Re: [asa] Question for all the theistic evolutionists

On Sun, 18 Mar 2007, Merv wrote:

> Most posts on this thread have been on the offensive against accommodation
> and the defensive replies of the accommodationists. Please allow me to add a
> different strand in the opposite direction into this thread: How far are
> you ("concordists" ) willing to go to defend every straightforward narrative
> found in any Scripture? E.g. Forget the small time floating ax heads & such
> -- those are child's play. Let's skip to the big ones -- the sun
> stationary in the sky. I must admit that I don't know what to do with the
> clear Scriptural claim that Joshua told the sun (and moon) to stand still,
> and they did for "about a day". I don't understand how this could literally
> have happened (it would surely be a candidate from a physicist's point of
> view for the grand-daddy of miracles since creation).

It is not at all clear that the popular interpretation of this passage is
the correct one. In particular, the translation of the Hebrew "damam" as
"stand still" is open to question even though that is how the LXX
understood it. This is the only passage in the KJV (and probably most
other translations) where it is so rendered. Its literal meaning is "be
silent". There are several ways in which the traditional interpretation
does not seem to fit the context.

This incident took place in the morning (possibly the early morning) since
Gibeon was in the hills to the east of the battlefield.

The rout began when the Israelites, who would have been tired from an all
night hike, encountered the enemy at night. This gave them the advantage
of surprise. Then the enemy suffered even greater losses when they fled
into a hailstorm. The incident with the sun then apparently followed
immediately after this.

Joshua was concerned about what effect the moon would have on the battle.

What was said to have been unique about that day was not what happened to
the sun, but that the Lord listened to the voice of a man.

Incidentally, the original makes no reference to the sun going down. The
word "down" should not be in there, and "go" has a very wide range of
meanings.

Gordon Brown
Department of Mathematics
University of Colorado
Boulder, CO 80309-0395

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Mar 19 16:59:04 2007