Steve, my basic understanding of such passages is that the Bible
uses the "language of appearance". This does not take away from
the miraculous element of the Joshua incident - but it does allow
flexibility in attempting a technical explanation. I have, for
another purpose written some things about this incident, and an
edited version is below. Hope it is useful.
-----------------------------------------------------
Examples of texts used by the Medieval scholars to prove that the
Earth is at rest are: Psalm 93:1 "The world is firmly
established; it cannot be moved", and Ecclesiastes 1:4
"Generations come and generations go, but the Earth remains for
ever". In both cases, the nature of the `movement' and the
`remaining' was considered to be spatial. Other texts which were
suggested to belong to this category are Psalm 102:25; 104:5;
119:90; Isaiah 42:5; 44:24; 48:13 and Zechariah 12:1.
Examples of texts used to prove that the Sun is in motion around
the Earth are: Ecclesiastes 1:5 "The Sun rises and the Sun sets,
and hurries back to where it rises", and Psalm 104:19 "The Sun
knows when to go down". Again, the `rising', `setting' and
`going down' were considered to have a spatial meaning. Other
texts suggested to be in this category are Genesis 19:23; Joshua
10:12; Psalm 19:5; 136:6; Isaiah 38:8 and Habbakuk 3:11.
The Copernicans followed one of two strategies. One option was
to avoid conflict by playing down the physical reality of
heliocentrism. What did it matter - as long as Copernican
mathematics delivered good and useful results? This strategy was
a compromise, but it did enjoy a time of dominance. It was
inserted as an introductory comment in Copernicus' book de
Revolutionibus by Osiander. It was also a key thought in the
Wittenberg Interpretation, championed by the Reformer
Melanchthon.
Copernicus himself considered that his theory was physically
true. He, and some 16th Century Copernicans, advocated the
language of appearance argument. This is expressed in a more
general way by what has become known as the "principle of
accommodation", namely, that God has chosen to use words in
Scripture which are an accommodation to the non-technical
perspectives of the readers.
The principle of accommodation is rejected outright by some.
This is best illustrated by reference to the advocates of
geocentricity. These people consider that accommodation is an
attack on the veracity of God. Thus Bouw (Geocentricity, 1992)
writes, in the context of the sun "standing still" in the day of
Joshua:
"Thus when one claims that Joshua 10:13 is phenomenological, one
effectively claims that God is not presenting the situation as
it actually is but only presents it as it appears to be. If the
appearance is not the same as actual fact, then in the final
analysis God is not relaying accurate information about the
situation. For the sake of "convenience" God wrote an untruth.
God presented the appearance of the situation as the truth rather
than presenting the truth as the truth: this is what one means
when one says that the Bible speaks phenomenologically.
"Phenomenological or anthropocentric: either the sun stood still
or the earth stood still; either God inerrantly inspired the
wording or He did not; either the Bible is trustworthy or it is
not. There is no middle ground. There is no room for
compromise. . . . Good though it may sound on the surface,
accommodation still maintains that God goes along with the
accepted story even though he really does not believe it." (page
75)."
Bouw's summary of the issues makes the concept entirely negative
and destructive. Historically, however, accommodation was not
an attempt to twist God's words, and it was used by people who
felt that the principle helps in rightly understanding the Word
of God. This is not a controversy about inerrancy - the concern
is with hermeneutics.
It is necessary to respond to Bouw's claim that accommodation
makes God go along with the accepted story even though he really
does not believe it. It is worth drawing attention to a comment
of Rheticus (Copernicus' best known disciple): "We distinguish
in our minds between appearance and reality". In our scientific
culture, we have grown accustomed to the idea that appearance and
reality are two different things. We treat the appearance as
something superficial and say that it is necessary to get beneath
the surface and find out what's really going on! If someone then
refers to the Bible using the language of appearance, we tend to
think that the motive is to justify erroneous or primitive ideas
in the Bible. The problem is that our cultural norms are
inhibiting understanding. It is suggested that the culture of the
Bible is a-scientific or non-scientific. Within this culture, the
appearance is not to be regarded as something which conceals reality.
On the contrary, the appearance is the reality. So, for example, it
is entirely legitimate for such a person to describe the sun as
rising in the east and setting in the west - this is reality!
-------------------------------------------------------------
Best wishes,
*** From David J. Tyler, CDT Department, Hollings Faculty,
Manchester Metropolitan University, UK.
Telephone: 0161-247-2636 ***