<p>This is arguably a theological rather than science-based issue, but since it is cross-cutting I will answer it. No, there is no possible mechanism for the sun to cease shining for three hours, but neither is there any such imperative implied in the original Greek text, which requires only a <em>relative</em> darkening of the sun. You are correct is recognizing that this was no eclipse. It may be noted that comparable 'darkness' is implied in other Biblical accounts, such as in Exodus, Joshua and Amos. Nowhere in these four texts is <em>total darkness</em> either stated or implied, but naturalistic explanations (i.e. scientific) - which in no way detract from the spiritual intent of the text - may be eminently applied to correct textural understanding.</p>

<p>As in so many modern misunderstandings, the apparent conflict between science and Biblical theology entirely disappears when the Bible is read sensibly from the appropriate perspective. The Bible is not a modern Greco-Roman literalist quasi-scientific text, and it is absurd to treat it as such. the Bible is basically a spiritually-inspired collection of 2000 to 3000 year-old Hebrew texts, written in the parabolic allegory-rich idiom of ancient Jewish culture. For all that, it is no less accurate in spiritual wisdom - but radically different from the 21st century world views. 
Not only is it literature from a different culture, we also don't have any of the original texts! You are arguing on the basis of a modern British translation of a Greek translation of presumed Aramaic literature, which itself may have undergone several cycles of editing (as in the Noah story, which has at least four cycles of precursor literature).  Subtleties of meaning are lost in each stage of translation, so before drawing over-literal assumptions, first at least check the nuances of the earliest Greek translation. Had you done that, the question of absolute darkness would not have arisen, and partial darkness would more than adequately have proved correct - such as a sandstorm (as 'A child of God' suggested) or a super-cell storm cloud - which does occasionally occur in the Israeli highlands. Such superstorm events may indeed <em>seem</em> to be like night if they occur only minutes after the intense bright Mediterranean sunlight of the Jerusalem highlands.</p>

<p>Many Christians get hot under the collar when scientific explanations are applied to miracles such as this. It need not be so. It is not a case of "look at God doing the impossible, again", but of placing due emphasis upon the true miracle, which is the exquisite timing of the event in support of God's unfolding plan.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-10-27T07:26:08.767Z
2016-10-27T07:26:08.767Z
Gordon Stanger
<p>What could have caused the Sun to appear to have stopped shining from noon 'till 3 in the afternoon? According to the Bible, at Jesus' crucifixion, darkness covered the land because the sun stopped shining from noon 'till 3 in the afternoon. What could have caused this phenomena? I know it couldn't be a solar eclipse, since they don't last that long and there weren't any on April 3rd of 33 AD (date of Crucifixion, see <a href="http://bible.wikia.com/wiki/User:AChildOfGod/Death_of_Jesus" rel="nofollow">here</a> for why). So what known phenomena might have caused this said darkness?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-10-26T14:58:05.830Z
Note, we will treat this essentially as a theoretical question.
L.B.
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-10-26T15:08:04.063Z
Ok. That works. Note for those who will answer, I found one possibility on NBC News that said it could have been caused by a dust storm. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/47555983/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/quake-reveals-day-jesus-crucifixion-researchers-believe/#.WBDFC9IrLIU However, I do not know if this would be a likely explanation.
Christian Sirolli
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-10-26T16:00:31.967Z
The Sun stopped shining?  How about clouds?
gerrit
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-10-26T16:02:51.540Z
@AChildofGod As an ardent Christian myself, let me suggest that trying to overly specify the exact date and scientific principles behind events in the Bible is unwise. Keeping the scientific method separate from your faith will give you a clearer vision of both science and faith.
kingledion
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-10-26T16:53:49.537Z
@kingledion However, when Science backs up the Bible, the two go hand-in-hand. Such is the case with the lunar eclipse. Using the Bible and History I got that exact date. Science simply supported it. I am mostly curious about what could have caused this darkness.
Christian Sirolli
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-10-26T16:56:42.340Z
@gerrit They would have to be dark storm clouds for the sun to appear to not shine. No rain is mentioned, and they knew the difference between storm clouds and and the sun stop shining.
Christian Sirolli
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-10-27T00:52:00.540Z
Looking at this from pure history, what's written can often be misinterpreted.   "The sun stopped shining" or the "son of god, the light of god" stopped shining.   In this example, one letter changes everything.  When you consider that the written word that has been translated twice, first to Latin, often written decades after the events took place and the final Latin words that we can read today weren't selected until the Council of Nicaea in 331, and then, translated a 2nd time, to English some 1,300 years later.   No historian would take the written word as literal history.
userLTK
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-10-27T01:32:09.643Z
What the scientist would do (and this borders more on history than astrology), is look for other written accounts.   Was it a local event (clouds or something like clouds) or was it global (in which case, people in China might have made note of the event).    Looking for historic events like super-novas, multiple sightings across multiple locations is considered strong evidence.   If the event was local and took place nearly 2,000 years ago, that's harder to verify, especially in an area where the written word was rare.  It's very hard to deduce much on this with scientific reasoning.
userLTK
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-10-31T21:47:10.783Z
Trying to find a scientific explanation for Biblical miracles is akin to trying to explain what chemical reaction could've caused Jesus to rise from the dead, or what scientifically happened when God created the world.  I too am an ardent Christ like kingledion.  Looking for possible explanations for miracles can lead some to danger is that it gives science and rationale an undue place in power.  Such that when other confusing things happen, those same people demand an answer, an explanation, a reason, as well.  It starts setting our feelings and understanding up as a undue temple.
JeopardyTempest
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-10-31T21:59:28.077Z
Comparatively Abraham, David, Paul, Peter, James, weren't interested in the why, in the making sense... but in following the Lord loyally in all. Revealing forth God's Spirit. Dedicated to loving truly, battling for truth, putting God first. Jesus didn't come answering many questions of understanding. But confounding. Yet showing forth continually what really matters. For all Solomon's earthly wisdom, he went askew. It takes a very special spirit to withstand the pride and idols of earthly knowledge. Consider it a richness in Mat 19. Tread wary. “Be still, and know that I am God"
JeopardyTempest
<meteorology><climatology><sun>
Sun Appearing to have Stopped Shining
Christian Sirolli
# Sun Appearing to have Stopped Shining

(Asked by: username_0 on 2016-10-26)

What could have caused the Sun to appear to have stopped shining from noon 'till 3 in the afternoon? According to the Bible, at Jesus' crucifixion, darkness covered the land because the sun stopped shining from noon 'till 3 in the afternoon. What could have caused this phenomena? I know it couldn't be a solar eclipse, since they don't last that long and there weren't any on April 3rd of 33 AD (date of Crucifixion, see [here](http://bible.wikia.com/wiki/User:AChildOfGod/Death_of_Jesus) for why). So what known phenomena might have caused this said darkness?

**Tags:** meteorology, climatology, sun

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Note, we will treat this essentially as a theoretical question.  
> **username_0**: Ok. That works. Note for those who will answer, I found one possibility on NBC News that said it could have been caused by a dust storm. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/47555983/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/quake-reveals-day-jesus-crucifixion-researchers-believe/#.WBDFC9IrLIU However, I do not know if this would be a likely explanation.  
> **username_2**: The Sun stopped shining?  How about clouds?  
> **username_3**: @AChildofGod As an ardent username_0 myself, let me suggest that trying to overly specify the exact date and scientific principles behind events in the Bible is unwise. Keeping the scientific method separate from your faith will give you a clearer vision of both science and faith.  
> **username_0**: @username_3 However, when Science backs up the Bible, the two go hand-in-hand. Such is the case with the lunar eclipse. Using the Bible and History I got that exact date. Science simply supported it. I am mostly curious about what could have caused this darkness.  
> **username_0**: @username_2 They would have to be dark storm clouds for the sun to appear to not shine. No rain is mentioned, and they knew the difference between storm clouds and and the sun stop shining.  
> **username_4**: Looking at this from pure history, what's written can often be misinterpreted.   "The sun stopped shining" or the "son of god, the light of god" stopped shining.   In this example, one letter changes everything.  When you consider that the written word that has been translated twice, first to Latin, often written decades after the events took place and the final Latin words that we can read today weren't selected until the Council of Nicaea in 331, and then, translated a 2nd time, to English some 1,300 years later.   No historian would take the written word as literal history.  
> **username_4**: What the scientist would do (and this borders more on history than astrology), is look for other written accounts.   Was it a local event (clouds or something like clouds) or was it global (in which case, people in China might have made note of the event).    Looking for historic events like super-novas, multiple sightings across multiple locations is considered strong evidence.   If the event was local and took place nearly 2,000 years ago, that's harder to verify, especially in an area where the written word was rare.  It's very hard to deduce much on this with scientific reasoning.  
> **username_5**: Trying to find a scientific explanation for Biblical miracles is akin to trying to explain what chemical reaction could've caused Jesus to rise from the dead, or what scientifically happened when God created the world.  I too am an ardent Christ like username_3.  Looking for possible explanations for miracles can lead some to danger is that it gives science and rationale an undue place in power.  Such that when other confusing things happen, those same people demand an answer, an explanation, a reason, as well.  It starts setting our feelings and understanding up as a undue temple.  
> **username_5**: Comparatively Abraham, David, Paul, Peter, James, weren't interested in the why, in the making sense... but in following the Lord loyally in all. Revealing forth God's Spirit. Dedicated to loving truly, battling for truth, putting God first. Jesus didn't come answering many questions of understanding. But confounding. Yet showing forth continually what really matters. For all Solomon's earthly wisdom, he went askew. It takes a very special spirit to withstand the pride and idols of earthly knowledge. Consider it a richness in Mat 19. Tread wary. “Be still, and know that I am God"  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_6 on 2016-10-27. Score: 2 | Accepted answer

This is arguably a theological rather than science-based issue, but since it is cross-cutting I will answer it. No, there is no possible mechanism for the sun to cease shining for three hours, but neither is there any such imperative implied in the original Greek text, which requires only a *relative* darkening of the sun. You are correct is recognizing that this was no eclipse. It may be noted that comparable 'darkness' is implied in other Biblical accounts, such as in Exodus, Joshua and Amos. Nowhere in these four texts is *total darkness* either stated or implied, but naturalistic explanations (i.e. scientific) - which in no way detract from the spiritual intent of the text - may be eminently applied to correct textural understanding.

As in so many modern misunderstandings, the apparent conflict between science and Biblical theology entirely disappears when the Bible is read sensibly from the appropriate perspective. The Bible is not a modern Greco-Roman literalist quasi-scientific text, and it is absurd to treat it as such. the Bible is basically a spiritually-inspired collection of 2000 to 3000 year-old Hebrew texts, written in the parabolic allegory-rich idiom of ancient Jewish culture. For all that, it is no less accurate in spiritual wisdom - but radically different from the 21st century world views.
Not only is it literature from a different culture, we also don't have any of the original texts! You are arguing on the basis of a modern British translation of a Greek translation of presumed Aramaic literature, which itself may have undergone several cycles of editing (as in the Noah story, which has at least four cycles of precursor literature). Subtleties of meaning are lost in each stage of translation, so before drawing over-literal assumptions, first at least check the nuances of the earliest Greek translation. Had you done that, the question of absolute darkness would not have arisen, and partial darkness would more than adequately have proved correct - such as a sandstorm (as 'A child of God' suggested) or a super-cell storm cloud - which does occasionally occur in the Israeli highlands. Such superstorm events may indeed *seem* to be like night if they occur only minutes after the intense bright Mediterranean sunlight of the Jerusalem highlands.

Many Christians get hot under the collar when scientific explanations are applied to miracles such as this. It need not be so. It is not a case of "look at God doing the impossible, again", but of placing due emphasis upon the true miracle, which is the exquisite timing of the event in support of God's unfolding plan.


---

