4kings:

See this guy...
Didn't i answer your question?

By asking me to tell you
You didnt,
Sorry.....

felixomor:

By asking me to tell you
You didnt,
Sorry.....

Are you trying to run away from this.
Didn't i answer you after that?

The question sounded funny that's why i posted that.
If you actually think otherwise, why not share it, i'm also learning too.

4kings:

Are you trying to run away from this.
Didn't i answer you after that?

The question sounded funny that's why i posted that.
If you actually think otherwise, why not share it, i'm also learning too.

The verse you quoted, does it cover the whole Canaan?
And if you claim there is another verse that covers the wiping out of Canaan, produce it
The answer simple bro
It will not kill u.

You already know the answer.

Anyway, you can keep the answer.

felixomor:


The verse you quoted, does it cover the whole Canaan?

Yes.

And if you claim there is another verse that covers the wiping out of Canaan, produce it

I already did, it's in the next verse, Joshua 11, in short the whole of Joshua.

4kings:

Yes.

I already did, it's in the next verse, Joshua 11, in short the whole of Joshua.

Quote it here, please or rest
Stop being ambiguous

4kings:

First of all i'm not an atheist.
Joshua 10 indicated that the instruction was fulfilled. This is simple sunday-school teaching for goodness sake
No other verse from Genesis to Joshua which was most likely written by the same group of people indicates otherwise.

The diversion only occured later in Judges and so on, written centuries after, that's my point, or maybe you can provide a verse from Genesis to Joshua that indicates otherwise.

Joshua 10 : 40 Thus Joshua struck all the land, the hill country and the Negev and the lowland and the slopes and all their kings. He left no survivor, but he utterly destroyed all who breathed, just as the LORD, the God of Israel, had commanded.

Then I will refer you to Joshua 16:10 and 19:22, 19:38

rhektor:


Then I will refer you to Joshua 16:10 and 19:22, 19:38

Oops, apparently this subject is a big issue.
http://www.awitness.org/contrabib/history/joshua.html

4kings:

Oops, apparently this subject is a big issue.
http://www.awitness.org/contrabib/history/joshua.html

Maybe you don't know that this has been dealt with in the past. Mr wannabe atheist check this out

http://www.tektonics.org/gk/joshcont.php

rhektor:


Maybe you don't know that this has been dealt with in the past. Mr wannabe atheist check this out

http://www.tektonics.org/gk/joshcont.php

I'm not an atheist, nor do i want to be one.
I've told you this before.

Now let me address the link you sent.
First of all: in an attempt to explain away verse 8 of Joshua 11, the author of the linked article makes his first point and writes thus:
"Herbert is trying to support a contention that "all" inhabitants of the land were killed. But Josh. 11:8 is only about Hazor (one city) and the defenders of Hazor."
This is a very big lie.
Look at Joshua 11:1-6: [b]1 And it came to pass, when Jabin king of Hazor had heard those things, that he sent to Jobab king of Madon, and to the king of Shimron, and to the king of Achshaph, 2 And to the kings that were on the north of the mountains, and of the plains south of Chinneroth, and in the valley, and in the borders of Dor on the west, 3 And to the Canaanite on the east and on the west, and to the Amorite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, and the Jebusite in the mountains, and to the Hivite under Hermon in the land of Mizpeh. 4 And they went out, they and all their hosts with them, much people, even as the sand that is upon the sea shore in multitude, with horses and chariots very many.5 And when all these kings were met together, they came and pitched together at the waters of Merom, to fight against Israel. 6 And the Lord said unto Joshua, Be not afraid because of them: for to morrow about this time will I deliver them up all slain before Israel: thou shalt hough their horses, and burn their chariots with fire.[/b]
Now I believe after reading the above, every honest and sane individual would agree that King of Hozor called upon all the other kings of the tribe
of canaan to help him fight.

More so, the twelfth verse says: And all the cities of those kings, and all their kings, Joshua captured, and struck them with the edge of the sword, devoting them to destruction, just as Moses the servant of the Lord had commanded.

So this buttresses the point that it wasn't just the city of Hazor that was taken over but also the cities of the kings whom he called.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Second issue: Here's another interesting point your link attempts to explain.
According to Judges 1:1 : "After the death of Joshua the Israelites enquired of YAHWEH, 'which tribe should be the first to attack the Canaanites?'"
Note: "first to attack"; this assumes Canaan had not been attecked, presenting another contradiction.

In an attempt to explain this away also, the author of your link makes this sly point: "first" does not mean "first ever in history" but "first in the present campaign"
This is not very impressive considering the following: In Joshua 18:9-10, it is written that the lands in the conquered Kingdom was divided amongst Joshua's men.
If we're to go with the point your link says, then we'll also have to assume that some group of people waged war on Israel and took back the lands before Joshua died and this detail was left unrecorded. I'm sure you now see why the second point does not make any sense.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Third Issue:
Your guy tries to also explain this contradiction.
According to Joshua 15:63 : As for the Jebusites the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the children of Judah could not drive them out; but the Jebusites dwell with the children of Judah at Jerusalem unto this day.(which is an internal inconsistency by the way)

But here in Judges 1:21 : And the children of Benjamin did not drive out the Jebusites that inhabited Jerusalem; but the Jebusites dwell with the children of Benjamin in Jerusalem to this day.

Everyone can see the contradiction, but are the Jesubites not supposed to be dead. You guy reiterates that Jesubites were just possessed and and not all destroyed just Hazor. I've addressed this in the first issue. Also Joshua 14 :10 makes it very very clear.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fourth Issue:
I wanted to just skip this becuase it's tiring sef.
This is about the popular contradiction about David taking Goliath's head to Jerusalem in 1 Samuel 17:54, before conquering Jerusalem in 2Samuel 5:6.
Your guy has this to say: "In the political background of the ANE, cities changed hands quite often during military conflicts"
All i can say to this is WOWWWW! Make i no waste my time on this and i'll also skip the other David issue.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fifth Issue:
About Moses promising to not give the land of Ammonites to the Israeelites in Deuteronomy 2:19 but doing so in joshua 13:24-25 after the war,your guy defends this and basically says that Joshua13:25 was talking solely about the lands the tribe of Gads had normally.
Just reading the verses yourself, and you'll see that rather verse 25 talks about the lans given to the tribe of Gad after the declaration in verse 24.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm busy and too tired to go through the rest, if you can debunk the points above, then list the others and i'll address them in my next response.

4kings:

I'm not an atheist, nor do i want to be one.
I've told you this before.

Now let me address the link you sent.
First of all: in an attempt to explain away verse 8 of Joshua 11, the author of the linked article makes his first point and writes thus:
"Herbert is trying to support a contention that "all" inhabitants of the land were killed. But Josh. 11:8 is only about Hazor (one city) and the defenders of Hazor."
This is a very big lie.
Look at Joshua 11:1-6: [b]1 And it came to pass, when Jabin king of Hazor had heard those things, that he sent to Jobab king of Madon, and to the king of Shimron, and to the king of Achshaph, 2 And to the kings that were on the north of the mountains, and of the plains south of Chinneroth, and in the valley, and in the borders of Dor on the west, 3 And to the Canaanite on the east and on the west, and to the Amorite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, and the Jebusite in the mountains, and to the Hivite under Hermon in the land of Mizpeh. 4 And they went out, they and all their hosts with them, much people, even as the sand that is upon the sea shore in multitude, with horses and chariots very many.5 And when all these kings were met together, they came and pitched together at the waters of Merom, to fight against Israel. 6 And the Lord said unto Joshua, Be not afraid because of them: for to morrow about this time will I deliver them up all slain before Israel: thou shalt hough their horses, and burn their chariots with fire.[/b]
Now I believe after reading the above, every honest and sane individual would agree that King of Hozor called upon all the other kings of the tribe
of canaan to help him fight.

More so, the twelfth verse says: And all the cities of those kings, and all their kings, Joshua captured, and struck them with the edge of the sword, devoting them to destruction, just as Moses the servant of the Lord had commanded.

So this buttresses the point that it wasn't just the city of Hazor that was taken over but also the cities of the kings whom he called.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Second issue: Here's another interesting point your link attempts to explain.
According to Judges 1:1 : "After the death of Joshua the Israelites enquired of YAHWEH, 'which tribe should be the first to attack the Canaanites?'"
Note: "first to attack"; this assumes Canaan had not been attecked, presenting another contradiction.

In an attempt to explain this away also, the author of your link makes this sly point: "first" does not mean "first ever in history" but "first in the present campaign"
This is not very impressive considering the following: In Joshua 18:9-10, it is written that the lands in the conquered Kingdom was divided amongst Joshua's men.
If we're to go with the point your link says, then we'll also have to assume that some group of people waged war on Israel and took back the lands before Joshua died and this detail was left unrecorded. I'm sure you now see why the second point does not make any sense.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Third Issue:
Your guy tries to also explain this contradiction.
According to Joshua 15:63 : As for the Jebusites the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the children of Judah could not drive them out; but the Jebusites dwell with the children of Judah at Jerusalem unto this day.(which is an internal inconsistency by the way)

But here in Judges 1:21 : And the children of Benjamin did not drive out the Jebusites that inhabited Jerusalem; but the Jebusites dwell with the children of Benjamin in Jerusalem to this day.

Everyone can see the contradiction, but are the Jesubites not supposed to be dead. You guy reiterates that Jesubites were just possessed and and not all destroyed just Hazor. I've addressed this in the first issue. Also Joshua 14 :10 makes it very very clear.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fourth Issue:
I wanted to just skip this becuase it's tiring sef.
This is about the popular contradiction about David taking Goliath's head to Jerusalem in 1 Samuel 17:54, before conquering Jerusalem in 2Samuel 5:6.
Your guy has this to say: "In the political background of the ANE, cities changed hands quite often during military conflicts"
All i can say to this is WOWWWW! Make i no waste my time on this and i'll also skip the other David issue.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fifth Issue:
About Moses promising to not give the land of Ammonites to the Israeelites in Deuteronomy 2:19 but doing so in joshua 13:24-25 after the war,your guy defends this and basically says that Joshua13:25 was talking solely about the lands the tribe of Gads had normally.
Just reading the verses yourself, and you'll see that rather verse 25 talks about the lans given to the tribe of Gad after the declaration in verse 24.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm busy and too tired to go through the rest, if you can debunk the points above, then list the others and i'll address them in my next response.

A paper published on July 27, 2017 sparked a series of headlines questioning the accuracy of the Bible. A study demonstrated that comparing the DNA of modern Lebanese with ancient Canaanites revealed a striking similarity between the two.1 By comparing the genomes of five inhabitants of the city of Sidon (from roughly 3,700 years ago) with 99 persons living in modern Lebanon, researchers estimated that the genetic similarity between the two is about 93 percent. Based on these findings, it is argued by some that the Canaanites were not destroyed as the Bible alleges.

Headlines after the publication of the study ran with the story, with several of them stating flatly that DNA evidence had proven the Bible wrong. David Klinghoffer, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, noted that numerous headlines (many of them originating in the United Kingdom) seemed to take a deliberate swipe at the Bible.2 He listed a dozen headlines from various news outlets that directly challenged the truthfulness of the biblical account of the conquest.3

In an age where attention-grabbing headlines can determine the number of clicks an article gets—as well as the amount of potential revenue from advertisers—this allegation is no surprise. However, it does expose the stunning biblical illiteracy in society today. To be fair, it may have been that the authors of the news articles simply took the following statement from the study at face value:

[T]he Bible reports the destruction of the Canaanite cities and the annihilation of its people; if true, the Canaanites could not have directly contributed genetically to present-day populations. However, no archaeological evidence has so far been found to support widespread destruction of Canaanite cities between the Bronze and Iron Ages: cities on the Levant coast such as Sidon and Tyre show continuity of occupation until the present day.4
Although the removal of the Canaanite population was commanded (Deuteronomy 20:17), numerous passages indicate the incomplete nature of the conquest (e.g., Joshua 17:12-13; Judges 1:27-33). One of the clearest failures recorded in the book of Judges is that the tribe of Dan in particular (or a large segment of it) remained nomadic instead of taking the territory allotted to it (Judges 18:1). The text indicates that this tribe had particular difficulties, later losing some of the land they had taken previously (Joshua 19:47).
The northernmost border of Israel’s territory was found in the allotment given to the tribe of Asher, which included the cities of Tyre and Sidon (Joshua 24:24-31). The text states that the Israelites failed to take this territory, so that the people of the tribe of Asher “lived among the Canaanites, the inhabitants of the land, for they did not drive them out” (Judges 1:31; 3:3). Both Sidon and Tyre seem to have remained as independent city states. King Hiram of Tyre made treaties with both David and Solomon many years after the conquest (2 Samuel 5:11; 1 Kings 5:1; 9:13). Later prophets denounced the Phoenician cities of Tyre5 and Sidon,6 treating them as foreign political entities. The Bible never indicates that the Israelites conquered these cities or killed their populations.

The Homeric epics of the Iliad and Odyssey mention Sidon, known in the Bible as the home of Jezebel and her father Ethbaal (1 Kings 16:31). Jezebel’s royal seal—donated to Israel’s Department of Antiquities in the early 1960s—identifies her as the “daughter of the king.”7 The city of Sidon had a succession of kings and was powerful enough that the term “Sidonian” became virtually synonymous with the term “Phoenician.”8 There is no indication—either historical or biblical—that the Israelites ever conquered the city.

Tyre was a powerful and wealthy city also, enough so that it was able to establish colonies throughout the Mediterranean. It is no coincidence that Tyre experienced a golden age beginning precisely at the time when the Bible indicates that its king made important trade agreements with David and Solomon.9 Tyre had a long succession of kings who often ran afoul of more powerful nations. For instance, the famed Assyrian king Tiglath-pileser III (747-727 B.C.) defeated a second Hiram of Tyre ruling in the eighth century.10 Later, the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar plundered the city, which was subsequently razed by Alexander the Great in fulfillment of prophecy (Ezekiel 26).11 The biblical portrayal of Tyre—including its wealth, its continual problems with other nations, and eventually its destruction—agrees with the ancient evidence.

The Bible and ancient inscriptions both indicate that Israel never defeated Tyre or Sidon, a fact that seems to have eluded some critics. That the modern inhabitants of Lebanon should share such genetic similarity with their ancient ancestors should not be surprising. Phoenicia always remained independent of Israel despite any political or economic connections the two may have shared. Far from undermining the biblical text, the most recent findings concerning Canaanite DNA support the accuracy of Scripture.


Courtesy www.apologeticpress.org

Rhektor next time you should post your source in support of intellectual property.

Anyways can you please summarize what the writing is saying so I don't misinterprete it?

Source: http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=5464

4kings:
Rhektor next time you should post your source in support of intellectual property.

Anyways can you please summarize what the writing is saying so I don't misinterprete it?

Source: http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=5464

Since you know the source I don't know what you are looking for again

It was because I was using a mobile phone that was why i was not really able to get all info out there. Thank you for stating the source though

rhektor:



Since you know the source I don't know what you are looking for again

It was because I was using a mobile phone that was why i was not really able to get all info out there. Thank you for stating the source though

Oh ok.
I'll be waiting for your summary...