Joshua 10 Is Not Phenomenological "...as if..."
Joshua 10 Is Not Phenomenological "...as if..."
Did I not say that even normal people say that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, as if the sun were the object moving and not the earth? I think that's the third time...
Did I not say the Joshua account is
not phenomenological? Why you keep appealing to a phenomenological (
as if...) stance eludes me. This is the same reasoning used by those that would deny the miracle in Joshua 10. They would argue what was recorded was but what the writer and the audience at the time thought things merely
appeared to them versus the reality that is described in Joshua 10. I explained this in detail.
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 phenomenological 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.
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.
We investigate our universe by presupposing God and the cosmology described in Scripture. Science will have none of that, for it hypothesizes contrary to Scripture then declares the "facts" of its own hypotheses. 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.
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.
So where in the Bible do you derive the idea that the earth moves about the sun? If you do not derive it from the Bible then you have no right to impose it on the biblical text.
But then the text is also obviously challenging our assumption that the earth revolves around the sun. Why are we at liberty to disregard this challenge? And if we can disregard this challenge, why could not Joshua's contemporaries disregard certain things which would have challenged them? In the end, we would end up merely reading assumptions and challenges into the text rather than simply reading the text as it stands.
The Joshua 10 account obviously does not teach us physics, astronomy, or any other science; but the passage makes a statement about the sun,
that it ordinarily moves, and that a miracle occurred when it stopped moving. Whatever one thinks about physics, astronomy, or any other science, he has no right to impose his unproven, ever advancing scientific explanations on the Bible and make it say something other than what it says
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
