Joshua: NOT a liar

[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.

[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.