Joshua: NOT a liar

[donfriesen1]

Very good scriptures all could agree are true.

No one has yet called Jos a liar.

But everyone has danced around the apparent contradiction, saying nothing of it, pretending it has not happened. What is the purpose of putting on the blinders? Why doesn't anyone talk about the elephant in the room?

Plz, in light of those scriptures, could someone comment on the following scripture. Apparently the Lord himself here doesn't agree with the insinuations that everything that was promised was received/possessed/dwelt in. Jos says they have, in 21.43 saying all the promised land was received, possessed and dwelt in - contradicting the following verses. This is a far cry from saying the legal owners have not got their legal right because of disobedience. I am not blind. I can read the text of both verses.

Jos13 Now Joshua was old, advanced in years. And the Lord said to him: “You are old, advanced in years, and there remains very much land yet to be possessed. 2 This is the land that yet remains: all the territory of the Philistines and all that of the Geshurites, 3 from Sihor, which is east of Egypt, as far as the border of Ekron northward (which is counted as Canaanite); the five lords of the Philistines—the Gazites, the Ashdodites, the Ashkelonites, the Gittites, and the Ekronites; also the Avites; 4 from the south, all the land of the Canaanites, and Mearah that belongs to the Sidonians as far as Aphek, to the border of the Amorites; 5 the land of the Gebalites, and all Lebanon, toward the sunrise, from Baal Gad below Mount Hermon as far as the entrance to Hamath; 6 all the inhabitants of the mountains from Lebanon as far as the Brook Misrephoth, and all the Sidonians Those who say the Jews have possessed, dwelt-in the land God legally gave them are contradicting God who says here they didn't. Stop contradicting God.

And then there's the little matter of the Philistines whose territory wasn't dispossessed of them, even in the time of the great warrior King David.

God gave Abraham the land. It was legally his, then. The Jews will not possess/dwell-in the whole of that which was promised/given until the Lord comes. Only then will all be possesssed and dwelt in.

Saying Jos uses hyperbole makes a better explanation than contracting God or the facts, in my opinion.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Very good scriptures all could agree are true.

No one has yet called Jos a liar.

Are you looking for someone to call Joshua a liar? I personally can’t see how Joshua was lying (wanting to deceive with intent) or mistaken (ignorance of all available information) Joshua understood the information and his own history.
Therefore he was presenting the facts available.

But everyone has danced around the apparent contradiction, saying nothing of it, pretending it has not happened. What is the purpose of putting on the blinders? Why doesn't anyone talk about the elephant in the room?

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Plz, in light of those scriptures, could someone comment on the following scripture. Apparently the Lord himself here doesn't agree with the insinuations that everything that was promised was received/possessed/dwelt in. Jos says they have, in 21.43 saying all the promised land was received, possessed and dwelt in - contradicting the following verses. This is a far cry from saying the legal owners have not got their legal right because of disobedience. I am not blind. I can read the text of both verses.

Jos13 Now Joshua was old, advanced in years. And the Lord said to him: “You are old, advanced in years, and there remains very much land yet to be possessed. 2 This is the land that yet remains: all the territory of the Philistines and all that of the Geshurites, 3 from Sihor, which is east of Egypt, as far as the border of Ekron northward (which is counted as Canaanite); the five lords of the Philistines—the Gazites, the Ashdodites, the Ashkelonites, the Gittites, and the Ekronites; also the Avites; 4 from the south, all the land of the Canaanites, and Mearah that belongs to the Sidonians as far as Aphek, to the border of the Amorites; 5 the land of the Gebalites, and all Lebanon, toward the sunrise, from Baal Gad below Mount Hermon as far as the entrance to Hamath; 6 all the inhabitants of the mountains from Lebanon as far as the Brook Misrephoth, and all the Sidonians Those who say the Jews have possessed, dwelt-in the land God legally gave them are contradicting God who says here they didn't. Stop contradicting God.

And then there's the little matter of the Philistines whose territory wasn't dispossessed of them, even in the time of the great warrior King David.

God gave Abraham the land. It was legally his, then. The Jews will not possess/dwell-in the whole of that which was promised/given until the Lord comes. Only then will all be possesssed and dwelt in.

Saying Jos uses hyperbole makes a better explanation than contracting God or the facts, in my opinion.

We all understand Biblical usage of hyperbole and prophetic poetic language. But maybe you could point out with the posts which I posted what I’m missing? The Bible writers follow the theme of Israel never obeying, and following God’s edicts. Joshua mentions this when he states for himself and his house they will follow God. All the land was theirs, all the people would be delivered into their hands by God. Yet, they had to physically go out and believe God for all of those things to happen. Remember the spies who returned saying they couldn’t take the land because giants dwelt there? Well, Caleb and Joshua, had total faith to take over, defeat the inhabitants, and possess the land. Yet, because of the failure of the people, what was legally their’s gets postponed. The role of God’s Sovereignty vs. Human Responsibility. This dynamic speaks directly to the theological tension between God's sovereignty (God declared all the land was theirs and would deliver the people) and human responsibility (they had to physically go out and believe God). If my grandparents owned property in Sicily, and it was inherited by my family here in Florida. The only way to posses the land and move squatters off the property would need me to do it physically. I could say “legally” the property was mine, that I possessed every square foot of it. Whether or not I lived there or the squatters still lived there. All of it was mine. Your idea for an eschatological land grab in the future has zero bearing on this discussion. Would you like to add a discussion on eschatology and how modern Jewish converts living today are going to fulfill an OT promise? How will they displace all those ancient groups which are mentioned in the verse? They are extinct people?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Joshua 21:43 and other biblical verses are thought to be blatant contradictions among mainstream scholars and atheists. Yet, there is no contradiction, but rather a difference in perspective between God's provision and the Israelites' full realization of it, which depended on their continued obedience and action. This theme follows the tribes all the way to the time of Jesus Christ.

Joshua 21:43-45 is primarily a declaration of God's perfect faithfulness in fulfilling every one of His promises to the house of Israel. He had delivered the land into their hands and given them rest from their major enemies, as He had sworn. The military power of the Canaanites was broken, and no one could stand against Israel at that time.

The scripture affirms that God had given the land as an inheritance and that Israel took possession of it. In this sense, the land was legally theirs by divine decree. The grant of the land was a standing authorization to occupy the entire promised territory. The immediate occupation and enjoyment of the land's blessings, however, was conditional on their ongoing obedience to the Mosaic covenant.

In the first chapter in the book of Judges the entire chapter details how various tribes failed to drive out the Canaanites in their allotted territories (e.g., Judah could not drive out the Jebusites, Manasseh could not take certain cities). These remaining inhabitants often became a snare or a thorn in their sides later on due to Israel's failure to fully obey God's command to dispossess them. Keep in mind, it was Judeans, and the Manasites who slacked in their occupation of the lands, not God. Jesus is the author and finisher of our faith, yet we need to yield to allow God’s love to bring us to maturity.

Keep in mind Exodus 23:29-30 describes God's promise to the Israelites that He would drive out the inhabitants of the Promised Land gradually, not all at once in a single year, to prevent the land from becoming desolate and overrun by wild beasts. Here we see God had already indicated that the process would be "little by little" to prevent the land from becoming desolate, “requiring continuous effort” and “total obedience” on Israel's part.

We have no contradiction, but rather a reflection of the tension between divine promise and human responsibility.

With God's point of view, the entire promised land had been delivered to Israel in principle and power; His promises had "all come to pass" because the opportunity for full possession was available.

The Bible writer’s viewpoint emphasizes a distinction between the legal possession granted by God and the practical, “conditional” realization of that inheritance, which ultimately depended on the Israelites' actions and obedience.

James sums it up, you say you have faith? “I’ll show you my faith by my actions!” James 2:14-26

True, and living overcoming strong faith isn't just about believing something intellectually; it's demonstrated through tangible good behavior, compassion, and obedience, proving it's genuine and not just dead or ecclesiastically religious. James challenges the early Apostolic church to "show me your faith without your actions, and I will show you my faith by my actions," emphasizing that actions are the evidence of authentic trusting belief, like Abraham offering Isaac.

The Bible proves that Israel had been going through the motions since day 1. They wanted to replace Moses with a golden calf to lead them back to ecclesiastical slavery. Instead of trusting God who will sustain them through a burning oven heated seven times hotter. Joshua and Caleb never faltered at God’s say so, they trusted the promises and were willing to act on those promises. Therefore Joshua made the true statements that which remind us that God is True, but every man a liar. God promise us but we are the ones who won’t allow “our” story to be written!

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Saying Jos uses hyperbole makes a better explanation than contracting God or “THE FACTS”, in my opinion.

Better explanation than the biblical facts?

[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.

[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.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

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.

Mumbo jumbo you say? Coming from an ecclesiastical charlatan like you, it’s meaningless.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

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.

My last post explains this, but it’s lost on someone like you. You just want everyone to drink from your well. It’s your way or the highway. You have stated that hyperbole is the ONLY explanation. I disagree. I’ve explained why.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

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?

Historically in the scriptures which Joshua would be referring. Do you have a problem with reading comprehension? I know you don’t care about what scripture says.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

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.

You posted that only hyperbole answers the contradiction. Not the facts of what actually happened with Israel. That word serving position is history with you.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

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.

Historians and scholars would disagree with you, with me, with the UPCI, with the Apostolic Pentecostal movement. Don’t look for historians and scholars to be on anyone’s side. Again, you want hyperbole to be the only answer. You must be a wreck in an open Bible debate. Throw you in the middle of some Black Israelites or Rabbinical Jews, and sit back to watch you melt.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

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

No, you said your position is hyperbole minus the facts of scripture. For you Joshua was only embellishing.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

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.

You believe that Joshua was just exaggerating something that never took place.
I believe God promised, Joshua understood they were all given the promise. They owned all the land in the promise it was their’s legally. They were at rest, and their enemies while not removed totally paid taxes as tribute. You don’t believe that. To you, Joshua he’s just a big embellisher.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

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.

Don, you are a religious narcissist. You just get mad, that’s your whole deal. You can’t have a word serving position if you can’t take being wrong. Hey, you don’t have to believe me, you can hate my guts, I don’t care. But I read posts where you treat other posters like disobedient children. Listen, I totally accept that I can get under a person skin, but a guy like you it’s so super easy. You really believe the nonsense that comes out of your own mouth. I pity anyone stuck having you teach them. You actually believe you are the voice of God.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Dom has failed again.

Actually I haven’t. You like apples Don? Well, how do you like those apples?

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

My saying that hyperbole is the reason makes an attempt to explain that which Dom fails to tackle - historical words.

Try your theory on an atheist. Not on a forum which is one dimensional. Go to the local park when temperature and weather permits. Then get a crowd and take on an atheist who is well versed in the Bible. See how your explanation holds up.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

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.

That’s all you are about. The unstated the hidden meanings the underlying text? Don, where’s your church, I want to visit.