[geocentrism] Re: Joshua's Long Day

Gerardus Bouw, in his book "Geocentricity," makes a case for Joshua's long
day being observed across the entire World, as indeed it would be if the Sun
and Moon did actually stop moving for "almost a whole day."
There?s no problem taking Joshua?s Day as a global effect.   It?s
historically unfalsifiable, unless records exist of a long day far from the
Holy Land.
And it?s consistent with the timekeeping role of the heavenly objects, to be
universal clocks. ( Day 4 of creation)
But this global long day belief provides an out for modernists opposed to
geostatism. They say the Earth stopped rotating for the long day, giving the
?appearance? that the Sun stopped moving - despite the words of Scripture
that the Sun indeed ceased motion.
 However, does not the local nature of the claimed sighting at Fatima
contradict the premise that the Sun actually moved in the heavens?
This question indicates that you need more information about the Fatima Sun
miracle.
Our Lady promised a miracle as a sign to unbelievers (including the local
prelates) , BUT THE NATURE OF THE MIRACLE WAS NOT ANNOUNCED.
Unlike the Joshua miracle, there was no change in time involved ? local or
global.
After a heavy rain, the clouds parted to reveal a multicolored Sun that grew
in size, spinning like a pinwheel, and appearing to be plunging toward
earth.  Blinded and terrified, the crowd hid their eyes,expecting the end of
the world.  When they opened their eyes, the Sun was in its normal position
and all the ground and clothes were dry ? as Phillip has said.
In modern times we have witnessed and recorded proof that our God is truly
omnipotent over all things, the Sun a mere plaything in His hands.
Now Robert has said:
As there were many secular unbelievers who were witnesses , it should be of
special interest to ALL geocentrists ...
Why of special interest? Apparently the significance of this miracle to the
GS vs HC debate has not been grasped.
Joshua?s day as a GS proof can be sidestepped by modernists by
misinterpreting the Bible, as above. No such deception works here?.
To use the same argument of a local change in Earth?s rotation requires that
the Fatima field and surrounding area start spinning and moving towards the
immobile Sun of the HC world, while the rest of the world continues
rotating.   Now I think someone not at Fatima would have noticed this.
The Fatima miracle, performed before a mixed audience of  70,000, supports
GS more than Joshua?s day!  Yet still they have no eyes to see!
The site of the miracle is close to some forum members, just across the
Channel from Britain ? has anyone bothered to research the veracity of the
claims made by Catholics but bearing the secular support of the 1917
European newspapers?
If the effect was real, rather than mass hallucination caused by hyping
themselves up into a frenzy of expectation, then could it not have been
produced by the Devil?

This expected objection will be answered, for the benefit of the other
readers (if any), but there?s little hope for a true connection.
Dialogue is difficult when one party chooses to discard certain parts of
Revelation as true, as if Scripture were a huge buffet table , where one
picks only what truth is acceptable to swallow and avoids anything that
gives spiritual indigestion.  Or finds conspiracies lurking under every
rock.   Scepticism is often justified, but without any trust at all,  it
progresses to cynicism and agnosticism.

This difficulty leads to passing up responses ? why bother? . At least PD is
consistent; we know that he swallows modern science mischief w/o question.


To claim this solar miracle was a mass hallucination ,  please explain:
*       How 70,000 people can all imagine the same phantasm?. Including children
and sceptics
*       How the physical effect of immediate drying is really a mass mental 
state
( it seems this physical proof was included to thwart the scoffers)
*       How the crowd knew what to hallucinate, if no advance notice of miracle
type was given?
*       Why the divine advice about testing for good and bad fruits ? given
previously ? doesn?t hold here

         My reasoning would have been to do the opposite, which is why I am 
always
argueing with Him.
 Philip.
So do I ? but I haven?t won an argument yet.
Robert.

Other related posts: