[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

While the Bible often used hyperbolic language to describe a plethora a different events, where "all" could mean "all the earth" or refer to the totality of the victory in a rhetorical sense, not in a literal way. The claim of "totally destroying" the enemy, was concerning a victory in battle. Still, the scripture has to be interpreted to mean God gave the Israelites the right to all the land and made it available to them. Yet, their actual, physical occupation of every single part was a separate matter contingent on their obedience to the Word of the Law. This must be understood, or no future lessons could be drawn from the story The Israelites had conquered the main centers of power, and the remaining Canaanites were subjugated and forced to pay taxes to Israel, Judges 1:1-2. The complete dispossession of the remaining inhabitants could have been achieved with continued assistance from God, but the Israelites failed to obey what God wanted them to do. Hyperbole? Yes, but no one accepts that as an explanation alone. Bible fact must accompany the rhetorical style within the text. Therefore when interpreting scriptures, we have to keep in mind the historical and rhetorical context of the Bible truth. This is crucial for accurate interpretation, rather than applying just a rhetorical or historical alone.

Is this a mumbo jumbo way to say you are agreeing with me, Dom?

What does the mumbo quoted here add to the discussion: "The claim of "totally destroying" the enemy, was concerning a victory in battle."? Relevance, plz.

Hyperbole is the rhetoric used to describe an apparent contradiction. This rhetoric and hyperbole is its own context. There is no other context in the main point of this thread.

What historical context are you referring to here? The Jews weren't historically known as warriors when slaves in Egypt. Yesterday is history, but we're not talking about yesterday when talking about history, are we?

The facts you refer to are the facts I refer to. Jos's words, God's words and an apparent contradiction between them and conquest facts.

Main centers conquered, you say? Historians might disagree with you, but then, you've not been specific. Vaqueness allows for saying things like all the main centers. Even so, this fails to include all, like Jos hyperbolized.

You're slipping Dom. Twice you've agreed with me. About hyperbole. Let's not make agreeing with me a habit, ok?

What rhetorical context are we talking about? Oh, right! The context that those of the Middle East used hyperbole much. That just what I've been saying. Agreeing with me again, Dom? Tut, tut.

Again Dom avoids the main thrust of a thread. In this case an apparent contradiction between God's words and Jos's words. These are the facts. These are historical words. Obfuscation using mumbo jumbo does not a Biblical defence make, nor a Biblical discussion.

Dom has failed again. My saying that hyperbole is the reason makes an attempt to explain that which Dom fails to tackle - historical words. Hyperbole? he asks, and answers Yes but says that it was not hyperbole alone. But he fails to say what the other is. That which he describes as historical context and rhetoric do not explain what this unstated is. We're used to this non-attempt-to-tackle.