Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

At eh's request, here's a new thread to discuss what the Bible says about the movement of the Sun.

Joshua 10:11-13

10:11 And it came to pass, as they fled from before Israel, and were in the going down to Bethhoron, that the LORD cast down great stones from heaven upon them unto Azekah, and they died: they were more which died with hailstones than they whom the children of Israel slew with the sword.
10:12 Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.
10:13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

So, eh - what is the scientific explanation for the sun stopping in its tracks? Are the authors of this passage actually saying that the Earth stopped rotating?

cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:I will delete future posts which refer solely to questions asked in other threads.

This thread's title is clear - no need to mix topics of two threads. There is already a thread about Quran and science.

I have gone back and deleted all the posts relating to the thread about the Quran and science - no new information was in them, and I've copied over 'eh's post' and addressed it there.

So, now we can concentrate on the scientific explanation for the Bible's claim that the sun was stopped in its tracks - as quoted above.

Over to you eh.

Cheers,
Shafique

Day 13 - unlucky for 'eh'?

Perhaps he's writing a new science book that says the earth can stop rotating?

Actually, it was Montgomery Watt who brought this up from an article you posted - he also said that he does not believe in the other instances of God interfering with the world or universe:

They thought, you see, that God could interfere with the laws of nature. They thought that God made the sun stand still for a whole day so that Joshua could get a great victory. Well, that’s impossible. They thought that God could intervene with his own natural laws and punish people

So, do you agree with Montgomery Watt that God does not interfere at all with the laws of nature or are you just selective in believing which actions God may or may not have taken; such as allah raising and setting the sun each day or splitting the moon in half?

I believe that those who wrote the Bible made a wild statement that science does cannot support.

I therefore do agree with Watt that God does not violate the laws of nature.

Hence why I am intrigued as to what scientific explanation you can come up with for the Sun staying still in the sky.

Is your defence going to be 'Watt says it is impossible - do you agree?' My answer is 'yes, I agree' - but I can't see how that explains what the Bible says happened.

So, still Day 13 and no scientific explanation - but well done on posting something relevant to the thread.

Cheers,
Shafique

Edit, April 14: Day 21.

Perhaps 'eh' has gone on a sabattical to come up with a new theory?

[Now into the third week. I'll pause the count now and see if eh re-surfaces with a theory or not.]

-- Wed May 12, 2010 11:26 am --

Ok, can't really be arsed to calculate the days - but let's just say we're approaching 2 months without an answer.

Cheers,
Shafique

Bump for eh now he is back to normal posting habits.

Eh - how about we tackle this less contentious topic. You requested I set up a new thread to discuss this - so I guess you must have had time to formulate an answer by now?

It seems a bit rich to start a thread on cosmology and the Quran when this long-outstanding question about cosmology in the Bible is left unanswered!

Ahh, the loon diversionary tactics - don't you just love them?

[Moved to Koran and Science thread]

Cheers,
Shafique

[Mod Edit - moved to 'Koran And Science' thread]

So, still no scientific explanation for the Bible's account of the sun staying still in the sky for a day.

Hmmm.

Cheers,
Shafique

You don't need a scientific explanation for a miracle, do you?

LoL. I thought that was just common knowledge.

I mean, I find it unscientific that a day old infant could speak or that the same infant will turn clay into birds later in life.

But obviously, that's a bit of a difference from claiming that Allah created cattle and man when we know that didn't happen.

So, you don't have a scientific explanation after all - you just believe that the sun did stop in the sky for a day, because that it what the Bible says!

What is 'common knowledge' is that the sun does not stop in the sky, because that would violate the laws of physics and mean the earth has stopped rotating.

Geez - it took you almost 4 months to admit this?

Cheers,
Shafique

So, now we have young eh admitting that the Bible contains scientific absurdities, I can remind him what he wrote on the subject of scriptures which violate the laws of science:

event horizon wrote:So you agree with me that the Koran is scientifically inaccurate and therefore not the word of god.

philosophy-dubai/koran-and-science-t41858.html#p336296

I didn't agree that the Quran contains scientifically inaccurate verses, but given that eh does believe this to be a feature of the Bible, I guess he either believes the Bible is not the word of God or he is a hypocrite.

Which is it?

Cheers,
Shafique

Here's the question re-expressed.

Given you now admit that the Bible contains 'scientific absurdities' and you argued that if the same applied to the Quran it would therefore not be the word of God - do you therefore believe the Bible is not the word of God or are you a hypocrite?

Two options:
1. You believe Bible is not the word of God because it describes the sun stopping in the sky for a day, and you believe this happened despite there being no scientific explanation for this,
2. You are a hypocrite.

So, which is it?

Cheers,
Shafique

Has the cat got your tongue, young one?

You're not avoiding the question are you, perchance?

Cheers,
Shafique