Originally posted by lucaspa
Lighbearer, please remember we are talking about a literal interpretation here. Biblical literalists claim the Bible is without error of any kind. The Bible is even to be taken over what our senses tell us and science is supposed to fit the Bible.
I'm not criticizing Joshua. I'm saying that you, and every other Christian, accepts extrabiblical evidence in interpreting scripture. Including you here. You are taking what has been discovered by science concerning the rotation of the earth to decide that the passage in Joshua doesn't mean that the sun is moving. You are making a non-literal interpretation. That's OK.
What I am saying is that if you don't use extrabiblical evidence and insist on a literal interpretation, then this passage says the sun moves.
You are thinking I'm attacking the Bible. I'm not. I'm arguing against Biblical literalism and showing that Biblical literalists are not consistent in their position. They insist on a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 and reject any extrabiblical evidence that indicates such an interpretation is wrong. Yet they accept extrabiblical evidence that a literal interpretation of passages indicating a flat or immovable earth is wrong.
Only Matthew has attempted to address this issue. And that by saying that Psalms are poetry but Genesis 1 is "narrative". His explanation doesn't stand testing.
I am still trying to get Biblical literalists to look at their motives for accepting extrabiblical evidence to revise interpretation of some passages but rejecting extrabiblical evidence and refusing to revise their interpretation of other verses.
I get your drift and it's a fair point. Hovever if we take other statements literally we get absolute evidence for the Bibles divine origins and inspiration. for example.
"And Jehovah's angel proceeded to call to Abraham the second time out of the heavens 16 and to say: "'By myself I do swear,' is the utterance of Jehovah, 'that by reason of the fact that you have done this thing and you have not withheld your son, your only one, 17 I shall surely bless you and
I shall surely multiply your seed like the stars of the heavens and like the grains of sand that are on the seashore; and your seed will take possession of the gate of his enemies. 18 And by means of your seed all nations of the earth will certainly bless themselves due to the fact that you have listened to my voice.'"
Gen 22:15-18
This would have been a ridiculous comparison at this time considering that only a few thousand stars could be seen with the naked eye. Moses could have held more grains of sand in his hand than all the stars in the then known heavens let alone the seashores of the world. Only today can we appreciate that the comparison was appropriate, that there are as many if not more stars than grains of sand on all the seashores of the world.
Shape of Planet Earth:
Isa. 40:22: "There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth." In ancient times the general opinion was that the earth was flat. It was not until over 200 years after this Bible text had been written that a school of Greek philosophers reasoned that the earth likely was spherical, and in about another 300 years a Greek astronomer calculated the approximate radius of the earth. But the idea of a spherical earth was not the general view even then. Only in the 20th century has it been possible for humans to travel by airplane, and later into outer space and even to the moon, thus giving them a clear view of "the circle" of earth's horizon.
Job 26:7 "He is stretching out the north over the empty place,
Hanging the earth upon nothing".
If taken literally people would have known long before science proved beyond doubt that there are more stars in the universe than sand on the shores. That the earth was a round sphere floating in space. Science has not taught us these truths but merely backed up what the bible had already informed us over 3000 years previously.
