[donfriesen1]

Joshua proclaims to all Israel that God has faithfully done everything he said he would do (in relation to conquering all of Canaan for the Jews). Yet, even a superficial reading of the Book of Joshua clearly shows areas unconquered. One prominent example is the Jebusite stronghold, which was only conquered much later, by David, then to gain fame as great Zion.

Taking everything Joshua said literally, makes Joshua look like a liar he wasn't.

Instead of calling Joshua a liar, it should be considered that the culture of the Middle East used hyperbole to a large extent. Those today who've lived there say this usage is still common, a feature.

Thus, Joshua's words should be understood in the context of the language usage of that time. Anything else would be inaccurate. No one of that time would have taken his words literally. They would have read between the lines, ignoring a literal interpretation. Joshua was doing his very best speaking (in line with language usage of that day) to magnify (make larger than real) the Lord. Everyone then understood he was not attempting to be literally accurate.

Anyone reading the Bible today should take hyperbole into consideration, to understand the Bible as accurately as possible.

I'm a Canadian. If God would ever speak to my physical ears, my guess is he would use the English of Canada and not an Aussie bent. I might not perceive an Australian version of English. When he spoke to those in Bible lands, did he use the language they understood? If so, did he use the language as they used it, ie. with hyperbole, or was it modified?