From the point of view of an observer on Earth, how could such a person tell the difference between the stopping in its orbit of Earth or the Earth adjusting its spin such that the same side of the planet was facing the sun as the Earth continued in its orbit.
This view denies the verbal plenary inspiration of the Bible.
The passage from Joshua was quite clear in that a man commanded the sun to stand still and it obeyed. To read more into the passage, as if it is all about relative perception, phenomenology, etc. goes beyond the explicitness of the biblical account. We have no warrant to thrust an allegorical interpretation on the passage. We have no liberty in the Joshua account to assume the Bible merely accommodated its language to the misconception of the one/s telling or reading the account.
The miracle described in Joshua is not a matter of mere observation for his command was instrumental to the miracle—the sun historically, in the time-space continuum, literally stood still. Everyday phenomonological language is to be accepted in the Bible only where it can be proven by internal markers in the text, not from quasi-scientific considerations being imposed on the text.
As I have implied in an earlier post, if one adopts a phenomologcal view, some literary markers would be necessary to conclude that this was just how it appeared and not rather what actually happened. Even then, however,
interpreting cosmological phenomena in Scripture requires an understanding of biblical cosmology. The fact is that the Bible everywhere presents the sun in motion relative to the earth. And it is also a fact that science truly so called allows various geocentric functions, e.g., navigation. Hence there is no reason for interpreting the biblical text in a figurative or less than literal manner. Special revelation requires us to understand that the sun literally stood still and general revelation really offers no voice of criticism to it.
Now the less informed on matters of interpretation of the Bible might claim, "
But doesn't historical writing have to make sense to the original audience as well? Could this not have been an instance of what appeared to have happened as would have been understood by those at the time?" To this I reply that this requires accommodation to mistaken conceptions, which is liberal accommodation. Think of the consequences if this possibility was actually entertained. The liberals would have all the justification they need for explaining away the miraculous in the Bible since everyone to whom the Bible was written thought in terms of the miraculous.
The miracle described in Joshua 10 was an actual event rather than something the people "apparently" witnessed. The Bible declared
what (the sun) stood still and we have no exegetical warrant to deny it. Joshua's prayer is instrumental in the miracle. "
And there was no day like that before it or after it, that the LORD hearkened unto the voice of a man: for the LORD fought for Israel."
To cast doubt on the factuality of the prayer or the event is to cast doubt on the miracle. To cast doubt on the narration of these is to cast doubt on the plenary inspiration of the Bible.
What is a miracle? If we define it as a work which transcends the ordinary operations of providence then it is obvious that one must have a correct view of "nature" in order to know when a miracle has taken place. If the biblical writers/readers were mistaken as to the way the world works then there is no way of knowing that something over and above the ordinary course of providence has taken place. Let's be confident God is wise enough to know that if He accommodated errors of "perception" there would be no way for believers to know when He was telling truth and when He was accommodating error, to the point there could be no certainty about any fact.
The cosmology of biblical revelation as a whole can only be understood as geocentric. There is no necessity to re-evaluate or reformulate biblical revelation in the light of hypotheses which themselves are undergoing continual re-evaluation and reformulation. There is no need to attempt to alter the Bible to make it look credible in the eyes of the scientific community. There are pertinent philosophical considerations which limit the scope of empirical science, and allow us to hold to the biblical view even when it conflicts with the observations of men. Our aim should always be to let the Bible speak for itself, and to accept its message regardless of how it is judged by others.
Holy Writ explicitly says the sun stood still, yet for some reason a believer is considered laughable for believing what the Bible clearly states. In Matthew 1:25 we read, "And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS."
Both Joshua 10:13 and Matthew 1:25 are narratives describing what actually happened. Both are described as events which took place by means of divine power working in an extraordinary way. Now why should the one statement require qualification and not the other? Gibeon provides the location from Joshua's standpoint while heaven provides the reference point as to the cessation of motion. The text states that the miracle consisted not only in the sun standing still, but in the sun standing still in response to a man's command and that the Lord hearkened to the man.
If the sun did not actually stand still one must wonder wherein the miracle consisted. One must stretch the
primae facie meaning of the text to limit the frame of reference to Gibeon, and thereby suppose the miracle takes place entirely in the phenomenological realm; and I would ask why any exegete is motivated to do this. There is nothing in the text to constrain it. There is nothing in the Scriptures themselves which suggest an alternate viewpoint. From where does the alternate viewpoint arise which constrains this exegesis? I have great difficulty conceiving of a miracle which only takes place on a
phenomenological level. If the "natural" is merely one of appearance, then the "supernatural" is merely above and beyond the appearance. To make sense of the creation, narrative phenomena, poetical descriptions, prophetic utterances, one must begin with geocentrism as more than merely focusing attention on the earth.
There is only one reality; that is the one God created and reveals to us. Within this one reality there are diverse relationships, and these diversities are complicated by the fall. Christians in general accept that sinful human beings with all their follies are permitted to exercise dominion in this world under a restraining and forbearing Providence, and that this is subservient to the higher redemptive purpose whereby God saves, gathers, and builds up His elect in the world. This worldview should allow us to work in the world and to accredit "scientific observation" according to a temporal perspective without granting ultimate epistemic validity to a fallen worldview.
The facts are that there is no shift between (1)Joshua's prayer, (2) God's answer to the prayer, and (3) the inspired narrator's statement of fact. From each and every perspective,
the sun stood still. In a fight between the text and the interpreter the text wins every time and those that oppose the text must concede.
AMR
