The foremost problem with explanations of Biblical miracles (as opposed to the miraculous claims of other religions which, ironically, Christian apologists' dismiss out of hand) such as those found in publication as 'Answers in Genesis' and 'Christian Answers' is, while claiming that "...such a miracle is beyond scientific explanation," and "...it is futile to speculate with scientific theories...," evidences of such an occurrences or events would be discernable by scientific means. Additionally, there are Christian internet sites that do exactly this: use modern science in an attempt to confirm Biblical events. For example "Trust the Bible" <www.trustthebible.com> goes to great lengths to 'prove' Biblical miracles in a very (quasi) scientific and gee-whiz approach to these subjects. The fact is there is no way these events could have happen and not leave some evidence and there is clearly no evidence of the major Biblical miracles. Moreover, these would certainly have been observed by other cultures. Although Joshua's 'long day,' 'missing day,' and 'two dawns,' are motifs in other cultures (the Mayan and Chinese to name a couple), they do not correspond timewise with the Biblical timing and vis-versa. This also presents an interesting 'counterclaim' to these events. Why could it not be a Mayan or Buddhist priest performing these miracles and by happen chance and coincidence correspond to a Hebrew battle or illness of a king?
What is really interesting about this approach is the initial using of science, to argue (albeit in a circle) of the existence of a supernatural power by trying to prove what may be a natural event, if it ever happened in the first place. Then, using 'how it could of been' scenarios in trying to explain how this is related to and fits the Biblical stories. This is a typical ploy and type of circular argument used by the apologist when they cannot explain these tales and stories that just do not make sense standing alone. Ergo Joshua's long day urban myth. If these things really happened and were accurately recorded and independently confirmed, there would be no need to come up with these fantastic explanations. Even if it happened, how would that relate to Yahweh? It gets ludicrous to think a god is playing pinball with the planets just to give one person a few hours more of sunlight to kill people. This lowers Yahweh to a prankster level.
Perhaps the largest obstacle to the Joshua story is the Amorites themselves. They were a very prominate tribe of the Levant. A very cultured people, educated, and literate. Among the great literary achievements of the Old Babylonians was the compilation of a series of Sumerian stories surround the legendary king of Uruk, of Gilgamesh. This collection tells how this king destroyed the demon of the Lebanese cedar forests, defied the gods, and discovered the secret of the flood and its survivors. Yet, despite this literary ability, no mention is made of this particular battle or of the sun standing still for them in defeat. By the time of Samuel, "there was peace between Israel and the Amorites" (1 Sam. 7:14). Less than a century later, Solomon enslaved the last few survivors (1 Kgs. 9:20-21). The Amorites are last mentioned by the prophet Amos (2:10), apparently either having died out as a race or absorbed into Israel. All that is left is but a memory and best known for King Hammurabi (c.1792-1750 BCE) the Amorite King of Babylon, who wrote his Code of Laws (of which many of the early Hebrew laws are based upon, including the basis of codifying laws and Commandments) and the collections of epic poetry where we should certainly expect to find the 'long day' battle.
Using Occam's Razor, is it not more reasonable (and simpler) to think the author of Joshua was waxing poetic about Joshua entreating the sun and moon to stand still, as to favor the ancient Hebrews in their battle with the Amorites? (cf. the Wish of Agamemnon, Illiad, II 412-18) If not, why not? The fact that the song is placed after rather than before the battle suggest that it was originally a song of victory related to a religious celebration. The reference to "as it is written in the book of Jashar", (Jos.10:13) a Hebrew book of poetry no longer extant, should be a dead give away to the real meaning of this passage. The Poet, in this case is speaking metaphorically like the author of the Song of Debora when he speaks of the "stars fighting against Sisera (Jgs 5:12). Do we really believe that stars fell against this Biblicial villian? Since the book of Joshua was originally one of songs and poems, this now makes the interpretation very clear. We can find the same epic poetry in Isaiah.
The book of Joshua also contains another glaring error (among many). The destruction of Ai. Although there was a bronze age civilization living there, the place was deserted by Joshua's time. In other words, there was nothing there for Joshua to conquer. If the authors of Joshua were mistaken about this, why could they not be mistaken about the other events they wrote about or intended for them to be taken metaphorically? Again, if not why not? Not to detract from the issue at hand, but if a witness is lying or fabricating one thing, their further testimony is impeachable and unreliable about others as well. This is only one of the many anachronism in this book.
In the story 'dial of Ahaz' it has been suggested that it could have been performed by aerial phosphorus which imitated the suns motion backward while a cloud hid the real sun. Jewish historian Josephus interpeted that the shadow was accelerated as much at first forward as it was made to go backwards afterwards and so the day was neither longer or shorter than ususal. In other words let the shadow return backwards ten degrees (Antiquities of the Jews 10:2:29). Careful reading of II Kings 20:12 says, "Isaiah cried unto the Lord: And he brought the shadow 10 degrees backward by which it had gone down in the dial of Ahaz." Was it Isaiah or the Yahweh who did this? The answer is in Is 38:8 where Isaiah says he (not Yahweh) will bring the shadow back: " Behold I will bring again the shadow of degrees, which is gone down in the sun dial of Ahaz." The answer here is Isaiah simply moved the gnomon himself in a symbolic gesture to please the King. The other problem with this is somewhere in the world the sun rose, set where it rose and rose again. It would not only have to stop, go back, stop, but then restart and go forward again. Clearly there would be evidence of this event recorded by independent sources. We have an excellent historic record of this period of time. (Hezekiah ruled from 715-698) One popular apologist solution is the "recorded event" in Chinese records of two dawns. A simple look at a world globe with dispell this since it would be later in China than in the Levant not earlier. Again the long day and two dawns is found in other cultures but at different times which simply compounds the problem with the claim.
It is unfortunate that Biblicist have to resort to the grasping of straws, a gross missuse of science, and a misrepresentation of scholarship to bolster their case for inerrancy.
The inherent beauty of the Bible resides not in the truthfullness or falsity, but in understanding the meanings as they are applied to the ancient Hebrews and their relationship to their tribal god. We must take ourselves back to the first and second millinimum BCE and live the experience of those nomadic and barbaric cultures to understand them. We must adventure into the mind of the people of the Levant to understand the why these events needed to happen and how they shaped their history, heros, folklore, tradition, and theology for future generations.
Sources:
1) The Interpreters Commentary on the Bible, C. Lyman
2) The Oxford Annotated Bible, May and Metzger
3) Old Testament Theology, Gerland von Rap
4) The Oxford Companion to the Bible, various contributors
5) Ancient Civilizations, Burns
6) Antiquity of the Jews, Josephus
7) The Septuagint (LXX)
