Joshua: NOT a liar

[Evang.Benincasa]

OK, I think I understand what you want.

You want someone to say hyperbole only is the answer.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

OK, I think I understand what you want.

You want someone to say hyperbole only is the answer.

Sort of. I see it as the best explanation until a better is offered.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Sort of. I see it as the best explanation until a better is offered.

Therefore Joshua was only exaggerating, instead of agreeing with God?

[donfriesen1]

Quote:
Originally Posted by donfriesen1 View Post
Sort of. I see it as the best explanation until a better is offered.

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Therefore Joshua was only exaggerating, instead of agreeing with God?

How about: he was agreeing and exaggerating? That is how I see it. Do you see the difference?

Apparently, your take is that Joshua doesn't ever appear to contradict the Lord. Am I right?

The Bible gives the appearance that they, God and Jos, do not agree.

Your take sees no apparent contradiction between Jos21.43-45 and Jos13.1-6, right? Most readers see Jos 21.43 So the Lord gave to Israel all the land of which He had sworn to give to their fathers, and they took possession of it and dwelt in it. as apparently contradicting Jos13.1there remains very much land yet to be possessed.

At least someone, me, tries to offer an explanation of an apparent contradiction, while you apparently deny any explanation of a contradiction is needed.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Quote:
Sort of. I see it as the best explanation until a better is offered.

How about: he was agreeing and exaggerating? That is how I see it. Do you see the difference?

Apparently, your take is that Joshua doesn't ever appear to contradict the Lord. Am I right?

The Bible gives the appearance that they, God and Jos, do not agree.

Your take sees no apparent contradiction between Jos21.43-45 and Jos13.1-6, right? Most readers see Jos 21.43 So the Lord gave to Israel all the land of which He had sworn to give to their fathers, and they took possession of it and dwelt in it. as apparently contradicting Jos13.1 ]there remains very much land yet to be possessed.

At least someone, me, tries to offer an explanation of an apparent contradiction, while you apparently deny any explanation of a contradiction is needed.

When you read the scripture keeping the understanding of the ancient culture in mind. There is no contradiction. With the prophets and with the example of Revelation apocalyptic literature you have poetic language. To Joshua and the ancient audience there isn’t a contradiction. One the land was given to them to occupy all of it. It was their’s, Joshua understood that, as did the ancient reader. They conquered the enemy, subjugating them and taxing them.therefore they were at peace. The only thing which seems like a contradiction is how the modern reader sees the text. The modern reader isn’t placing the wording into its context. Also failing to marrying the hyperbole with the hard facts. Therefore to the modern reader Joshua looks like he is only using hyperbole to seem like God kept all the promises. Not taken in account that God did fulfill everything on His side, just per usual Israel dropped the ball.