OK, so when I hear the weather report on my local news describing “sunrise” and “sunset”, I should hear that as a statement of geocentric astrophysics?
Context is also important here. “The Preacher” or as some assert, Salomon, is opening his teaching by pointing out how things were going on long before the reader or student showed up and would continue long after they were gone. Even the listener of that day knew from looking that the sun did not rise at the same place (from their perspective) in the east or set in the same place in the west every day, but changed "entry" and "exit" points.
Joshua:
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.
10:14 And there was no day like that before it or after it, that the LORD hearkened unto the voice of a man: for the LORD fought for Israel.
Leaving aside the miracle described in this passage, the perspective of the sun and moon “standing still” and “staying” would be the same if:
(a)earth’s rotation stopped, or
(b) (postulating a geo centric reality) if the orbits of the sun and moon were stopped. Either way, the objects will “look” as if they are standing still.
Much in the same way that I am sitting on my butt in front of a computer, so that subjectively, I am sitting still; however, to an objective observer (from a proper vantage point), the combination of the earth’s rotation, the earth’s orbit, the solar system’s orbit around galactic center, and galactic movement puts me in motion to the tune of thousands of mph.
The question is - 'Is the description that of the EVENT or the PERCEPTION of the event?' I understand this being an account of what some one SAW. Their veracity is a whole 'nother discussion.
1st Chronicles:
16:30 Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.
This is a nice piece of poetry, if you look a few verses down, David also refers to the “fields being jubilant” and “the trees of the forest singing”. You would be hard pressed to find even the most die hard literalist taking that at full face value. Does make a nice piece of ecstatic worship in praising the majesty of our almighty Gor, though.
Psalms:
93:1 The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.
96:10 Say among the heathen that the LORD reigneth: the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved: he shall judge the people righteously.
104:5 Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be re-moved for ever.
Again, poetry. Much in the same way that “The Preacher” in Ecclesiastes was making a point about a person’s place in the universe, so was David in the Psalms and that passage from I Chronicles.
I’m not wholly convinced that the old testament prophets were making statements in favor of Aristotolean or Copernican cosmolgy in these citations. I have read each of these passages several times, and never formed that impression.
As for the Catholic Church using the passages from Ecclesiastes and Joshua at Gallileo’s “trial” – well let’s just say that that is’nt the only thing they’ve gotten wrong over the years. One of the reasons why I am not one… The King James version is also a little interesting in a few areas. I used to really like it until I found more literal translations such as Young's or the NRSV. I am still working on Hebrew and Septuagent Greek.
Thank you for a reasoned, well researched and obviously well thought out reply, though.
The TV weather-girl is hired because of her big boobs and her willingness to date the station manager. We expect a bit more from scripture. But that aside, I am impressed by your skilled dismissal of literal meaning of these passages. Those passages nevertheless nailed Galileo for heresy because he was writing and teaching about the solar system. In retrospect, the literalists look like idiots. This is something that we should seek to avoid. I suggest that those same interpretive skills can be happily employed to reconcile Genesis and evolution. Many denominations already do so.
Not really.
Assuming a heliocentric solar system, if the Earth's rotation were stopped, both the sun and the moon would continue to have slight, but real apparent motion in the Earth's sky. The sun would move as a result of the Earth revolving around it, and the moon would move as a result of it's revolution around the Earth. (Both of these motions depend on mass only, and not rotation.) Further, the Sun has apparent motion associated with the Earth's axial tilt, and the fact that the Earth's orbit isn't a circle, but an ellipse.
For the Sun to appear to stop in the sky, the Earth's rotation would have to slow to one rotation per year, the Earth has to be untilted, and the orbit has to be altered to be a circle.
But the moon is the real problem, here. For the moon to appear to stop, it's period of rotation and revolution must be equal, and it must be in geostationary orbit about the Earth. For the earth rotating at it's current speed, that is about ten times closer to the Earth than it is now. The moon orbiting at such a distance would dominate the sky.
However, in this problem, remember, the Earth's rotation has to be slowed down to one revolution per year. But at such a rotational speed, geostationary orbit is significantly farther away from the Earth than the moon's current distance. (As an alternative, you could move the moon to one of the stable LaGrange points in the Earth-Sun system.) So you would not only have to move the moon a significant distance, but you would also have to slow it's rotation significantly, as well.
And, at such a distance, the moon would appear to be tiny. Of course, this movement of the moon would be a movement, so the moon would not be standing still, as the passage in Joshua suggests. And there is nothing in Joshua which notes the Moon's sudden change in size. That would be as remarkable as the Sun and moon not moving, and would surely be noted.
However, assuming a geocentric solar system, on the other hand, in order for the sun and moon to appear to stop, they merely have to stop (and the moon would have to stop rotating.) (This, of course, discounts the effects of gravity as we know them, but that is consistent with this model, anyway...)
The point is that, with a heliocentric model, it is impossible to get the Sun and the Moon to appear to be motionless simply by halting the motion of the Earth. And it is impossible to get the moon to remain the same apparent size in the sky and be still just by stopping the motion of these bodies. It would require massive and multiple re-calibrations of the Earth's rotation, axial tilt, and orbit just to get the sun to appear to stop, and the moon is an even bigger problem.
The passage in Joshua is clearly more consistent with a geocentric understanding of the solar system.