epic which in turn inspired the Noah narrative in the Bible. The evidence for this flood is scientifically solid. This prompted the National Geographic Society to finance an underwater search along the ancient shoreline for evidence of pre-flood human habitation. This search has been successful! A settlement has been found at a depth of 90 meters approximately 12 miles off the coast of Turkey. It is in a remarkable state of preservation because it is located in an area of the Black Sea where the water is completely devoid of oxygen with the effect that biological decomposition does not take place. This means that wooden artifacts such as tools, planks, housing beams etc are preserved intact. What is also quite amazing is that while there is solid scientific evidence for this local flood some 7600 YBP, there is no evidence at all for a worldwide flood just 4300 YBP. One would think that a more recent, more catastrophic event would have wiped out evidence of the earlier Black Sea event. There is also evidence for a similar event causing the flooding of the Gulf of Arabia about 10,000 YBP.

 

[FEZZILLA]

Yes, I am convinced by geology and the fossil record.



Yes, the Bible does have a global flood narrative. I am not familiar enough with Gilgamesh epic to say that it was a global flood.



No, it is not. There are geological records of massive local floods but no evidence at all of a global flood.



I am a Christian and I reject a global flood but consider it possible that the story might be based on the tribal memory of one of those large local floods. See my next post.

Do firestorms leave behind a fossil record in sedimentary rock?

 

[FEZZILLA]

There may be several grains of truth to the flood mythology of Noah and similar mythologies from elsewhere in the ancient Middle East. About 25 years ago it was discovered (" Noah's Flood" by Ryan and Pitman) that in antiquity the Black Sea was a freshwater lake with a water level at least 155 meters (510 feet) below its present level. It was cut off from the Mediterranean Sea by a silt plug in the Straits of Bosporus. This plug broke through about 7600 YBP due primarily to the dramatic rise in sea levels caused by the melting that ended the last ice age.. It created an immense waterfall whose sound was most likely audible for 100 or more miles. The Black Sea basin filled to its present level over a period of several weeks. It is estimated that the shore line advanced at the rate of a mile or more per day. For the people living around the lake it was a catastrophe of immense magnitude. It was likely the single most memorable flood in all of human history. The racial memory of this event probably inspired the Gilgamesh epic which in turn inspired the Noah narrative in the Bible. The evidence for this flood is scientifically solid. This prompted the National Geographic Society to finance an underwater search along the ancient shoreline for evidence of pre-flood human habitation. This search has been successful! A settlement has been found at a depth of 90 meters approximately 12 miles off the coast of Turkey. It is in a remarkable state of preservation because it is located in an area of the Black Sea where the water is completely devoid of oxygen with the effect that biological decomposition does not take place. This means that wooden artifacts such as tools, planks, housing beams etc are preserved intact. What is also quite amazing is that while there is solid scientific evidence for this local flood some 7600 YBP, there is no evidence at all for a worldwide flood just 4300 YBP. One would think that a more recent, more catastrophic event would have wiped out evidence of the earlier Black Sea event. There is also evidence for a similar event causing the flooding of the Gulf of Arabia about 10,000 YBP.

All ancient antiquity mention the Global Flood. That's because it happened. You can't even explain geology with it.

 

[Job 33:6]

I agree the view I follow is indeed an interpretation. I will also add that what is written in scripture heavily favors this view and would be happy to discuss scripture and what it says about Joshua and the sun standing still, original sin, Jesus physically rising from the dead, etc...

If you believe my alias is "Noble Mouse", that I live in the United States, am married and identify as being a Christian, then you are successfully applying the same principles here in CF as I use in interpreting scripture.


My ideas are not "imagined" (since scripture actually has the words written in it), but I will agree one has to ignore what is written and favor their own imagination to believe things like Jesus not raising physically from the dead. It is written in scripture that Jesus did in fact walk on water, did in fact rise from the dead, that our bodies (which are physical) will in fact be raised imperishable, the sun did in fact stand still in the sky. There is no "IF" as it relates to these subjects. The Bible is the word of God, believed not only as truth, but authoritative by the authors who wrote them down. Holding a low view of scripture, one where it is regarded as just another text... like yet another book from McGraw Hill publishing, is NOT the view of a Christian. The Christian views this as a sacred text and holds it in highest regard - it is how God has chosen to communicate His message of truth, hope and salvation.


This is basically describing an atheist - look again at the words I've quoted here and see if it would fit the view of someone who does not believe a god exists at all. You are familiar with the adage, "perception is reality", so since reality is nothing more than one's perception and therefore cannot serve as the foundation of ultimate truth (again, because perception is biased by one's views, experiences, and beliefs... rational or not), we need an external source - something that transcends perception (not affected by bias) as an appropriate foundation by which truth is defined and built upon. Matthew 7:24 "Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock." Jesus made the claim that His word is that truth, is that solid rock [upon which truth... and wisdom, is built].

I'm not sure about others here, but these discussions have actually been very helpful for me. For a long time I had found it challenging and had sometimes questioned whether what I believed was actually true but as I've engaged in these forums, I've come to find that those who are in opposition to what I believe have flawed and unscriptural views on even fundamental doctrines of the Bible, and/or define the basis of their arguments on their perception (reality) - which your latest response here has again affirmed, so thank you.

"I agree the view I follow is indeed an interpretation. I will also add that what is written in scripture heavily favors this view and would be happy to discuss scripture "

As I've said before, it is circular reasoning to use scripture to justify scripture. Any reference to scripture to justify itself is really just use of poor reasoning.

"My ideas are not "imagined" (since scripture actually has the words written in it)"

Your ideas are imagined. Just as when I write "there is a dragon in my garage", you would likely imagine a dragon in a garage. What is written is written on paper. In the most literal sense, it is ink on paper. Beyond that, it is your imagination formulating ideas around the meaning of what is written. You are literally imagining a Jesus with holes in his body as someone physically resurrected. But such a thing does not transcend your imagination, it doesn't actually exist.

"You are familiar with the adage, "perception is reality", so since reality is nothing more than one's perception and therefore cannot serve as the foundation of ultimate truth (again, because perception is biased by one's views, experiences, and beliefs... rational or not), we need an external source - something that transcends perception (not affected by bias) as an appropriate foundation by which truth is defined and built upon."

When multiple people align in perception, this is really the best we can do in determining what is real or not. For example, if a million people recognize that granite is hard, the best we can really do is accept that such a rock truly is hard and real.

This is how we know that things such as "guns" are real. Because the world unites in how it experiences something like the destructive force of a bullet. Nobody fights wars with...say...marsh-mellows. Because we have a mutual sense of reality based on physical experiences. And what is physically real transcends our imagination and perception. Which is why someone who is sleeping, can sleep in a bed, rather than the bed simply not existing the moment they stop perceiving it.

Scripture on the other hand, as said before, is literally ink on paper. Beyond that, it is left to our minds to ponder what exists and what does not (or what has been in the past).

 

[Job 33:6]

Do firestorms leave behind a fossil record in sedimentary rock?

Yes. They can and have.

https://iahs.info/uploads/dms/13568.48-363-370-44-306-Blake-et-al.pdf

https://www.researchgate.net/public...dence_for_catastrophic_firestorm_and_megawave


Animals are likely to run from fire, but fires themselves more commonly leave bands of ash recorded in stratigraphic columns.

 

[NobleMouse]

"I agree the view I follow is indeed an interpretation. I will also add that what is written in scripture heavily favors this view and would be happy to discuss scripture "

As I've said before, it is circular reasoning to use scripture to justify scripture. Any reference to scripture to justify itself is really just use of poor reasoning.

I don't see that you put much effort here. First of all, Jesus often quoted scripture in justifying what he said, which obliterates your circular reasoning argument. Second, you do exactly the same thing to support the old-earth view don't you? Of course you do, you use present day rates of various processes (like radiometric decay, like plate tectonics, etc...) in supporting you view. While I don't agree with your assessment as to the age of creation, I will say it IS logical - this is how one "reconciles" or defends a position - two or more independent inputs coming to the same conclusion to support a position as true - it's done in courts of law all the time and certainly is appropriate to do with scripture. I would avoid using the circular reasoning argument hence forth. Regardless of one's position of faith (even if no faith) or belief as to the age of the earth, the circular reasoning argument is just illogical.

"My ideas are not "imagined" (since scripture actually has the words written in it)"

Your ideas are imagined. Just as when I write "there is a dragon in my garage", you would likely imagine a dragon in a garage. What is written is written on paper. In the most literal sense, it is ink on paper. Beyond that, it is your imagination formulating ideas around the meaning of what is written. You are literally imagining a Jesus with holes in his body as someone physically resurrected. But such a thing does not transcend your imagination, it doesn't actually exist.

Onto semantics now? Okay... :[ If that's your angle for finding fault then everything you believe about geological processes beyond anything you've directly observed is "imagined", and everything you've ever read in books about geological processes cannot be truly known and only "imagined" and thus is void. To clarify for you then, when I use the term imagine, I am indicating the idea of believing something not written as testimony, no unaltered photo, or not observed firsthand. So, to use the example of Jesus physically raising from the dead, the Bible quotes Jesus as saying he would do this, then also has a written record (testimony) when He did do this... ie. this is not imagined. Now you don't have to believe it any more than the atheists, but that is your choice and has no bearing as to its truth. I'm not even sure where you are going with this - if you are hinting / suggesting that the Bible is inaccurate and filled with errors, then I don't know what to say to you - clearly, if this were the case, you are not really one who "believes" (even though you may wish to think of yourself and label yourself as otherwise) and while I don't know your heart, I think your time and energy would be better spent prayerfully considering what it is you do believe about the Bible and praying to God to help your unbelief rather than trying to find fault in someone on an internet forum who does believe the Bible is true, is the word of God, is not imagined but rather the testimony of God's grace and love demonstrated through the life of the risen Christ.

"You are familiar with the adage, "perception is reality", so since reality is nothing more than one's perception and therefore cannot serve as the foundation of ultimate truth (again, because perception is biased by one's views, experiences, and beliefs... rational or not), we need an external source - something that transcends perception (not affected by bias) as an appropriate foundation by which truth is defined and built upon."

When multiple people align in perception, this is really the best we can do in determining what is real or not. For example, if a million people recognize that granite is hard, the best we can really do is accept that such a rock truly is hard and real.

This is how we know that things such as "guns" are real. Because the world unites in how it experiences something like the destructive force of a bullet. Nobody fights wars with...say...marsh-mellows. Because we have a mutual sense of reality based on physical experiences. And what is physically real transcends our imagination and perception. Which is why someone who is sleeping, can sleep in a bed, rather than the bed simply not existing the moment they stop perceiving it.

Scripture on the other hand, as said before, is literally ink on paper. Beyond that, it is left to our minds to ponder what exists and what does not (or what has been in the past).

When multiple people align in a perception... what?? There's almost a billion atheists on the planet, so that means there is no god? Of course not, so again like above, this line of reasoning from you is faulty from the get-go. This has been a very surprising post, you really come off as having a deleteriously low view of scripture. I can't even imagine the countless thousands or possibly even millions of people who have been martyred for simply believing in "ink on paper" - that is complete garbage. People do print the Bible on paper, yes, but it is the word of God, something you do not seem to grasp the significance and weight this carries. This is very revealing how much you disregard scripture and what it says.

I don't know, maybe it's just been a busy and distracting day for you on your side and if so I hope it gets better - maybe wait until you have some free time and things settle down, read the Bible a little... meditate on what is written (not your preconceived ideas), talk to God, and then get back to me sometime--please, no rush.

 

[Job 33:6]

"I don't see that you put much effort here. First of all, Jesus often quoted scripture in justifying what he said, which obliterates your circular reasoning argument. "

Not really, because even words you deem as those of Jesus quoting prior scripture, are confined to ink on paper as well.

When you find a way to give up circular reasoning of using scripture to justify scripture, feel free to let me know. Until then, I can't take your position seriously.

All you have done here is suggest that because scripture said that Jesus said that scripture before Jesus was literally true, then scripture must be taken as literal truth.

Haha. And somehow you think this isn't circular reasoning.

 

[Job 33:6]

"There's almost a billion atheists on the planet, so that means there is no god? "

Atheism and atheists do not hold a view in which there is a material reality of no God. Rather they hold a view in which there is nothing at all. There is nothing for them to objectively demonstrate for they don't believe in anything to begin with.

So no, we don't align with perception of atheists, because they don't actually claim to perceive anything.


To put it simply, atheism isn't a belief in something objectively real, it is a lack of belief in something objectively real. And we can't perceive something of their belief, if they don't believe in anything.

This is unlike Christianity, where we hold a position in which there is something, that being God. And in your case, you believe in a literal ressurection.

 

[Dale]

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.



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.

Fezzilla: "There are Flood ancient Flood accounts all over the world."


If the Bible is our only source of truth, I don't know why you think that means anything.

I've seen these so-called Flood accounts. Did you know that some of the flood stories are actually stories about a great fire? Some South American tribes have stories where a great forest fire is coming and the hero gathers the people into a cave or underground hole where they stay until the fire is past. The only common thread to these stories is that the hero saves people from something.

 

[Dale]

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.

NobleMouse: "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 ..."


There is no theological problem with the earth or the universe being billions of years old. Christians have always believed that God has always existed. The Bible doesn't say when angels were created, so we can't put an upper limit on the age of angels. God existed billions of years ago, the only question is at what point He created the universe. The ancients believed in a rather small universe. The universe as understood by modern science is immense by comparison. The modern universe doesn't make God any less than the ancients understood Him. The modern universe is much greater than the ancients thought, and it takes a greater God to create it and sustain it.

Sir Isaac Newton was a firm Bible-believing Christian and he believed that the universe was eternal. Newton thought that the physical universe had always existed, and would always exist, being sustained by a God who had always existed and would continue into future eternity. Other educated men believed the same thing until the dawn of the twentieth century, when most astronomers and scientists came to believe that the universe is finite, or at least that we cannot prove otherwise.

When someone says that the universe can't be billions of years old for theological reasons, they are trying to put limits on the God who created it.

 

[NobleMouse]

NobleMouse: "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 ..."


There is no theological problem with the earth or the universe being billions of years old. Christians have always believed that God has always existed. The Bible doesn't say when angels were created, so we can't put an upper limit on the age of angels. God existed billions of years ago, the only question is at what point He created the universe. The ancients believed in a rather small universe. The universe as understood by modern science is immense by comparison. The modern universe doesn't make God any less than the ancients understood Him. The modern universe is much greater than the ancients thought, and it takes a greater God to create it and sustain it.

Sir Isaac Newton was a firm Bible-believing Christian and he believed that the universe was eternal. Newton thought that the physical universe had always existed, and would always exist, being sustained by a God who had always existed and would continue into future eternity. Other educated men believed the same thing until the dawn of the twentieth century, when most astronomers and scientists came to believe that the universe is finite, or at least that we cannot prove otherwise.

When someone says that the universe can't be billions of years old for theological reasons, they are trying to put limits on the God who created it.

I can see how this view is perceived as a limitation; however, I see a limitation being applied when one insists it took God billions of years to do which He said he did over the course of 6 days--it's as if to say, "no, you couldn't do it thaaaat fast God, so I'll define for you how long it took by applying uniformitarian reasoning... even though the Book containing your word describes supernatural events and major catastrophic processes - things I've never seen and never would have imagined; no no no, Charles Lyell, Charles Darwin, and Stephen Hawking know the real truth and I'll retell your story under that framework."

How the "ancients" thought really has nothing to do with anything, IF you believe the word is from God as divinely inspired through the Holy Spirit. If you believe this method to be a prone-to-error process, you are certainly free to continue in that belief. If that were true though, then there could never have been a prophet, never have been a man of God whom the Holy Spirit inspired to write down things they never had known or had ever seen.

How could Isaiah have been soooo accurate in the depiction of the Messiah, Jesus Christ? Obviously one way is that God told him.

The theological problem of believing in billions of years is that death, decay, carnage, etc... are all the result of sin (according to the Bible) and this puts the penalty for sin as just a part of daily life on planet earth before God created man in His image. The Bible says all of creation groans and that the fox and lamb will lie together in heaven. That heaven will be this [now] corrupt creation, made new, restored, "resurrected" to be what it was before sin. Theologically, this indicates that before sin, animals did not go around killing other animals, that all living things in creation were fed by vegetation (not each other). But billions of years of death suggests, nope, that is a part of the natural order of things, that sin only causes "spiritual" death, a "proof" is that Adam and Eve didn't die immediately.

Well let me inform then, that IS theologically wrong. Adam and Eve did spiritually die immediately, yes, but they wouldn't have physically died immediately without God violating his own command for them to be fruitful and multiply, to subdue the earth, to fulfill His ultimate plan. So, like a flower that is plucked from the ground, does it immediately die? No, but it is "on the clock" - give it a week. Same with Adam and Eve, they didn't die immediately, but they were "cut of" from the vine, and so like a flower that has been cut off, they became mortal. The penalty for sin is death (both spiritual and physical). If physical death were not the penalty then why would Jesus have to physically die. You've heard the song, "He became sin, who knew no sin..." - Jesus had to physically die because the sins of the world still requires a payment (not just spiritual death, but also physical death), so He paid it in full. Again, everyone is free to believe what they want, but this is what is given in scripture.

 

[Dale]

I can see how this view is perceived as a limitation; however, I see a limitation being applied when one insists it took God billions of years to do which He said he did over the course of 6 days--it's as if to say, "no, you couldn't do it thaaaat fast God, so I'll define for you how long it took by applying uniformitarian reasoning... even though the Book containing your word describes supernatural events and major catastrophic processes - things I've never seen and never would have imagined; no no no, Charles Lyell, Charles Darwin, and Stephen Hawking know the real truth and I'll retell your story under that framework."

How the "ancients" thought really has nothing to do with anything, IF you believe the word is from God as divinely inspired through the Holy Spirit. If you believe this method to be a prone-to-error process, you are certainly free to continue in that belief. If that were true though, then there could never have been a prophet, never have been a man of God whom the Holy Spirit inspired to write down things they never had known or had ever seen.

How could Isaiah have been soooo accurate in the depiction of the Messiah, Jesus Christ? Obviously one way is that God told him.

The theological problem of believing in billions of years is that death, decay, carnage, etc... are all the result of sin (according to the Bible) and this puts the penalty for sin as just a part of daily life on planet earth before God created man in His image. The Bible says all of creation groans and that the fox and lamb will lie together in heaven. That heaven will be this [now] corrupt creation, made new, restored, "resurrected" to be what it was before sin. Theologically, this indicates that before sin, animals did not go around killing other animals, that all living things in creation were fed by vegetation (not each other). But billions of years of death suggests, nope, that is a part of the natural order of things, that sin only causes "spiritual" death, a "proof" is that Adam and Eve didn't die immediately.

Well let me inform then, that IS theologically wrong. Adam and Eve did spiritually die immediately, yes, but they wouldn't have physically died immediately without God violating his own command for them to be fruitful and multiply, to subdue the earth, to fulfill His ultimate plan. So, like a flower that is plucked from the ground, does it immediately die? No, but it is "on the clock" - give it a week. Same with Adam and Eve, they didn't die immediately, but they were "cut of" from the vine, and so like a flower that has been cut off, they became mortal. The penalty for sin is death (both spiritual and physical). If physical death were not the penalty then why would Jesus have to physically die. You've heard the song, "He became sin, who knew no sin..." - Jesus had to physically die because the sins of the world still requires a payment (not just spiritual death, but also physical death), so He paid it in full. Again, everyone is free to believe what they want, but this is what is given in scripture.

NobleMouse: " How could Isaiah have been soooo accurate in the depiction of the Messiah, Jesus Christ? Obviously one way is that God told him."

Isaiah never said that the earth, or the universe, was created in six days.

Take a look at this verse.

4 A thousand years in your sight
are like a day that has just gone by,
or like a watch in the night.
--Psalm 90: 1-4 NIV


The notion that a day in Genesis could be a thousand years, or a much longer time period, isn't a modern idea. It's in the Bible.


NobleMouse: " no no no, Charles Lyell, Charles Darwin, and Stephen Hawking know the real truth and I'll retell your story under that framework."

I should make it clear that I am not committed to any particular theory of the universe. I do follow the facts where they lead.

 

[FEZZILLA]

Take a look at this verse.

4 A thousand years in your sight
are like a day that has just gone by,
or like a watch in the night.
--Psalm 90: 1-4 NIV


The notion that a day in Genesis could be a thousand years, or a much longer time period, isn't a modern idea. It's in the Bible.

You quoted from Moses. Now please explain the 4th Commandment using your same analogy. Do you think the Jews were to work for 6-million years and take a Sabbath rest for 1-million years?

Also,

"8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance" (2 Pet.3:8-9).

The Lord is now slow as some understand slowness. But TE would have us believe that Jesus won't return for millions of years from now -- all this despite the current rapid fulfillment of Endtime prophecies happening in our midst.

 

[FEZZILLA]

Yes. They can and have.

https://iahs.info/uploads/dms/13568.48-363-370-44-306-Blake-et-al.pdf

https://www.researchgate.net/public...dence_for_catastrophic_firestorm_and_megawave


Animals are likely to run from fire, but fires themselves more commonly leave bands of ash recorded in stratigraphic columns.

Wow. Evolutionists sure have you fooled. The vast majority of our mass fossil record is discovered in sedimentary rock. That cannot be denied. Sedimentary rock is formed exclusively by the powerful erosive force of water which rapidly buries living things in the sediments of the earth. This is how the rare process of fossilization occurs.

So scientists have been discovering dinos and mammals in sedimentary rock. They have also discovered marine fossils in all desert lands and at the peaks of all mountainous ranges -- all discovered in sedimentary rock. There are various whale species discovered in the Andes mountains -- again in sedimentary rock. This mass extinction of life is recorded in sedimentary rock which is not formed by firestorms but with water...lots of water!

So atheists reply and say geological uplifts caused by tectonic plates put marine fossils including large whales in the mountains. This lame excuse by evolutionists assumes that whale falls automatically produce whale fossils. But this assumption is refuted by science fact as the short video presentation proves.

No whale bones=no geological uplift tales. So sedimentary rock proves the Biblical Flood.

 

[Job 33:6]

LUL^

 

[FatalFantasy]

According to Joshua 10: 9-15, Joshua asked God to stop the sun in the sky. Both the sun and the moon stopped for some hours, during a battle. God assured that the Israelite army would have enough light to pursue the enemy.

The story is a bit puzzling. According to the Book of Joshua, the enemy was already in retreat, apparently disorganized retreat, not to say retreating in panic, when God worked the miracle. God had already thrown "them into confusion before Israel" before Joshua asked God to stop the sun and the moon. One would think that God would save such an extraordinary miracle for a time when it was needed. God stopped the sun in the sky so that the attacking Israelites would have light. It is not clear why Joshua also asked God to stop the moon, which may have been only a crescent moon, or why God bothered to do so. Of course, it makes good poetry.

“Sun, stand still over Gibeon,
and you, moon, over the Valley of Aijalon.”

Some think that the event was really an eclipse, and only a confused or exaggerated account made it sound like a world-stopping miracle. This is the modern scientific view. It does explain why the sun and the moon are both mentioned in this passage.

Creationists accept the account as written.

9 After an all-night march from Gilgal, Joshua took them by surprise.10 The Lord threw them into confusion before Israel, so Joshua and the Israelites defeated them completely at Gibeon. Israel pursued them along the road going up to Beth Horon and cut them down all the way to Azekah and Makkedah. 11 As they fled before Israel on the road down from Beth Horon to Azekah, the Lord hurled large hailstones down on them, and more of them died from the hail than were killed by the swords of the Israelites.
12 On the day the Lord gave the Amorites over to Israel, Joshua said to the Lord in the presence of Israel:
“Sun, stand still over Gibeon,
and you, moon, over the Valley of Aijalon.”
13 So the sun stood still,
and the moon stopped,
till the nation avenged itself on its enemies,
as it is written in the Book of Jashar.
The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day. 14 There has never been a day like it before or since, a day when the Lord listened to a human being. Surely the Lord was fighting for Israel!
15 Then Joshua returned with all Israel to the camp at Gilgal.
--Joshua 10: 9-15 NIV



A creationist view:

"In fact, the mention of the moon also standing still seems to confirm both the divine authorship of the account and the fact that it is the Earth which moves. Since all Joshua needed was extra sunlight, and most ancients believed the sun moves, not the Earth, a human author of a fictitious account would only have needed to refer to the sun stopping."

This is from an article by Russell Griggs on Creation.com. He has it completely wrong. If the earth stopped rotating and stood still, the sun would stop in the sky but the moon would keep moving. Look at the solar system, or the sun, earth and moon as a system. The sun is stationary, so if the earth stopped rotating, it would stand still in the sky. The moon, in contrast, is not stationary, it is rotating around the earth, so the moon would keep moving. For both the sun and the moon to stand still in the sky, God would have to do at least two miracles, stop the earth's rotation and stop the moon in its orbit. As I said earlier, if God is trying to help the Israelites in battle, why would God stop the moon, which has no bearing on the battle?

Creationists such as Russell Griggs are under the impression that the earth's rotation could be stopped without any particular consequences.

What would happen if the earth's rotation stopped, even gradually, has been scientifically modeled by ESRI, the Environmental Systems Research Institute. ESRI concluded that a stopping of rotation would cause "devastating earthquakes" as the earth's crust adjusts to the lack of centrifugal force. The result would be "two large polar oceans" and "a huge equatorial megacontinent." The actual consequences of earth's rotation being stopped, even briefly, would be catastrophic and irreversible.

Did God stop the sun and moon at Joshua's request? For myself, as a Christian, it makes more sense to believe that God's greatest miracle is in the New Testament. The resurrection of Jesus is the greatest miracle in the New Testament, and it points to the Divinity of Jesus.

Link to Creationist site:
Joshua’s long day - creation.com

Link to ESRI, Environmental Systems Research Institute
If the Earth Stood Still

I think God means the planet slowed it's rotation. If the sun stopped still, the planet would have to be motionless for the given time allowing everyone to be thrown off the earth. Not mention the all the other cataclysmic event's that would happen if the planet just stopped on a dime.

 

[Job 33:6]

Wow. Evolutionists sure have you fooled. The vast majority of our mass fossil record is discovered in sedimentary rock. That cannot be denied. Sedimentary rock is formed exclusively by the powerful erosive force of water which rapidly buries living things in the sediments of the earth. This is how the rare process of fossilization occurs.

So scientists have been discovering dinos and mammals in sedimentary rock. They have also discovered marine fossils in all desert lands and at the peaks of all mountainous ranges -- all discovered in sedimentary rock. There are various whale species discovered in the Andes mountains -- again in sedimentary rock. This mass extinction of life is recorded in sedimentary rock which is not formed by firestorms but with water...lots of water!

So atheists reply and say geological uplifts caused by tectonic plates put marine fossils including large whales in the mountains. This lame excuse by evolutionists assumes that whale falls automatically produce whale fossils. But this assumption is refuted by science fact as the short video presentation proves.

No whale bones=no geological uplift tales. So sedimentary rock proves the Biblical Flood.

It sounds like you are trying to argue that because scavengers exist, fossils should therefore not exist.

There are scavengers on land as well, such as vultures and birds that literally eat bones, like this one:

The presence of scavengers might make fossilization a more rare process, but there is no feasible way that scavengers could preclude all fossilization because scavengers do not scavenge all animals that die. Not even those that die under water.

Here for example, is a research paper discussing miocene to pliocene rapid burial, in which whales were burried in mass wasting and fossilized.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/838d/06b07cf99c2307de76e1c95596d1564085e1.pdf

"Diatomaceous deposits in the Miocene–Pliocene Pisco Formation contain abundant whales preserved in pristine condition (bones articulated or at least closely associated), in some cases including preserved baleen. The well-preserved whales indicate rapid burial. The 346 whales within ;1.5 km2 of surveyed surface were not buried as an event, but were distributed uninterrupted through an 80-m-thick sedimentary section. The diatomaceous sediment lacks repeating primary laminations, but instead is mostly massive, with irregular laminations and speckles. There is no evidence for bioturbation by invertebrates in the whale-bearing sediment. Current depositional models do not account for the volume of diatomaceous sediments or the taphonomic features of the whales. These taphonomic and sedimentary features suggest that rapid burial due to high diatom accumulation, in part by lateral advection into protected, shallow embayments, is responsible for the superb preservation of these whales, leading to a higher upper limit on phytoplankton accumulation rates than previously documented."

Now, someone not familiar with the geologic column might say "well, rapid burial under water, sounds like a global flood to me". However, upon closer examination, we see that these fossils are of late cenozoic strata, which most young earthers actually appear to believe is post-flood. But even if it were not post flood, it would continue to pose a problem because it makes up an exceptionally small and independent locality, temporally isolated from that which is below and above it, elsewhere (which basically means this would not have been a global flood, rather a very small flood that occurred in a relatively brief amount of time in an isolated area).

Beyond this, there are fossils also in sedimentary rock formed in terrestrial/land environments. Which you didnt appear to mention at all. We have nests and terrestrial burrows of things like dinosaurs and mammals. Obviously dinosaurs arent going to be building nests underwater. We also have tracks from land animals. There are terrestrial fossils throughout the geologic column. Which of course doesn't make any sense if it were all deposited by a flood (terrestrial animals shouldnt be walking around and building nests under water).

Lastly, none of this has anything to do with the fact that there are cores of strata with thin bands of ash layers throughout, demonstrating that indeed, fires and firestorms can and have been recorded in the geologic column. Particularly in places historically vegetated, evidence of widespread fires has been found in the rock record. This being a response to your first question, which you swiftly decided to change the subject on.

 

[NobleMouse]

NobleMouse: " How could Isaiah have been soooo accurate in the depiction of the Messiah, Jesus Christ? Obviously one way is that God told him."

Isaiah never said that the earth, or the universe, was created in six days.

Take a look at this verse.

4 A thousand years in your sight
are like a day that has just gone by,
or like a watch in the night.
--Psalm 90: 1-4 NIV


The notion that a day in Genesis could be a thousand years, or a much longer time period, isn't a modern idea. It's in the Bible.

2 Peter 3:8 also mentions this idea of 1,000 years is a day to the Lord, so there is merit to Psalm 90:1-4 in that this idea of time to us [humans] is a concept where God is not confined to linear time; He is yesterday, today, tomorrow - this is why He can and has numbered our days... He knows the end because He's already there just as He is here with us now in this moment. Given "time" as a framework in which creation exists, I believe God's plans are laid out according to His will and so when these scriptures speak to 1,000 years being a day this is a demonstration that God's will is not "slow" but rather within His perfect plan in which His promises are being (or will yet be) fulfilled. Looking at these texts within their contexts, we can see the intent is not do imbue us with a decoder ring by which we can translate God time to human time, but to reassure that His promises are not slow to be filled, they are in perfect timing with His plan - the vast majority of Bible commentary indicate this is the intent of the message.

I agree with the response from @FEZZILLA where to test whether the 1,000 yrs / day 'conversion' were true as it relates to the creation 'days', then surely we'd know more specifically how to follow the 4th commandment in observing the Sabbath. Exodus 8:20-11; however, makes it clear that the days of creation were normal-length days... imagine if a day was a billion years, what if you were born during this time and could never work and any attempt to get anything done meant breaking this commandment. Doesn't seem reasonable; however, if we think of God working for 6 days and setting aside one normal-length day to make it holy to the Lord, then that is definitely within the realm of human possibility.

As I see it:
- Creation is described in terms of days (yom)
- The days are separated by evening and morning (a concept we associate with a day)
- The 4th commandment indicates the days were days [again] and this provides the framework by when to observe the Sabbath
- God could have created everything in 6 days (He has the power, the wisdom, not confined to the laws of nature we observe today, etc...)

All of this heavily leans in favor of interpreting the days of creation as normal-length days, to me. Rather than look for "loopholes" to try to redefine, I [edit] look to see if the most apparent and logical answer is the one that best explains the meaning of the text.

NobleMouse: " no no no, Charles Lyell, Charles Darwin, and Stephen Hawking know the real truth and I'll retell your story under that framework."

I should make it clear that I am not committed to any particular theory of the universe. I do follow the facts where they lead.

Thank you for that clarification. I am betting you and I have different 'rules' by which we qualify a piece of evidence as fact. God is who wrote the 10 commandments on the stone tablets (not Moses) - this was directly from God to stone, given to Moses.