We've all been told that the Bible is full of scientific errors, but how well does that claim stand up to scrutiny? As we dig into the claim, we usually find two categories: Things the Bible does say, but science does not really contradict (e.g. creation in 6 days), or things the Bible doesn't say, but atheists really want to force it to say because science really does contradict it.
A common example of the latter is found in Joshua 10, verses 12 and 13 of which say the sun "stood still". Atheists object to this, since the sun is not actually a tiny orb in the sky, but is rather so large that it could fit our planet inside it a million times over and still have enough room for more, and it is actually our planet that orbits it, at a considerable distance, of course. But does the Bible really say the sun is a small orb that moves around our sky? I'll tell you at sunset.
As added information for humorous effect, it genuinely was sunset as I wrote this article. But as you can see, even though we are fully aware of the heliocentric model, we still use terms like "sunrise" and "sunset", even though the sun is not, in fact, rising or setting. This is called the "language of appearance", wherein rather than going through the trouble of being technically accurate, we use language that describes how things appear, even if how they appear is not how they are.
Given the extreme hatred for God among atheists, it is not unfathomable that perhaps one day they might eliminate the language of appearance from the culture given the chance. For now, however, it still exists. Even knowing the truth about the sun and our orbit around it, we still speak as if it was the other way around. Is it really so hard to believe that God would use the same language devices we use in order to communicate with us more effectively?
"But he knew we'd use this as an argument, so He should have been more accurate anyway" the atheist might reply. This is sheer arrogance. The Bible was not designed for one specific group of people in one specific era. Joshua specifically has been around for more than 3,000 years. That's more than 1,000 years of having a primarily Jewish audience followed by 2,000 years of spreading throughout the entire world. God is supposed to choose His words specifically to appeal to a group of highly intelligent people living 3,400 years later? It is far more logical that the atheist should adjust his position and just accept that there is no logical reason to interpret the book as literally meaning the sun is in the sky, especially when we use the same language devices ourselves.
The fact that this is even an argument is very telling. If atheists had any real arguments, they wouldn't need to resort to such desperate measures as to deny Joshua the right to use the same language devices as we use today. But they do resort to this, because they have to. There's a reason for this. Human beings are sinful. Romans 5:10 tells us that we are actually His enemies. We hate God, and it is only His love for us that enables that to ever change. Unfortunately, we don't always want that to change. And so really, pitiful arguments like this one become in themselves arguments in favour of God.
So, if you're an atheist, especially one who uses this argument, I want you to examine yourself. What is it about God that makes atheism so much more attractive? What is it that makes you willing to cling to such abysmal lies, rather than coming to a glorious truth? I would like to encourage you to seek the God who created the very universe you use to rebel against Him. If you seek Him with all your heart, you are guaranteed to find Him, and that is not something you will regret in the long run.