Freethought & Rationalism Archive

John A. Broussard · 06-29-2005, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aikido7

As a metaphor, the sun stopping in the sky is hardly a symbol or portent of silliness. And I do concur that much of the atheist/rational arguments against religion and inerrancy use literalism as a framework for their opposition. Nothing wrong with a literalist framework, except that it is missing something.

A primrose by a river's brim
A yellow primrose was to him,
And it was nothing more.

Some part of us can just see a primrose and nothing more. But there's more, I believe.

So the bible is one long poem, like "The Charge of the Light Brigade?"

I have no problem with that, though all those "begats" do slow the reading down. I've tried to see more there. Alas, I failed. It's begats, all the way down.

BDS · 06-29-2005, 01:48 PM

I agree with in general with your recent post John. However, I think nonetheless that there's a tendency (perhaps not among intelligent scientists but among lay people) to see the "laws of nature" as actual rules governing how nature operates, instead of mere descriptions of how nature operates.

Thus "it's irrational to think that the laws of nature can be broken" is an unreasonable statement. For the "laws of nature" (at least as we know them) are actually "laws" written by fallible humans, with incomplete knowledge, describing how nature works. They not only can be broken, but as you correctly point out in your last post, regularly ARE broken -- at which point they are changed. In this sense, of course, the distinction between "natural" and "supernatural" vanishes. The "supernatural" (or miracles) are nothing more than natural events that we cannot understand, explain, or predict. Like the sun "standing still" (if it did, which is extremely doubtful).

By the way, the other point of view, that there are actually "laws of nature" which are immutable, is compatable with the liberal Christianity of the Enlightenment, in which God was seen as a remote "cosmic clockmaker" who had created nature and its laws, and then stepped back, allowing them to operate.

John A. Broussard · 06-29-2005, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BDS

Like the sun "standing still" (if it did, which is extremely doubtful).

A very thoughtful analysis, of which I'm in 99% agreement. I pulled out the only item I have some qualms about.

I would go well beyond saying that the sun standing still in the Joshua passage is "extremely doubtful" since it's occurrence goes well beyond a supposed violation of a natural law.

The sun wasn't moving in the first place, so to say that Joshua made it stand still is to talk nonsense.

But, that's a very minor disagreement with what you said, and even that I may be misinterpreting.

badger3k · 06-29-2005, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BDS

I agree with in general with your recent post John. However, I think nonetheless that there's a tendency (perhaps not among intelligent scientists but among lay people) to see the "laws of nature" as actual rules governing how nature operates, instead of mere descriptions of how nature operates.

Thus "it's irrational to think that the laws of nature can be broken" is an unreasonable statement. For the "laws of nature" (at least as we know them) are actually "laws" written by fallible humans, with incomplete knowledge, describing how nature works. They not only can be broken, but as you correctly point out in your last post, regularly ARE broken -- at which point they are changed. In this sense, of course, the distinction between "natural" and "supernatural" vanishes. The "supernatural" (or miracles) are nothing more than natural events that we cannot understand, explain, or predict. Like the sun "standing still" (if it did, which is extremely doubtful).

By the way, the other point of view, that there are actually "laws of nature" which are immutable, is compatable with the liberal Christianity of the Enlightenment, in which God was seen as a remote "cosmic clockmaker" who had created nature and its laws, and then stepped back, allowing them to operate.

I have to agree that there is a misconception among many people about the "laws of nature" being some outside rule that everything has to follow. It's a simple concept that many have not been taught correctly, and thus it is carried onward. We need better education, and better media, if we want to correct this problem.

aikido7 · 06-30-2005, 02:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John A. Broussard

So the bible is one long poem, like "The Charge of the Light Brigade?"

More a collection of them, and not all as culturally stirring as Tennyson's bit of gospel.

Quote:

I have no problem with that, though all those "begats" do slow the reading down. I've tried to see more there. Alas, I failed. It's begats, all the way down.

I agree. Begats "begit" boredom.

One question, though: What are you afraid would happen if you saw that the sun standing still spoke to the importance of the battle rather than the cosmology of the universe?

John A. Broussard · 06-30-2005, 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aikido7

What are you afraid would happen if you saw that the sun standing still spoke to the importance of the battle rather than the cosmology of the universe?

I have no problem with that view.

However, anyone who believes that the bible is literally true--word for word--would regard that interpretation as being sacrilegious.

aikido7 · 06-30-2005, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John A. Broussard

...However, anyone who believes that the bible is literally true--word for word--would regard that interpretation as being sacrilegious.

Thanks for clarification. I feel understood and now I can go back to whatever the hell I was doing before.

By the way, if literal fundamentalists agree that Jesus is the Lamb of God does that then mean that Mary had a little Lamb?

ELECTROGOD · 07-02-2005, 01:43 AM

Might we be overthinking this? :huh:
Seems to me the simplest explanation is the best. Kind of like if Jesus actually existed then he was probably a result of Joseph's ejaculation or that of a Roman soldier.
In this case Joshua got drunk (it was after a victory, right?), passed out and woke up the next day. He then declared that goddidit in an attempt to cover it up or because he was actually that stupid. :wave:

John Kesler · 06-07-2008, 06:54 PM

In a previous post, I quoted from the book of Sirach (46:1-4), which clearly shows that the sun was believed to have stopped. I later quoted an article from Blueletterbible.com, which provides a nice analysis of Joshua 10, demonstrating that the sun-stopping was intended to be taken literally. I have discovered two more sources which show that ancient Jewish interpreters also took Joshua 10 at its "face-value" meaning. The first comes from Louis Ginzberg's The Legends of the Jews--"a massive collation of the Haggada--the traditions which have grown up surrounding the Biblical narrative." The emphasis is mine.

Quote:

THE SUN OBEYS JOSHUA

The task of protecting the Gibeonites involved in the offensive and defensive alliance made with them, Joshua fulfilled scrupulously. He had hesitated for a moment whether to aid the Gibeonites in their distress, but the words of God sufficed to recall him to his duty. God said to him: "If thou dost not bring near them that are far off, thou wilt remove them that are near by." God granted Joshua peculiar favor in his conflict with the assailants of the Gibeonites. The hot hailstones which, at Moses' intercession, had remained suspended in the air when they were about to fall upon the Egyptians, were now cast down upon the Canaanites. Then happened the great wonder of the sun's standing still, the sixth of the great wonders since the creation of the world.

The battle took place on a Friday. Joshua knew it would pain the people deeply to be compelled to desecrate the holy Sabbath day. Besides, he noticed that the heathen were using sorcery to make the heavenly hosts intercede for them in the fight against the Israelites. He, therefore, pronounced the Name of the Lord, and the sun, moon and stars stood still. The sun at first refused to obey Joshua's behest, seeing that he was older than man by two days. Joshua replied that there was no reason why a free-born youth should refrain from enjoining silence upon an old slave whom he owns, and had not God given heaven and earth to our father Abraham? Nay, more than this, had not the sun himself bowed down like a slave before Joseph? "But," said the sun, "who will praise God if I am silent?" Whereupon Joshua: "Be thou silent, and I will intone a song of praise."

The second reference comes from the Babylonian Talmud. Again, the emphasis is mine:

Quote:

Babylonian Talmud: Tractate ‘Abodah Zarah

Folio 25a

[The same Rabbis also discuss the following:] And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed until the nation had avenged themselves of their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jashar. What is the book of Jashar? — Said R. Hiyya b. Abba in the name of R. Johanan: It is the book of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob,1 who are designated as righteous,2 as it is said, Let me die the death of the righteous:3 And where is this incident hinted at [in Genesis]? — And his seed shall fill the nations:4 When shall [Ephraim's fame] reach the nations? When the sun shall stand still for Joshua. And the sun stayed in the midst of the heaven and hasted not to go down about a whole day.5 How long [is day-time said to have lasted]? — Said R. Joshua b. Levi: Twenty four hours: [The sun] moved for six hours and stood still for six, then it moved for six and stood still for six, then it moved for six and stood still for six; the whole incident equalled a whole day.

R. Eleazar said: Thirty-six hours; it moved for six hours and stood still for twelve, it then moved for six and stood still for twelve so that the halt alone equalled a whole day. R. Samuel b. Nahmani said: Forty-eight; it moved for six and stood for twelve, it then moved for six and stood still for twenty-four, for Scripture says, and hasted not to go down about a whole day, which implies that the previous halt did not equal a whole day. Some report that it is the additional hours of daytime which are disputed. R. Joshua b. Levi said: They were twenty-four; it moved for six and stood for twelve, then moved for six and stood for twelve — its halt thus equalled a whole day; while R. Eleazar said: Thirty-six; it moved for six and stood for twelve, then moved for six and stood for twenty-four [which is meant by] and hasted not to go down about a whole day. R. Samuel b. Nahmani said: Forty-eight; it moved for six and stood for twenty-four, then moved for six and again stood for twenty-four; the standing still [at noon] equalled that of setting time; as the one at setting time equalled a whole day, so the standing still [in the midst of the heaven] equalled a whole day.

Keep these references handy in case you encounter someone who says that the text "really means" that the sun just wasn't as hot as usual because of cloud cover, or that the hailstones (v:11) made it only appear that the sun stopped, etc.

aikido7 · 06-07-2008, 10:06 PM

The Sun Obeys Joshua.
The Biblical Tales Obey the Groundrules of Sacred Texts.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-29-2005, 01:48 PM	#112
BDS Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Eugene, OR, USA Posts: 3,187	I agree with in general with your recent post John. However, I think nonetheless that there's a tendency (perhaps not among intelligent scientists but among lay people) to see the "laws of nature" as actual rules governing how nature operates, instead of mere descriptions of how nature operates. Thus "it's irrational to think that the laws of nature can be broken" is an unreasonable statement. For the "laws of nature" (at least as we know them) are actually "laws" written by fallible humans, with incomplete knowledge, describing how nature works. They not only can be broken, but as you correctly point out in your last post, regularly ARE broken -- at which point they are changed. In this sense, of course, the distinction between "natural" and "supernatural" vanishes. The "supernatural" (or miracles) are nothing more than natural events that we cannot understand, explain, or predict. Like the sun "standing still" (if it did, which is extremely doubtful). By the way, the other point of view, that there are actually "laws of nature" which are immutable, is compatable with the liberal Christianity of the Enlightenment, in which God was seen as a remote "cosmic clockmaker" who had created nature and its laws, and then stepped back, allowing them to operate.

07-02-2005, 01:43 AM	#118
ELECTROGOD Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: GR, MI USA Posts: 4,009	Might we be overthinking this? :huh: Seems to me the simplest explanation is the best. Kind of like if Jesus actually existed then he was probably a result of Joseph's ejaculation or that of a Roman soldier. In this case Joshua got drunk (it was after a victory, right?), passed out and woke up the next day. He then declared that goddidit in an attempt to cover it up or because he was actually that stupid. :wave:

06-07-2008, 10:06 PM	#120
aikido7 Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Here Posts: 234	The Sun Obeys Joshua. The Biblical Tales Obey the Groundrules of Sacred Texts.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.