Miracles

[Robban]

There is nothing in the universe that is not a miracle.

A new born babe is a miracle,

a change of heart is a miracle,

Could had not Pharaoh have a change of heart, yes,

but he did not believe in miracles, he saw only the plagues.

Is there hope for a "fallen" mankind?

Absolutely.

 

[Barney2.0]

A change of heart can only happen in union with God’s grace, it can’t happen to any person in of themselves. Last I read the pharaoh drowned for attempting to kill God’s people, there was no attempt by him to free the Israelites even in the face of all seven calamities brought upon Egypt by God, everytime God refrained from excercising one of the plagues upon Egypt due to the intercession of Moses on behalf of pharaoh, he would only harden his heart even more against the Israelites and their God, every plague was a miracle, it’s not every day that water actually turns into blood now is it? So the pharaoh died as a sinful pagan who refused to soften his heart to God and set his people free. There is no hope for a fallen mankind without God intervening to save us from falling even further until we suffer permanent death.

 

[Sketcher]

Miracle: An act of God that cannot be explained by nature. Examples: An iron axe head floating, the dead being raised.

Providence: An act of God that can be explained by nature, but as God is the Sovereign over nature, an act of God nonetheless. Possible examples: David's stone killing Goliath, the walls of Jericho coming down.

 

[Tolworth John]

Is there hope for a "fallen" mankind?

The miracle that should be bringing people up short is the miracle that Jesus predicted/prophercised that he would rise from the dead and he fulfilled that prophercy.

If mankind is prepared to look at what the gospels say they have no reason for not believing.

 

[Robban]

A change of heart can only happen in union with God’s grace, it can’t happen to any person in of themselves. Last I read the pharaoh drowned for attempting to kill God’s people, there was no attempt by him to free the Israelites even in the face of all seven calamities brought upon Egypt by God, everytime God refrained from excercising one of the plagues upon Egypt due to the intercession of Moses on behalf of pharaoh, he would only harden his heart even more against the Israelites and their God, every plague was a miracle, it’s not every day that water actually turns into blood now is it? So the pharaoh died as a sinful pagan who refused to soften his heart to God and set his people free. There is no hope for a fallen mankind without God intervening to save us from falling even further until we suffer permanent death.

Pharaoh recognized only the name Elokim ,

Elokim signifies the aspect of divinity that God uses to run the world and is thus

subject to the laws of nature.

He did not know Havayah, Havayah signifies transcendent Godliness.

The aspect of divinity that is not limited by the laws of nature.

Exodus 5:2

 

[cloudyday2]

Pharaoh recognized only the name Elokim ,

Elokim signifies the aspect of divinity that God uses to run the world and is thus

subject to the laws of nature.

He did not know Havayah, Havayah signifies transcendent Godliness.

The aspect of divinity that is not limited by the laws of nature.

Exodus 5:2

Here is an idea:

Imagine that things like the Red Sea have an aspect that is bound by the laws of nature and another aspect that transcends those laws.

So when Moses parts the Red Sea maybe he parts only the transcendent aspect of the Red Sea and the Hebrews pass through only the transcendent aspect.

Assuming something happens to the transcendent aspect of a thing, I wonder if there must be a corresponding happening the the natural aspect? And vise versa?

 

[Robban]

Here is an idea:

Imagine that things like the Red Sea have an aspect that is bound by the laws of nature and another aspect that transcends those laws.

So when Moses parts the Red Sea maybe he parts only the transcendent aspect of the Red Sea and the Hebrews pass through only the transcendent aspect.

Assuming something happens to the transcendent aspect of a thing, I wonder if there must be a corresponding happening the the natural aspect? And vise versa?

This day in the year 1273 BCE, Joshua proclaimed,

"Sun, be still at Giv'on; moon, at the Ayalon valley."

Joshua 10:12

The battle was nearly won but the sun was soon to set.

 

[cloudyday2]

This day in the year 1273 BCE, Joshua proclaimed,

"Sun, be still at Giv'on; moon, at the Ayalon valley."

Joshua 10:12

The battle was nearly won but the sun was soon to set.

Maybe it only felt like the Sun and Moon were standing still. Sometimes I watch the clock waiting for the workday to end but the hands don't seem to move. LOL

 

[Robban]

Maybe it only felt like the Sun and Moon were standing still. Sometimes I watch the clock waiting for the workday to end but the hands don't seem to move. LOL

If you had a sundial...........

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

This day in the year 1273 BCE, Joshua proclaimed,

"Sun, be still at Giv'on; moon, at the Ayalon valley."

Joshua 10:12

The battle was nearly won but the sun was soon to set.

There is a good argument that can be made that this actually refers to near Eastern Astrological divination, seeing that it uses terms that can be interpreted by ancient Astrological means. This would render Joshua asking God to give a bad omen to his foes, and thus dishearten them. The fact that it mentions both the Sun and the Moon is especially important here, because if it was just about lengthening the day, why mention the Moon at all?

 

[cloudyday2]

There is a good argument that can be made that this actually refers to near Eastern Astrological divination, seeing that it uses terms that can be interpreted by ancient Astrological means. This would render Joshua asking God to give a bad omen to his foes, and thus dishearten them. The fact that it mentions both the Sun and the Moon is especially important here, because if it was just about lengthening the day, why mention the Moon at all?

Can you go into more detail on the astrological hypothesis?

I am curious about the significance of Giv'on and Ayalon valley. Were these the limits of the battlefield or were they mythical resting places for the Sun and the Moon or something?

Also, I wonder if the mention of both sun and moon is due to their association with two deities - maybe a husband and wife?

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Can you go into more detail on the astrological hypothesis?

I am curious about the significance of Giv'on and Ayalon valley. Were these the limits of the battlefield or were they mythical resting places for the Sun and the Moon or something?

Also, I wonder if the mention of both sun and moon is due to their association with two deities - maybe a husband and wife?

So Ayalon is west of Gibeon geographically, so the moon being in Ayalon and the Sun being in Gibeon suggests rather the morning, seeing as the sun rises in the east and the moon in the west, than the traditional idea that Joshua was praying in the evening at dusk or at least noon. The account suggests Joshua was moving down Bethoron, so these would be the limits of the battlefield. I am unaware of specific solar or lunar cults associsted with the area.

In near Eastern astrology, having the moon and sun in opposition to one another, is significant. Further, terminology in use in the account, such as 'stood still' reflect Astrological usage to describe cycles and epicycles in a geocentric view. Even the part where it states that "the sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down a full day" might be an artifact of translation: full day might mean propitious day, as good days are often called Full and ominous days Half in ancient Astrology, as in Roman Fasti and Nefasti days for instance; middle could refer to a division of the sky and not necessarily noon, especially that the moon would not be in opposition (barring of course the idea of a miracle where both the sun and moon were moved, but again, why move the moon also if it was about furnishing daylight?); delaying is again astrological terminology for moving away from a conjunction or significant paring.

There are other arcane points that escape me now, but a good argument for reading it from the world of pre-battle omens can be made. Besides the bare text is a little short of details on specifics, which the book of Jasher probably had. Geographically the idea of the sun and moon assuming those positions later in the day makes little sense; and the Hebrew text can be analogously read akin to neo-Assyrian omen texts, as giving the Israelites a good omen and conversely a bad one to their enemies, without mucking around with astronomical movements much. Although, an argument has also been made for a solar eclipse, but personally I find the omen reading most compelling, especially as the sun physically standing still still gives geographical textual problems and issues of interpreting a geocentric account in a heliocentric solar system.

 

[Robban]

So Ayalon is west of Gibeon geographically, so the moon being in Ayalon and the Sun being in Gibeon suggests rather the morning, seeing as the sun rises in the east and the moon in the west, than the traditional idea that Joshua was praying in the evening at dusk or at least noon. The account suggests Joshua was moving down Bethoron, so these would be the limits of the battlefield. I am unaware of specific solar or lunar cults associsted with the area.

In near Eastern astrology, having the moon and sun in opposition to one another, is significant. Further, terminology in use in the account, such as 'stood still' reflect Astrological usage to describe cycles and epicycles in a geocentric view. Even the part where it states that "the sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down a full day" might be an artifact of translation: full day might mean propitious day, as good days are often called Full and ominous days Half in ancient Astrology, as in Roman Fasti and Nefasti days for instance; middle could refer to a division of the sky and not necessarily noon, especially that the moon would not be in opposition (barring of course the idea of a miracle where both the sun and moon were moved, but again, why move the moon also if it was about furnishing daylight?); delaying is again astrological terminology for moving away from a conjunction or significant paring.

There are other arcane points that escape me now, but a good argument for reading it from the world of pre-battle omens can be made. Besides the bare text is a little short of details on specifics, which the book of Jasher probably had. Geographically the idea of the sun and moon assuming those positions later in the day makes little sense; and the Hebrew text can be analogously read akin to neo-Assyrian omen texts, as giving the Israelites a good omen and conversely a bad one to their enemies, without mucking around with astronomical movements much. Although, an argument has also been made for a solar eclipse, but personally I find the omen reading most compelling, especially as the sun physically standing still still gives geographical textual problems and issues of interpreting a geocentric account in a heliocentric solar system.

Maybe some worshipped the sun while others worshipped the moon,

if they were brought to a halt it would mean something was was more powerful,

or their sun god and moon god had gone on strike.

But it is more thought of as the heavenly bodies acquiesced halting their progress through the skies until the battle had reached it's sucsessful conclusion.

 

[cloudyday2]

So Ayalon is west of Gibeon geographically, so the moon being in Ayalon and the Sun being in Gibeon suggests rather the morning, seeing as the sun rises in the east and the moon in the west, than the traditional idea that Joshua was praying in the evening at dusk or at least noon. The account suggests Joshua was moving down Bethoron, so these would be the limits of the battlefield. I am unaware of specific solar or lunar cults associsted with the area.

In near Eastern astrology, having the moon and sun in opposition to one another, is significant. Further, terminology in use in the account, such as 'stood still' reflect Astrological usage to describe cycles and epicycles in a geocentric view. Even the part where it states that "the sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down a full day" might be an artifact of translation: full day might mean propitious day, as good days are often called Full and ominous days Half in ancient Astrology, as in Roman Fasti and Nefasti days for instance; middle could refer to a division of the sky and not necessarily noon, especially that the moon would not be in opposition (barring of course the idea of a miracle where both the sun and moon were moved, but again, why move the moon also if it was about furnishing daylight?); delaying is again astrological terminology for moving away from a conjunction or significant paring.

There are other arcane points that escape me now, but a good argument for reading it from the world of pre-battle omens can be made. Besides the bare text is a little short of details on specifics, which the book of Jasher probably had. Geographically the idea of the sun and moon assuming those positions later in the day makes little sense; and the Hebrew text can be analogously read akin to neo-Assyrian omen texts, as giving the Israelites a good omen and conversely a bad one to their enemies, without mucking around with astronomical movements much. Although, an argument has also been made for a solar eclipse, but personally I find the omen reading most compelling, especially as the sun physically standing still still gives geographical textual problems and issues of interpreting a geocentric account in a heliocentric solar system.

I just finished reading the chapter on this miracle in "From Gods to God" by Shinan and Zakovitch. I'll try to type this quote from the end of chapter 5. (This is a very interesting book, but unfortunately I cannot follow a lot of the reasoning and sometimes I cannot even follow the point being made.) Probably you or @Robban would have a better chance of understanding this book. I can only skim it with interest and wish I could understand.

This ancient tradition, about the hero who enjoyed an unusual relationship with sun and even controlled it, a tradition that related how Joshua commanded the sun to stand still or even stopped it with his hand, was stifled in the book of Joshua because of its mythical character: the attribution of divine powers to a mortal being. We have found three distinct methods that were used to silence the tradition: (1) the attribution of the miraculous act to God, who answers the mortal Joshua's prayer; (2) the addition of the moon to the heavenly bodies that were halted during the war in order to diminish the particular relationship Joshua enjoyed with the sun; (3) the alteration of the name of Joshua's gravesite from Timnath-heres to Timnath-serah, representing the removal of the overt reference to the sun .

And still, despite all efforts, the mythical tradition that knew of the extraordinary connection between Joshua and the sun reemerged in later layers of our literature. A reader's addition in the book of Habakkuk gave voice to the submerged story, which resurfaced again in the words of Ben Sira and, after an extended period, in medieval midrashic literature.

There are seven pages on the miracle that seemed to possibly address some of the questions you raise although astrology isn't addressed.

The astrology hypothesis might be illuminated (unintentional pun LOL) by using a similar approach - i.e. examining parallel references to Joshua's long day in other Jewish literature such as Habakkuk, Ben Sira, Psalms, Qumran, etc. to look for subtle differences.

Here is a link with the title of the book I quoted and so forth:
From Gods to God | The Jewish Publication Society

 

[cloudyday2]

@Robban and @Quid est Veritas? , here is another thought? What effect might an eclipse have on the observation of a Sabbath? The Sabbath begins at sundown as I understand it. What if the moon blocked the sun for an hour on the eve of the Sabbath? Would that one hour of time qualify as a one hour Sabbath day and thus allow Joshua's army to wake up on Saturday morning and resume the battle as though it was not the Sabbath?

 

[cloudyday2]

@Robban and @Quid est Veritas? , here are another couple of thoughts (sorry for the repeated posts).

(1) The Hebrew translated as "stop" can also be translated as "be quiet". "Be quiet" might mean to stop blessing the Amorites if they were sun worshipers? Maybe an eclipse blocked the sun and that was taken as a sign that the sun god had been bested by the God of Israel?

(2) "Stop O sun at Gibeon, O moon in the Valley of Aijalon!" reminds me of the poetic style common in Ugarit and some Psalms. A poem begins with one phrase followed by a second slightly different rephrasing of the first phrase. In that case "moon" would have originally been "sun" - "Stop O sun at Gibeon, O sun in the Valley of Aijalon!".

 

[Robban]

@Robban and @Quid est Veritas? , here are another couple of thoughts (sorry for the repeated posts).

(1) The Hebrew translated as "stop" can also be translated as "be quiet". "Be quiet" might mean to stop blessing the Amorites if they were sun worshipers? Maybe an eclipse blocked the sun and that was taken as a sign that the sun god had been bested by the God of Israel?

(2) "Stop O sun at Gibeon, O moon in the Valley of Aijalon!" reminds me of the poetic style common in Ugarit and some Psalms. A poem begins with one phrase followed by a second slightly different rephrasing of the first phrase. In that case "moon" would have originally been "sun" - "Stop O sun at Gibeon, O sun in the Valley of Aijalon!".

Had to get away for a while, though I returned to get my laptop I did not take the correct adapter so the battery is very, very low.

Be back when I can get hold of a correct adapter.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I haven't read your book as such, but I have some general comments:

There is a popular idea nowadays to make YHWH another sun god. Thing is, the oldest parts of the Bible like the Song of Deborah, have more storm characteristics - which also fit in more with Canaanite El and why Baal would then be placed in opposition or in attempted syncretisation with YHWH under Ahab. Solar imagery is common in the Bible, but this is more when speaking in light of a Montheistic or at least Monolatric way - as the Sun is a good metaphor for a monotheistic God, like the Aten in Egypt or the late Roman Sol Invictus.

Joshua's name clearly references YHWH, so either a solar characteristic references the conception of a montheistic YHWH, or this solar association is more likely secondary to this miracle account, and not a primary one.

Besides, Joshua isn't much of a solar figure outside this one event and a dubious etymology for Timnath-Heres. This is different from say Samson; whose name invokes the Sun, is opposed to the marine fertility god Dagon, has long hair like rays of the sun, is destroyed by Delilah which can be read as meaning night; he is active around Beth-Shemesh, meaning House of the Sun; etc. So it seems a bit of a stretch here, especially as there is a much better candidate for solar demigod in Israelite lore.

As to poetic doubling, poetic antitheses like Sun and Moon are also common.

Reading it as refering to a solar eclipse is quite common, there is even a fair canditate in 1207 BC. I don't know, this is one of those strange passages. As far as I am aware, the Samaritan book of Joshua says nothing at all about this event of the Sun and Moon standing still, so if anything, we aren't necessarily dealing with an 'old half-supressed solar tradition' rather than a purely Jewish narrative. After all, it is not found in common with the Samaritans, who share much of the rest of the Judges narrative and much of Kings.

 

[Robban]

@Robban and @Quid est Veritas? , here are another couple of thoughts (sorry for the repeated posts).

(1) The Hebrew translated as "stop" can also be translated as "be quiet". "Be quiet" might mean to stop blessing the Amorites if they were sun worshipers? Maybe an eclipse blocked the sun and that was taken as a sign that the sun god had been bested by the God of Israel?

(2) "Stop O sun at Gibeon, O moon in the Valley of Aijalon!" reminds me of the poetic style common in Ugarit and some Psalms. A poem begins with one phrase followed by a second slightly different rephrasing of the first phrase. In that case "moon" would have originally been "sun" - "Stop O sun at Gibeon, O sun in the Valley of Aijalon!".

@Robban and @Quid est Veritas? , here are another couple of thoughts (sorry for the repeated posts).

(1) The Hebrew translated as "stop" can also be translated as "be quiet". "Be quiet" might mean to stop blessing the Amorites if they were sun worshipers? Maybe an eclipse blocked the sun and that was taken as a sign that the sun god had been bested by the God of Israel?

(2) "Stop O sun at Gibeon, O moon in the Valley of Aijalon!" reminds me of the poetic style common in Ugarit and some Psalms. A poem begins with one phrase followed by a second slightly different rephrasing of the first phrase. In that case "moon" would have originally been "sun" - "Stop O sun at Gibeon, O sun in the Valley of Aijalon!".

So there, got hold of an adapter.

Abraham was born and raised in an idolworshipping enviroment, very much so.

As young, very young he decided to test the idols.

So he watched the sun all day and toward evening it sank down beyond the horizon.

So he asked the sun worshippers where their god has gone, the same with the moon worshippers.

They could not give him an answer, the same with other god ideas.

So, he Abraham stood up and told them they were all wrong.

There is but one God who does not go to bed in the evening, it is He who sustaines His Creation.

He is the giver, kind, merciful, having compassion on His Creation.


That was Abrahams message.

 

[cloudyday2]

I haven't read your book as such, but I have some general comments:

There is a popular idea nowadays to make YHWH another sun god. Thing is, the oldest parts of the Bible like the Song of Deborah, have more storm characteristics - which also fit in more with Canaanite El and why Baal would then be placed in opposition or in attempted syncretisation with YHWH under Ahab. Solar imagery is common in the Bible, but this is more when speaking in light of a Montheistic or at least Monolatric way - as the Sun is a good metaphor for a monotheistic God, like the Aten in Egypt or the late Roman Sol Invictus.

Joshua's name clearly references YHWH, so either a solar characteristic references the conception of a montheistic YHWH, or this solar association is more likely secondary to this miracle account, and not a primary one.

Besides, Joshua isn't much of a solar figure outside this one event and a dubious etymology for Timnath-Heres. This is different from say Samson; whose name invokes the Sun, is opposed to the marine fertility god Dagon, has long hair like rays of the sun, is destroyed by Delilah which can be read as meaning night; he is active around Beth-Shemesh, meaning House of the Sun; etc. So it seems a bit of a stretch here, especially as there is a much better candidate for solar demigod in Israelite lore.

As to poetic doubling, poetic antitheses like Sun and Moon are also common.

Reading it as refering to a solar eclipse is quite common, there is even a fair canditate in 1207 BC. I don't know, this is one of those strange passages. As far as I am aware, the Samaritan book of Joshua says nothing at all about this event of the Sun and Moon standing still, so if anything, we aren't necessarily dealing with an 'old half-supressed solar tradition' rather than a purely Jewish narrative. After all, it is not found in common with the Samaritans, who share much of the rest of the Judges narrative and much of Kings.

What I find most interesting in this book is not the specific ancient beliefs the authors claim to have discovered but the possibility that these ancient beliefs can still be discerned after generations of changes to the text. The key seems to be that religious texts are sacred. An editor usually surrounds the original text with a new context that changes its meaning, because the original text is sacred and is already familiar to the people. So the original text is usually not lost but merely buried in layers of new context. Even if the original text is erased from the official new text, that original text often resurfaces in references elsewhere.
Here is a link to the introduction that describes the authors' ideas:
https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/...psredir=1&article=1129&context=unpresssamples