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. That’s a good question! 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 ch.10 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, 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, “[F]or 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 – 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, and 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 else 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.
This surface-of-the-earth reference frame is not only the reference frame and language we use generally but is the reference frame God generally uses when describing things in the Bible. He inspired the writing of the Bible so that it would be understood by man. Therefore, God spoke to us in language we could understand. He utilized our common experiences (which have taken place on the earth) and the language we use to describe them as the most common means by which he would communicate with us.
This is why Scripture is also filled with phenomenological language. It too uses common surface-of-the-earth reference frame vernacular in describing the common experiences of those of us on the surface of the earth.
For example, look at Ecclesiastes 1:5:
The sun rises, and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises.
Now, I have yet to meet a FSIP that takes this verse literally. Most of them believe that the sun rotates around a flat disk, which means the sun never physically rises, nor does it physically go down. It seems that they all believe that even though the sun appears to go down from one location on earth, there are other locations on earth where the sun is still shining (and yet others where it is rising).
The author of Ecclesiastes is describing his experience from his location on the earth. And everyone else who has ever seen the sun appear to rise or set understands what he’s talking about by common experience, no matter what their location is on earth.
Not only is the sun described as rising and setting, of going up and going down dozens of times throughout the Bible, but it’s also described as doing many other things that even FSIPs don’t believe that it literally does.
Take Psalm 19 as another example.
In this psalm David poetically describes the natural phenomena he experiences from his perspective on the surface of the earth. From that vantage point, as he looks up into the sky, he exclaims, “The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.”
He then writes, “Their [the heavens] voice goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them he has set a tent for the sun, which comes out like a bridegroom leaving his chamber, and, like a strong man, runs its course with joy. Its rising is from the end of the heavens, and its circuit to the end of them, and there is nothing hidden from its heat.”
In this psalm we not only see David poetically describe the sun as rising, but as coming out of a tent like a bridegroom leaving his chamber, and of running its course across the sky like a strong man running his race from start to finish.
When this kind of language is used, we’d state that the author is saying that the sun, from the perspective of someone dwelling on the face of the earth, appears to do these things.
As commentator H. D. M. Spence-Jones says, “The poet, like other poets, describes the phenomena as they appear to him. He does not broach any astronomical theory.”[8] [italics mine]
And Herman J. Selderhuis writes, “Now what is spoken here about the sun is not said according to the precision of astronomy—no more than many other things in Scripture—but instead according to external appearances and common judgments.”[9] [emphasis mine]
The sun is not the only celestial object that’s described this way. In the Bible the moon is described as having a face, as moving in splendor, and, along with the stars, as “coming out.” The sky/heaven is described as a circle, arc, vault, or dome because that’s what it looks like from the surface of the earth.
All of this is to say that by divine inspiration, the writers of the Bible frequently described events from the perspective of human beings dwelling on earth. That is, when describing events, their frame of reference was the surface of the earth.
This is precisely what Joshua is doing in this passage when he says, “the sun stopped in the midst of heaven.”
As Dr. Lisle says, “The Scriptures use the earth as a convenient reference frame. Notice that the Bible gives the reference frame explicitly when it states that the sun stopped in the middle of the sky. The sky is the visible arc of heaven as seen from the surface of earth. The sun and moon were said to stop their daily motion in earth’s sky.”[10]
From the perspective of everyone on the ground, the sun stood still in the midst of the sky. This is an historically accurate description of what Joshua and everyone else observed and experienced that day.
Notice also that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still at Gibeon and the moon in the valley of Aijalon (Joshua 10:12). These would be the locations of the sun and moon as observed by Joshua. But from experience we know that the sun and moon appear in different locations in the sky as seen from different locations on earth. Thus, the Bible is clear that the reference frame is the surface of earth where Joshua stands. That’s a perfectly legitimate reference frame (although it is non-Newtonian since the earth rotates). But the Bible nowhere says that it is the only possible reference frame.
Dr. Lisle continues, “Since all motion is relative to a specified reference frame, Joshua’s command makes perfect sense in light of his position on the surface of earth. Again, modern astronomers do this all the time. We say things like, ’What time does Saturn rise tonight?’ or ’The sun sets early this time of year.’ In no way are we suggesting that the earth does not rotate relative to the rest of the universe. Neither does Scripture.”
Donald K. Campbell writes in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, “[Joshua] was using the language of observation; he was speaking from the perspective and appearance of things on earth. People still do the same thing, even in the scientific community. Almanacs and journals record the hours of sunrise and sunset, yet no one accuses them of scientific error.”[11] [emphasis mine]
The FSIPs are capriciously imposing their interpretation on the Bible despite the Bible. They’ve inconsistently presupposed an oxymoronic “absolute Newtonian” reference frame when the text itself specifies the reference frame as earth and the particular location where Joshua was standing.
The Newtonian physics going on behind the event never appeared to cross Joshua’s mind. And why would it? It’s utterly irrelevant to Joshua, the narrative, and his purposes in describing it… just like with the rest of the miracles in the Bible.
Throughout Scripture we never see anything other than basic observational descriptions of miracles from the perspective of those who experienced them. They’re all true and transpired exactly the way the writers describe, yet the writers never attempt to describe how they happen. That’s because the physics of the event isn’t relevant to the account or purpose of the author.
So too here in Joshua. He’s testifying to the Lord’s faithfulness through this miracle. And so, all we’re told is that the sun stopped moving relative to the earth so that Israel could complete their mission.
As Dr. Danny Faulkner says, “We are given a very bare description and no physical explanation of what happened in Joshua 10:12–14. Whatever the nature of the cosmology and the miracle it required, it is a true description that the sun did stop for about a day.“[12]
What then happened from the perspective of a Newtonian inertial reference frame? How did the sun stop from the Newtonian physics point of view? Enquiring minds want to know (because they want to use this text as a prooftext for their presupposed cosmology).
If we’re still asking the how question (from a Newtonian inertial reference frame), we might still be missing the bigger point here. The point isn’t about the physics. In fact, trying to figure out the physics of a miracle is irrational. Think about it. In essence, we’re trying to understand the physics of a metaphysical event. We’re trying to detect the natural reasons for a supernatural occurrence. It’s nonsensical. Further, it’s distracting us, causing us to focus on speculations rather than the beauty, meaning, and message of the text.
The point of the passage is the providential love and power of the Lord through performing a breathtaking miracle of unfathomable proportion. The Lord is that powerful!
Unfortunately, this fixation on making Scripture fit their preconceptions has actually led some FSIPs to minimize God’s miracle-working power. I’ve witnessed numerous FSIPs argue that if the world stopped spinning from a Newtonian-motion reference frame, the miracle wouldn’t have been possible because the momentum would’ve caused everything on earth to spiral out of control. That’s a sad argument, isn’t it? It is as if they think God would stop the earth’s rotation but forget to stop all the structures on its surface. God is not required to follow the natural laws which merely describe the normal way God upholds His creation. Besides, God is all-powerful and, according to F. G. Marchant, “omnipotence, if it be that at all, can know no effort.”[13]
Marchant also remarks, “Even if the revolution [sic] of the earth on its axis actually ceased in response to Joshua’s prayer, which miracle was the greater, the ’standing still of the sun and moon,’ or the feeding of the five thousand by Christ? Which of us knows? If we are not prepared to let go our faith in the miracles altogether, we shall do well to guard against the naturally strong temptation which too readily besets most of us, to explain them away, or tone them down, as we become oppressed by what seems to us their unusual magnitude.”[14]
Stopping the motion of the world and everything on the world simultaneously would be NO MORE difficult for God than stopping the sun, or a baseball in mid-flight, or a feather from falling to the ground.
As Robert Jamieson says, “Doubtless it was within the compass of omnipotence to stop the movements of the great machinery of nature, or any part of it; and as the Creator cannot be bound by the laws He Himself thought fit to impose upon matter, He must be considered free to suspend them, whenever the interference may seem to His infinite wisdom necessary for the promotion of His glory or the good of His people.”[15]
To summarize, the text of Joshua 10 doesn’t say anywhere that the world was moving or stationary in some kind of Newtonian-motion reference frame sense. Neither does it address the events in light of a Newtonian-motion reference frame at all.
As Dr. Lisle says, “the Bible does not address the topic of Newtonian reference frames, and thus does not endorse or deny either geocentrism or heliocentrism.”[16]
This passage depicts the events from the reference frame of those on earth. The sun did indeed stand still and the moon stopped. The FSIPs’ insistence that Joshua is using some kind of “absolute Newtonian” reference frame is simply an arbitrary and contradictory notion that they’re imposing on the Bible. And all because of their a priori need to have a prooftext that “justifies” their cosmological position.
In our next article we’ll discuss the FSIPs’ citations of Daniel 4 and Matthew 4.
[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.
[8] Spence, H. D. M. and J. S. Excell. 1909. The Pulpit Commentary (Psalms vol. I) (p. 129). New York: Funk & Wagnalls Company.
[9] Selderhuis, H. J. (Ed.). 2015. Psalms 1–72: Old Testament Volume 7 (Reformation Commentary on Scripture) (p. 145). Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic.
[10] Lisle, J. 2015. Understanding Genesis: How to Analyze, Interpret, and Defend Scripture (p. 200). Green Forest, AR: Master Books.
[11] Walvoord, J. F. and R. B. Zuck. 1985. The Bible Knowledge Commentary (Old Testament) (pp. 350-351). Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.
[12] Faulkner, D. 2019. Falling Flat: A Refutation of Flat Earth Claims (pp. 215-216). Green Forest, AR: Master Books.
[13] Marchant, F. G. 1892. The Preacher’s Complete Homiletic Commentary: Joshua (p. 210). New York: Funk & Wagnalls Company.
[14] Ibid. (p. 211).
[15] Jamieson, R., et al. 1984. A Commentary: Critical, Experimental, and Practical on the Old and New Testaments (vol. II, p. 28). London: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.
[16] Lisle, J. 2015. Understanding Genesis: How to Analyze, Interpret, and Defend Scripture (p. 329). Green Forest, AR: Master Books.