Reading the Bible as Intended: Joshua’s Day

[Originally published as the first part of Untwisting Scripture: Refuting Flat Earth Falsehoods – Part 3]

In this third installment of our series about the so-called flat/stationary-earth prooftexts in the Bible, we’ll examine another passage that FSIPs (Flat Stationary Interpretation Proponents) frequently cite: Joshua 10. Known as “Joshua’s long day,” this passage is the record of one of the most unique and miraculous days in human history. As Joshua writes, “There has been no day like it before or since” (Josh 10:14 ESV).

On this day Joshua and Israel fought against five Amorite armies to defend the Gibeonites. As the Israelites were nearing victory, the Amorite soldiers who had survived the battle fled for refuge. Israel pursued them, seeking the total defeat of their foes as the Lord had promised. The problem was that there wasn’t enough light left in the day to finish the job. The sun would be setting soon, and the Israelites would have to abandon their pursuit. Amid these events we’re told,

At that time Joshua spoke to the Lord in the day when the Lord gave the Amorites over to the sons of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel,

“Sun, stand still at Gibeon,
and moon, in the Valley of Aijalon.”
And the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The sun stopped in the midst of heaven and did not hurry to set for about a whole day. There has been no day like it before or since. (Josh 10:12–14)

In response to Joshua’s prayer, the Lord performs a dramatic miracle, stopping the sun along its path through the sky, thus extending the daylight anywhere from 12 to 24 hours. This enabled Israel to continue their pursuit and to finish their mission.

Now, you might be wondering what in the world this passage has to do with the shape or motion of the earth. According to many FSIPs, this event proves that the earth is stationary and that the sun moves around the earth.

How do they get this idea from the text?

It’s supposedly because Joshua says, “the sun stood still.” In their minds this implies that the sun was initially moving and that, by inference, the earth must’ve been stationary. They contend that the text would’ve said that “the earth stood still” if the Lord had stopped the earth’s rotation. Therefore, they conclude that the earth is stationary and the sun revolves around it.

Does this text indeed prove the FSIPs allegation that the Bible contains geostationary beliefs, or is this just another instance of quote-mining?

Let’s Look at the Text and its Context

First of all, we need to understand the purpose of the author in this passage. Why does he record these events? The answer: he’s testifying to the faithful providence of the Lord to Israel by recounting Israel’s conquest of Canaan. In chapter10, Joshua is describing how Israel obtained total victory over its enemies at Gibeon by the miraculous intervention of the Lord in supernaturally extending the length of the day.

Now, to their credit, FSIPs get a lot of things right in their interpretation of this passage. They rightly believe that this passage is prose and not poetry; that it’s describing literal history, not figurative imagery. The genre of the book of Joshua is historical narrative.

FSIPs are also correct in asserting that even though Joshua’s words to the sun are in poetic form, the narrative itself makes clear that this historical event occurred exactly as the author describes. The sun did indeed stop “in the midst of heaven [the sky] and did not hurry to set for about a whole day.” It was a truly miraculous event.

So, what’s the problem? The problem is that the FSIPs are trying to make this text about cosmological assertions. Therefore, they’re reading the text with multiple presuppositions, most notably the assumptions that the motion (1) is Newtonian inertial motion and (2) is being described in terms of an absolute reference frame.

Newtonian inertial motion is that which is described by Newton’s three laws of motion as published in the year 1686. Such motion is always measured relative to some non-rotating, non-accelerating frame of reference.¹ Since Newtonian motion is a modern invention, it is not logical to think that the text of Scripture must use it. If God were to use a definition that would not be invented for thousands of years, then no one in the ancient world would have properly understood the text. Such a position denies the biblical principle of perspicuity — that God intended the text of Scripture to be understood at all times.

Furthermore, Newtonian motion is always relative.

That is, it is measured with respect to an arbitrarily determined reference frame.² For example, a person on a bus might move from a back seat to a front seat, while another person remains seated.  The first person is moving relative to the bus, while the second person is stationary relative to the bus. Yet, the bus itself is moving relative to the earth. So, both people are moving relative to the earth. Since Newtonian motion is always relative to some frame of reference, the FSIPs’ notion of “absolute Newtonian motion” is inherently contradictory.

Despite this, FSIPs maintain that there is an absolute, yet Newtonian, reference frame that is universal, all-encompassing, and nonrelative. And so, the assert that when some motion is described in Scripture, such as the sun stopping, the description is universally, physically true.

This idea is similar to FSIPs’ concept of absolute direction. To them there must be an absolute “up” and an absolute “down.” Therefore, everything in the southern hemisphere on a globe must be upside-down. But objectively, people in the southern hemisphere have just as much right to consider northerners as the ones who are upside-down.

The FSIPs would say that when the “sun stopped,” it ceased any and all physical Newtonian motion absolutely. And since the sun stopped in our sky, it must mean that the earth itself was in an absolute state of rest according to Newtonian physics.

However, as we’ve already seen, Newtonian physics denies such a concept as “absolute rest” or “absolute motion.” Motion is defined as the change in position/location of an object over time, relative to a specific point of reference. Notice that the change is relative to a specific point of reference.

As Dr. Jason Lisle explains, “For motion to be meaningful, we must be able to define and measure positions at various times. The position of an object or person is only meaningful when given in reference to another object or person… Without a point of reference, position is meaningless.”³

Motion, by its very definition, is relative. It’s always understood and measured relative to some point of reference. In the above example, motion could be measured relative to the bus, the earth, or one of the people on the bus.

Dr. Lisle continues, “Since position is only meaningful when given relative to an object, and since motion is defined in terms of a change in position, it follows logically that motion is only meaningful when given relative to an object of reference… Therefore, all motion is inherently relative. Motion is meaningful only when given in terms of a known frame of reference. That reference frame can be anything at all.”⁴

Therein lies the issue. FSIPs assume absolute motion based on an absolute reference frame. Yet, all motion is relative and a “reference frame can be anything at all.”

As Dr. Henry Morris writes, “All motion is relative motion, and the sun is no more ’fixed‘ in space than the Earth is. … The scientifically correct way to specify motions, therefore, is to select an arbitrary point of assumed zero velocities and then to measure all velocities relative to that point. The proper point to use is the one which is most convenient to the observer for the purposes of his particular calculations.”⁵ [emphasis mine]

All reference frames are arbitrary. We can choose anything to be our point of reference by which to measure or describe motion.

Dr. Lisle continues,

It could be a person: “I’m moving closer to James”; an airplane: “I’m getting moved up to first class”; a building: “I’m moving from the second floor to the fourth floor”; or a city: “I’m moving from the south side of Dallas up to Farmers Branch.” So whenever anyone asks, “Is this object in motion or is it stationary,” we must ask, “relative to what?”⁶

And so, when Joshua says, “The sun stopped,” we must ask, “Relative to what?” In other words, we need to identify Joshua’s reference frame.

Joshua tells us. “’Sun, stand still at Gibeon.’ . . .  the sun stopped in the midst of heaven.” Or as it says in the NAS, NIV, NLT, and HCSB: “The sun stopped in the middle of the sky.”

The sun “stood still” relative to the sky and to those on earth at Gibeon. The sun stood still relative to the earth and those on its surface looking into the midst of the sky.

This is a perfectly legitimate and accurate description of the event. It’s described from where the combatants are, from their respective reference frame on earth’s surface.

Joshua describes what happened from his vantage point, his perspective somewhere in the Middle East. This means that Joshua is using the earth’s surface as his reference frame (without probably thinking about reference frames at all). We’ll call this “the surface-of-the-earth reference frame.”

Dr. Morris continues, “In the case of movements of the heavenly bodies, normally the most suitable point is the Earth‘s surface at the latitude and longitude of the observer, and this therefore is the most ’scientific‘ point to use. David and Joshua are more scientific than their critics in adopting such a convention for their narratives.”⁷ [emphasis mine]

The reason we don’t often think about the relative nature of motion is because we have a massive, shared reference frame under our feet — the earth. When the reference frame is not mentioned, we normally take the earth itself to be the reference frame. Thus, when the speed limit is 55 miles per hour, no one doubts that this is the speed of the vehicle relative to earth. It’s simply a convenient reference frame by which we tend to describe our observations and experiences because it’s something we all have in common.

It’s why we use copious amounts of phenomenological language in our everyday conversations. We use terms like sunrise and sunset, the sun coming up, going down, or moving across the sky because that’s what the sun appears to do from our vantage point on the surface of the earth. And everyone has a similar perspective. We all live on the surface of the earth and therefore tend to describe things relative to it, from the same frame of reference, that we all might be able to identify and understand what’s being said.

But this does not logically imply that the earth is the only frame of reference, or that there is any such thing as an absolute reference frame. It’s the presumed reference frame based on common experience and use. Ultimately, this is an arbitrary convention. Anyone at any time could choose to use another reference frame by which to measure and describe motion, and that would be just as valid a reference frame. But unless they’ve explained this, and those they’re attempting to communicate with understand and agree to this convention, what they say will be easily misinterpreted and misunderstood.

To be continued…

Footnotes

1. These laws of motion can be applied to a rotating reference frame only by introducing two “fictional” forces: the Coriolis force and centrifugal force.
2. This reference frame could be physical (like the sun) or conceptual (like the center of mass of the solar system).
3. Lisle, J. 2015. Understanding Genesis: How to Analyze, Interpret, and Defend Scripture (p. 195). Green Forest, AR: Master Books.
4. Ibid. (p.196)
5. Morris, H. and H. III. 1996. Many Infallible Proofs: Practical and Useful Evidences for the Christian Faith (p. 253). Green Forest, AR: Master Books.
6. Lisle, J. 2015. Understanding Genesis: How to Analyze, Interpret, and Defend Scripture (p. 196). Green Forest, AR: Master Books.
7. Morris, H. and H. III. 1996. Many Infallible Proofs: Practical and Useful Evidences for the Christian Faith (p. 253). Green Forest, AR: Master Books.