[donfriesen1]

Dom, we agree, you and I, that the Book of Jos shows:

1. God promised the Jew Canaan.
2. that the land was legally theirs.
3. They possessed and dwelt in (only part of) the land.
4. Jos said God fulfilled all, everything he had promised. Jos21.43-45
5. But God said they didn't dwell in all the land. Jos13.1-6

4 contradicts 5, apparently.

No one with the ability to read should say there is not an apparent contradiction. The reason I started the thread is to give an explanation why the seeming contradiction should not be seen to be a contradiction.

Anyone saying (correctly) that there are conditions of obedience or a complex fulfillment which prevented the complete fulfillment does not yet smooth over this apparent contradiction.

Saying the hyperbole 'all the earth' is an expression for 'the then known world' ignores the fact that the example in which it was used, the Kingdom of Babylon, did not conquer Greece. This would then indicate that Greece was not part of the world that was known. As such, the putting forward of this as an explanation does not help properly understand hyperbole.

Quoting Joshua 17:12-13 and Judges 1:27-28 and 1 Kings 8:56 (which correctly support what Jos said in Jos21.43-45) does nothing to smooth over the apparent contradiction of 4. contradicting 5. This is not helpful with the apparent contradiction.

This thread's purpose is to explain an apparent contradiction. The use of hyperbole is yet the only explanation put forth to smooth over the apparent contradiction.

Plz, someone, put forward another or explain why hyperbole isn't a viable explanation. Silence, meaning no response, would indicate that the best explanation has been put forward so far. Until then, we are left seeing an apparent contradiction.

I have not yet said Jos is a liar. I don't plan to, either.