Why isn't the standing still of the sun and the moon not recorded by other cultures?

[Compassionist]

I am quoting from Joshua 10: 12 - 14, the Bible (English Standard Version)

"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, when the Lord heeded the voice of a man, for the Lord fought for Israel."

Why isn't the standing still of the sun and the moon not recorded by other cultures that had invented writing?

The event described in Joshua 10:12–14, where the sun and moon are said to have stood still to allow the Israelites more time to defeat their enemies, would - if taken literally - constitute a global astronomical phenomenon. If the Earth’s rotation truly stopped or slowed (which is what "the sun stood still" would physically mean), it would have had catastrophic global consequences, including massive earthquakes, tsunamis, and changes in atmospheric motion due to sudden deceleration.

Such an event could not have gone unnoticed by other civilisations and would have been recorded by other literate cultures that kept astronomical or historical records.

At the time (around 13th to 15th century BCE, depending on the dating of the conquest narratives), several advanced civilisations with writing and astronomical records existed, including:

Egyptians
Babylonians
Chinese (Shang Dynasty)
Minoans/Mycenaeans
Sumerians
Indus Valley remnants

Yet none of these cultures, despite their meticulous sky observations, record a day when the sun and moon stood still or behaved abnormally. I conclude that this is because the Bible is lying about the Biblical God making the sun and the moon stand still.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #120]

Thoughts cannot be natural things, since all natural things must obey natural law.

Thoughts however can defy and even work against natural law. Thoughts are the spiritual things not bound by nature, and supernatural works are the spiritual actions that defy nature law.


Jhn 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

These are the words of the Spirit creating and making all natural things, through spiritual means. They simply say what is obvious to all thinking men and women: Thinking is not a natural substance bound by natural law. Thinking is proof of the spiritual kingdom, that is not natural substance nor bound by natural law.

Men and women thinking and imagining, is daily proof that men and women are created in the image of God the Spirit, apart from the animals that think not, nor imagine anything not naturally seen, heard, tasted, and felt.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #115]

Multiple independent eyewitnesses of the same event, without contradiction, is verified proof.

Only if independence and eyewitness status are demonstrated — not merely asserted.

You are assuming what must first be proven.

Agreement between texts does not automatically establish:

• That the authors were eyewitnesses
• That they wrote independently
• That their accounts were not shaped by shared tradition

The resurrection narratives do not name themselves within the texts as firsthand signed affidavits. The Gospel titles were attached later. That immediately weakens the “identifiable eyewitness” claim.

When the witnesses identify themselves, they are identifiable.

None of the resurrection narratives contain signed, self-authenticating legal testimony.

The Gospels are anonymous narratives written in third person.

Paul claims visionary experience — but that is not the same category as physical forensic documentation.

Identifiable means historically traceable with external corroboration — not merely traditionally attributed.

When the testimonies are independent given, they are independent.

Independence must be demonstrated, not declared.

The majority scholarly view holds:

• Matthew and Luke use Mark as a source.
• John was written decades later in a developed theological context.
• Paul’s letters predate the Gospels but do not describe the empty tomb narrative in detail.

If sources share literary dependence, they are not independent witnesses in a legal sense.

All of the correct conditions qualify when the same event is testified and agreed in the different books and letters in the Bible.

But they do not fully agree.

Examples:

• Who arrived at the tomb?
• How many angels were present?
• When exactly did appearances occur?
• Where did the disciples first see Jesus — Galilee or Jerusalem?

These are not trivial details in a legal standard of cross-examination.

Agreement in broad claim is not identical to agreement in detail.

Multiple independent eyewitness agreement is verified proof for historical and legal evidence.

Not automatically.

In legal settings:

• Witnesses are cross-examined.
• Their psychological reliability is assessed.
• Their accounts are compared under adversarial scrutiny.

We cannot cross-examine ancient authors.

Historical methodology operates probabilistically — not with courtroom “verified proof.”

The principle of two or three witnesses applies.

That principle is a theological standard from Deuteronomy.

It is not a universally binding epistemological rule for all extraordinary claims.

If two or three testimonies automatically verified miracles, then:

• Marian apparitions
• Islamic miracle claims
• Hindu miracle claims

would also be “verified proof.”

Consistency requires applying the same standard everywhere.

Name any other Book of multiple independent books and letters, that all agree without fault.

Internal agreement does not establish supernatural truth.

A perfectly consistent fictional narrative is still fiction.

The question is not literary coherence.
The question is empirical plausibility.

Rejecting supernatural events due to natural law is faith in nature alone.

No.

It is inference from uniform experience.

Every verified death in medical history has resulted in permanent biological cessation.

That is not metaphysical dogma — it is induction from repeated observation.

If someone claims a resurrection, the evidential bar rises precisely because it contradicts uniform experience.

That is not “faith in nature.”
It is proportioning belief to evidence.

False. No medical record verifies Jesus' death.

We do not possess Roman medical certificates for crucifixion victims in general.

Yet crucifixion is well-attested as a lethal method of execution.

To argue that because we lack a death certificate therefore resurrection is plausible shifts the burden of proof.

The claim is not “Jesus died like everyone else.”
The claim is “Jesus uniquely reversed death.”

The burden rests on the extraordinary claim being proven with proportionate evidence.

If you believe the supernatural is possible, you would not subject all supernatural claims to natural proof.

Possibility ≠ probability.

It is logically possible that:

• Alien beings exist.
• Psychic powers exist.
• Miracles occur.

But possibility alone does not compel belief.

Evidence must distinguish one supernatural claim from thousands of competing ones.

You are when you demand natural proof for supernatural events.

No.

I am not asserting knowledge beyond the grave.

You are asserting a specific historical miracle occurred.

The burden of proof rests on the positive claimant.

Requesting evidence is not making a counter-assertion.

With verified independent multiple testimonies, it's verified evidence.

That is precisely the issue: verification.

Verification requires:

• Demonstrated independence
• Demonstrated eyewitness access
• Demonstrated contemporaneity
• Demonstrated absence of legendary development

Those are debated — not settled — in scholarship.

The argument ultimately rests on this leap:

Agreement → Inerrancy → Divine authorship → Miracle verified.

Each arrow requires independent justification.

Without that, the reasoning remains circular.

The core issue is methodological consistency.

If two or three agreeing ancient texts automatically verify miracles, then we must accept miracle claims across religions.

If we do not accept those, then the standard is not agreement alone.

Historical reasoning is probabilistic, not absolute.

Extraordinary claims require proportionally strong evidence.

That principle applies everywhere — including here.

Nothing new here.

Without something new to the argument, then the circular debate ends here. Thanks much.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #114]

False accusation against a thousand generation of scribes making exact copies.

This is not an accusation. It is a documented historical fact.

We possess thousands of manuscripts of the Biblical texts — and they contain textual variants. That is not controversial; it is the foundation of the entire discipline of textual criticism.

nd yet, the written product is unerring, which makes endless transcript debates an inconsequential sideshow.

When anyone wants to try and show an error in the finished product at hand for all to read, then I'll be glad to look at it.

So far as this thread goes, a recorded supernatural event not proven by natural means, only confirms the definition of a supernatural event.

Without contextual error elsewhere, then the recorded event is just supernaturally unbound by nature and nature's law. The supernatural event itself is neither disproven nor proven. The eyewitness record is simply evidence for review.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #118]

Correlations are positive connections.
Brain is physical matter. Electricity is physically measurable. No single thought has ever been physically measured nor established.

Simply asserting “it is spiritual” does not meet that burden.

Someone can call thoughts other than spiritual things, but they certainly can't be called natural things.

The burden of trying to deny things that exist outside of nature, when the denying thoughts are those not-natural things, must be heavy indeed.

You can lighten your load though, if calling those not-natural things 'spiritual', burdens you so. You can call your thoughts whatever you like, if it will make you feel better. Perhaps you can call them groks? But you certainly can't call them natural, unless you want to inform the natural science communicty, that you can naturally see and measure and know thoughts: Maybe the Amazing Kreskin can help you read minds too?

"Oh, if you could read my mind love, what a tale my thoughts could tell..." And also what an Amazing career reading and knowing all thoughts through natural means, just like all natural things in the universe...