jayhawk1 and pseudoxristos seem like they may not have actually read my and jst2laws posts. It seems they are still locked into 100% literal interpretation.
How should we know the answers to these questions? Maybe in the heat of battle it seemed like a whole day--I don't know. You're asking question that can only be speculated. Do I believe the earth literally stopped for a day? --No. Do I think the writer of the account might have exaggerated. Maybe. Do I think it's critical to the message? No.
Wasa and Farkel:
I do understand where you are coming from. I don't discount your logic. On the other hand, its the same as for jayhawk1 and pseudoxristos: All I or anyone could do is speculate on these specific questions. There is no way to know another person's mind.
The reasons for my faith cannot be answered in a short post. There are too many details.
I hope it doesn't seem like a cop-out reply, but the best way I can summarize it briefly is that my independent study of the Bible leads me to see an underlying message, that some of it is inspired, or at least the story is inspired, because there are too many coincidences that culminate in the man Jesus, particularly in the last week of his life. And, for me, I cannot conceive that the universe came from nothing. I've heard the logical arguments on both sides of that question, and for me, it couldn't happen without a supreme intelligence. In the Bible, some of the things I am fascinated by, I discovered by my own observation. Things that are not readily evident without looking for it. I'll give you one example (one of many):
Skeptics will say that the Gospels were probably written after the fact, designed to make it look like Jesus fulfilled prophecy. Then I have a question for them. But first, a little background of Israelite tradition:
As you know the story of Moses coming down from the mountain with the two stone tablets, and upon finding the Israelites committing idolatry, he threw down the tablets and commanded the Levites to execute them. It says that 3000 were slain. (For this point, forget whether it was literally 3000, or whether this was a loving God, etc. It's the story here.) In Jesus' day, tradition held that this occasion was the first Pentecost.
PENTECOST Thereafter, the celebration of Pentecost was to be observed 50 days after the first day of the week following Passover (i.e., the day after the Sabbath that followed Passover). See Ex..334:22; Lev.23:15-17; Deut.16:8-10
That first day of the week following Passover was known as the celebration of "First Fruits". It was also known as the "Festival of Weeks" which began the counting of 50 days to Pentecost, another festival. (Incidentally, I happen to be in agreement with the Bible scholars who determine that Jesus was executed on Friday, the day before Passover began that evening after sundown, and followed through the day of Saturday (Sabbath) until sundown.
NOW THE QUESTION: How is it that all four of the Gospel writers failed to observe this very important point in all of their accounts: That not only did Jesus die at the 9th hour when the first lamb was slaughtered in the temple by the high priest for the sins of Israel, but he was risen on the first day of the week following passover, i.e., the day of the festival of "first fruits"?
This is what was required to make this happen: 1) Passover had to fall on the Sabbath that year so it would be "parts of three days" from the Sabbath to their Festival of First Fruits.
(And btw, that is how the Israelites did count (a part of a day or a year counted as one)--we know from the way they counted the years of reigns of kings compared to the way the Babylonans counted. This point is covered in COJ's book Gentile Times Reconsidered.) 2) Jesus had to be executed on the day before Sabbath.
50 days later, on Pentecost, it says that 3000 were converted. Acts 2:41
The first Pentecost 3000 died, that last Pentecost 3000 saved. =============================
Please realize I'm not trying to sway anyone, but you might at the very least find the coincidences interesting.
~Ros