₦airaland Forum

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.

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.

adenuga558:
yea na Nairaland sure pass

About to sign up...
Hope it will be more lively than the programming section here.

felixomor:
My simple question has made your attempt ambiguous..

Hehehehe, poor try....

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

Interesting!!!

felixomor:
Good, your dodge says it all

Says what all?
Ok, the story from Genesis to Joshua indicates that Canaan was wiped out.

He actually did it.
Sad
Make i check Nairaland out.

felixomor:
And what u just read,
Does it cover the whole of Canaan?

Simple answer please.

wow, this is getting interesting
you tell me...

felixomor:
The scriptures are already listed above by others

Your assumption is based on what Joshua waz instructed to do.
Not what the Isrealites did eventually.
Its quite simple dear.

Explain this: 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.

felixomor:
I have already addressed the issue na.
The post only confirms the bible
Several verses clearly show that.

Did you read my post?
Verses from where?

rhektor:
It did, you are the one not getting the message. The instruction was to wipe them off, it was an instruction. Whenever you have an instruction to do anything does it really mean you've actually done that? I don't know what is really wrong with all these wannabe nairaland atheists, they would ignore all forms of reasoning and logic to argue truth.
It's really funny

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.

felixomor:
Still pained at the own goal

Instead of addressing the point, you don start as usual abi?

felixomor:
Hehehe,
Someone is trying to cover his tracks
Lmao

Cover wetin?
You better go and ask Yahweh some questions.

rhektor:
Your mind is actually messed up dude
Did you chose those verses and ignore verses like this one

Joshua 13:1


Now Joshua was old and advanced in years when the LORD said to him, "You are old and advanced in years, and very much of the land remains to be possessed.

As if nothing remained? Keep deluding yourself.
Both you and the OP are deceiving yourselves
The fact that they were commanded to wipe out does not mean they were actually wiped out. Maybe you don't know that this research is only confirming biblical stories

Wtf are you saying?
Does this indicate in any manner which land remained?

The portion of land allotted to Israelite was first written in Genesis 15:8, more details is shown in Joshua 1:4. Digest those scriptures first.
After reading the scriptures it would be obvious that lands remained to be conquered, but how does this affect what i posted?
Couldn't it have been lebanon or somewhere else?

For goodness sake the instruction to take out the cannanite, was implemented in Joshua 10 the popular chapter where Joshua told the sun to stand still so he can win the battle(every body that attended sunday school regularly knows this ).

The land the israelite were supposed to take according to the verses above and the bible were to extend to Lebanon, euphrates river, jordan, even to syria, saudi arabia and iraq.
So the scripture you posted does not in any way disprove my point.

Richirich713:
Already answered, it's a historian with a relevant degree, for instance a Richard Carrier has a PhD in ancient history. Someone like G. A. Wells has no such qualification, so doesn't deserve to be called scholar when it comes to ancient history.

With this explanation @bolded, people like Herodotus, Eusebius, Moses, even Henry Adams and co are disquaified as ''Scholars'', right?

But atleast you would agree with me that there are historians nonetheless
Anyways, let's scratch the ''scholars'' part, most catholic seminarians are taught history and philosophy and given degree, so there will also qualify for the title ''scholar'' with your definition.

Not two, approximately two. I know for certain that price and carrier are scholars, very odd but nevertheless they are qualified. There might be a few out there I haven't heard about. Seven is the highest claim I have seen (see pic, Im still looking for the blog post wer I got that image, for references).

According to your definition, this is alright.

While that's quite different, to be a qualified biologist only requires a degree, not published articles in secular peer reviewed journals in the last five years. Take for instance Dr. Nathaniel T. Jeanson , has a PhD from Harvard University in Cell and Developmental Biology, he rejects darwinism and has published peer-reviewed papers in secular journals in his field. Were those papers anti-darwinism, I don't know, but he is qualified.

This guy is a wonder.

He has multiple attestation in early sources, historians Josephus and Tacitus also confirm his existence. This among other things has made me and virtually all experts on this subject certain he exists, in fact his crucifixion is one of the most certain historical facts of the ancient world.

Now Josephus and Tacitus are historians and not scholars.
Define historian, if it's a person that studies(and write about) history, then there are many of them and possibly the source of the OP is also a historian. Though on different level of knowledge.

Can you also be clear on this ''multiple attestation in early sources''.
And stop joking around with Josephus and Tacitus.

Welldone Richirich713 and DoctorAlien.
Felixomor go siddon jare
Thinking of it now, Jezebel was actually a Canaanite (oops).

See why the Bible is very messed up:
According to Joshua 10:40 : So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the Lord God of Israel commanded.
A further confirmation of this was given in Joshua 11:15: As the Lord commanded Moses his servant, so did Moses command Joshua, and so did Joshua; he left nothing undone of all that the Lord commanded Moses.

More to this, the book of Genesis, Deuteronomy, until Joshua was written years not far apart from each other by maybe Moses, Joshua or whoever(same group of guys).
But Judges was written by Samuel(or whoever) centuries later.

I seriously don't want another argument but every sane person can see the ''mess up'' here. Should we call this a mistake in Joshua and Moses' part or a lie, you choose.
Can't believe i just noticed that now, as usual the bible never stops giving.

---

Abeg i no wan argue unnecessary, if u wan quote, quote reasonably.

johnydon22:
tags are no longer my thing

abi, na why i put "freethinking", so i wont get misunderstood.

Still going through the thread so far i'm seeing talks on religion instead of GOD.
What's your opinion on Personal and Impersonal Creator?

Seun:
What do you believe? (I'm not familiar with your position).

Freethinking deist.

Seun:
Well we don't know any other creature that can create a religion, so this is a reasonable assumption. You believe that all religions except one are man made. We have found no reason to believe that there is any exception.

I dont have that believe, haba.

i just wanted to know why he thinks there are manmade.

Seun:
Religion is "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods."(Google) This makes atheism a rejection of religion. We reject "the belief in and worship of ... God" because we have not been convinced that any God exists. Deists reject organized religion but their belief in the undetectable God is essentially a personal religion.

Same old seun.
Have you been convinced that evolution is a fact?
How do you draw conclusion from analysis of events without first hand experience?

JackBizzle:
All man made gods.

Why do you think there are all man made?
just asking

JackBizzle:
All man made gods.

They are all racist and primitive.

Yahweh for the Jews
Allah for the Arabs
Jesus for the lost sheep of Isreal.
Zeus for the greeks/Romans
Obatala for the Yoruba.

Mtchewewee

OK i see...

JackBizzle:
I don't.

God is an illusion. Religion is the practice of empowering that illusion.

Which God and How is it an illusion?

obinna58:
It has a lot to do with it cos supernatural haven't been proven or disproven

So u're simply not sure?

KingEbukasBlog:
Just calling any entity 'God/god' and you are pretty much good to go

lol OK oo.

obinna58:
Human needs time in order to advance to a greater level
Don't u think?

Na wa oo
What does this have to do with the supernatural?

obinna58:
Time

What does time have to do with this?

obinna58:
That Would be proven when every detail about the universe is decovered
My beliefs are in the future

So you are saying the "details" of the supernatural has not been discovered?, any reason why?

obinna58:
there is noway I could ever communicate with what I'm to believe in, also no prove about the existence of supernatural being, then what's the essence of believing

What's the proof against a supernatural being?

KingEbukasBlog:
Atheism simply rejects the deification of anything . To be lucid : an atheist does not want you to call anything God/god .

This means that an atheist is not necessarily saying there is no creator of the universe , its just saying don't deify it ; don't treat it as a God . Its just a being , let it be what it is .

Hmm, what would you call deification?