₦airaland Forum

THE HERMENEUTICS OF POSSESSION: WHEN GOD GAVE THEM SOMEBODY ELSE'S LAND

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to another auspicious occasion where we examine the responses to my innocent questions about the biblical conquest of Canaan.

Our learned siblings have offered several explanations. According to some, the Canaanites were squatters. According to others, the strongest army owns whatever it conquers. One respondent compared God to a landlord who owns the world and can evict anyone he pleases. Others argued that the Canaanites attacked Israel first.

Let us examine these arguments and see whether they answer the questions or simply defend the story.

---

1. WAS CANAAN EMPTY LAND WAITING FOR ISRAEL?

My argument:

Genesis 12:6 identifies the Canaanites as inhabitants of the land when Abraham arrived. Genesis 13:7 mentions the Canaanites and Perizzites, while Genesis 23 describes Abraham purchasing a burial site from Ephron the Hittite.

These were established communities with homes, families, and property. Canaan was not an empty inheritance waiting for Abraham's descendants.

Their response:

MaxInDHouse argued that ancient nations acquired territory through warfare. The strongest army took the land, and Israel was simply acting according to the standards of the time.

The issue:

This explains how land was conquered, not why the conquest was morally right.

If military strength determines who deserves land, then every successful conqueror is justified simply because they win. Is that really the moral standard being defended?

2. ABRAHAM BOUGHT LAND, BUT HIS DESCENDANTS TOOK IT

My argument:

When Abraham needed somewhere to bury Sarah, he negotiated with Ephron and paid for the property. He did not simply seize it because he believed God had promised him the territory.

Their response:

Dtruthspeaker argued that God owns the world and is therefore its landlord. Since the Canaanites had not purchased their land from God, they were merely squatters whom God could evict.

The issue:

This argument assumes what it needs to prove: that the biblical claim of ownership is true and that ownership gives the owner unlimited moral permission.

Imagine someone promising your house to his children. Does his promise automatically give them a right to dispossess you?

The fact that someone claims ownership does not independently establish that claim. And even ownership does not automatically make every possible action against occupants morally acceptable.

Calling the Canaanites squatters does not settle the question. It simply assumes that Yahweh's claim overrides theirs.

3. DID THE CANAANITES HAVE TO ACCEPT A PROMISE MADE TO ABRAHAM?

My argument:

The covenant in Genesis 12, 15, and 17 concerns Yahweh and Abraham's descendants. The Canaanites were not parties to that agreement.

Why should a promise made between a deity and one family automatically obligate other people to surrender their homes?

Their response:

The respondents returned to the argument that God owns the land and can give it to whomever he chooses. Others argued that the Canaanites had acquired their territories through warfare too.

The issue:

Explaining how people acquired land in the past does not establish that every subsequent conquest is justified.

If someone promises his children another person's property, the promise does not become legitimate merely because he believes he has the authority to make it.

The argument that God gave Israel the land explains Israel's understanding of the conquest. It does not, by itself, establish that the existing inhabitants were morally obligated to accept the transfer.

4. DID EVERY CANAANITE ATTACK ISRAEL FIRST?

My argument:

I asked what the inhabitants of Jericho and Ai did to Israel before Israel attacked them. I also asked whether the Gibeonites attacked Israel before seeking peace.

Their response:

Some respondents argued that Israel was a displaced people returning to its promised land and that the Canaanites were the aggressors. One compared the situation to the United States bombing Japan after Japan attacked first. Another described Jericho and Ai as dangerous military outposts.

The issue:

The Amalekites and Sihon, king of the Amorites, were involved in distinct conflicts with Israel. Their actions do not establish that every nation Israel conquered attacked Israel first.

Calling a city a military obstacle does not establish that every person in it was a combatant or that killing its entire population was justified.

Even if one nation attacks another, that does not automatically justify every possible response against everyone belonging to that nation.

The question remains: where does the biblical text establish that every targeted population attacked Israel first?

5. WERE THE CANAANITES WRONG TO DEFEND THEIR HOMES?

My argument:

From the inhabitants' perspective, an armed population was arriving to take their land. Resisting that army would naturally look like self-defence.

Their response:

MaxInDHouse argued that the Canaanites knew how ancient warfare worked and should have surrendered to the stronger army. He cited the Gibeonites, who sought peace rather than risk destruction.

The issue:

The Gibeonites' decision shows that they wanted to survive. It does not prove that Israel was morally right to invade them.

If foreigners arrived in Nigeria with a stronger army and demanded our homes, would their military superiority give them the moral right to kill us if we refused?

If not, then military strength alone cannot settle the question. Explaining how the Canaanites could have avoided death is not the same as explaining why they deserved it.

6. IF GOD COMMANDED IT, DOES THAT AUTOMATICALLY MAKE IT RIGHT?

My argument:

If someone today claimed that God commanded them to seize your property and kill you if you resisted, we would demand evidence and examine the morality of their actions.

Why should the same acts become morally acceptable simply because an ancient religious text attributes them to God?

Their response:

The respondents argued that God owns the world, that the Canaanites were wicked, and that Israel acted according to the standards of its time. Dtruthspeaker accused me of relying on emotion and invoked just-war reasoning.

The issue:

The question is not whether the Bible presents the conquest as divinely commanded. It does.

The question is whether attributing an action to God automatically establishes that the action is morally good.

If the answer is yes, any religious group could justify violence by claiming divine instructions. We would still need to determine whether the claimed command was genuine and whether the action was justified.

Otherwise, the standard becomes: whatever my religion attributes to God is right, while whatever another religion attributes to its deity is wrong.

That is not a consistent moral standard. It is loyalty to one's own religious narrative.

7. HOW DID THE GOD OF ISRAEL BECOME THE GOD EVERYONE MUST WORSHIP?

My argument:

The biblical narrative begins with Yahweh calling Abraham, establishing a covenant with his descendants, and promising them land. I asked how this particular covenantal relationship became a universal obligation for every human being.

Their response:

One respondent argued that people recognized Yahweh through Israel's history, including the Holocaust and Israel's return to Palestine. Others accused me of attacking the Bible or demanded evidence for my position.

The issue:

A religious community may interpret historical events as evidence of divine intervention. But people from different religions interpret events through their own beliefs too.

The spread of a religion or the survival of a nation does not, by itself, establish that its supernatural claims are true.

The question remains: what evidence establishes that Yahweh is the universal God, beyond the testimony of the tradition that teaches people to believe in him?

8. HOW DO WE KNOW WHEN SOMEONE SPEAKS FOR GOD?

My argument:

The Bible itself describes people making contradictory claims of divine authority. In 1 Kings 13, an older prophet lies about receiving a message from an angel, leading another prophet to disobey his original instruction. Jeremiah 27–28 also presents conflicting prophetic claims.

Their response:

MaxInDHouse asked whether the goal was to prove God does not exist or to learn how to identify genuine servants of God.

The issue:

Those are different questions. Even if God exists, it does not follow that everyone claiming to speak for him is telling the truth.

Saying that we should identify genuine messengers is not an answer unless a reliable method of identification is provided.

A person's religious title, confidence, or sincerity does not independently prove that their message came from God.

---

SOME FINAL THINGS TO CONSIDER

A pattern emerges from these responses.

When I ask whether the land was already inhabited, I am told that ancient nations fought wars. When I ask whether a promise to Abraham obligated the Canaanites, I am told that God owns the world. When I question the morality of the conquest, I am told that the Canaanites were wicked or should have surrendered.

But explaining how an event happened is not the same as establishing that it was right.

If the strongest army has the right to take land, power becomes the standard of justice. If every action attributed to God is automatically good, then no independent moral standard remains by which to examine the claim.

THE FINAL QUESTION IS SIMPLE:

If foreigners came to Nigeria claiming that their god had promised them our land, and they killed our families when we refused to leave, would we accept their claim as sufficient justification?

If not, why should the answer change because the story appears in the Bible?

The objective is simple: examine what the text says, test the arguments, and apply the same standard of reasoning regardless of whose beliefs are being defended.

You are such a terrible loser and I am only going to make it worse for you because there is no valid way of rearguing a case you have lost. 🤣🤣🤣

It is permanent!! 🤣🤣🤣

And opening new threads on them won't still make them valid as you would be guilty of more fallacies in addition to the ones you committed in the main thread.

Thereby proving that all these you have done was a complete waste of your time and energy FOR THEY ARE STILL INVALID AND A NULLITY just like your arguments in the threads.🤣🤣🤣

AI Overview
In formal logic, legal proceedings, and structured debate, arguing outside a determined case is known as an irrelevancy fallacy, most commonly referred to as ignoratio elenchi (irrelevant conclusion) or a red herring.

Why It Is Considered Wrong
• Changes the Subject: It introduces points that, while they might be true on their own, have no logical bearing on the specific claim being tested.

• Evades the Burden of Proof: It is often used as a distraction tactic when a speaker cannot defend their position within the established framework of the case.

“You cannot put something on nothing and expect it to stay there. It will collapse.”- Lord Denning

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Roycemadeit:


I didn't loose anything talk more of being terrible. Y'all are running on a program, so if a person asks an innocent question they are foolish, instead of you giving them an answer.

By the way, you have never provided one answer to any questions I have asked. All you do is abuse, label me derogatory names and evade all the questions... Why don't you turn a new leaf, become a new creature for once?

Admit you don't know the answer to my questions...
And didn't mention you because I want others to weigh in.

If you did not lose then why did you open this thread? It is exactly like a person who has lost a case in court going to another court to make that same case in that other court. It is still invalid and punitive action would follow.

Same thing here
The thread shows that you are re-trying to make your lost case.
Meanwhile, you lost that case because EVERYTHING YOU CLAIMED WAS INVALID FOR ONE REASON OR THE OTHER.

No Argument Can Proceed On An Invalidity that is the meaning and purpose of Fallacy.

fallacy
/ˈfaləsi/
A fallacy is a flaw in reasoning or an error in an argument that makes it logically invalid, unsound, or deceptive.

So, you are trying to deceive people. (You atheists always trying to deceive people and always arguing illogically and fallaciously)

And this thread is already screaming "FALLACY", exactly like the last 2 ...and the future ones you are going to make. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

A CASE OF BAD THINKING, BAD PRODUCT!

AI Overview
In formal logic and argumentation, arguments based on invalidity cannot continue because an invalid argument contains a structural flaw that completely breaks the chain of reasoning.

And your threads show that your reasonings are completely flawed and perfectly broken! 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

So, you are not being logical here but trying to be manipulative and and appeal to people's illogical mind thereby committing the fallacy of argumentum ad passiones.

AI Overview
The appeal to emotion fallacy (Latin: argumentum ad passiones) occurs when someone tries to win an argument by manipulating feelings—such as fear, pity, anger,-instead of using proper evidence and logical reasoning

No Road friend! 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Case expunged, thread closed with vexatious costs made against the op in the sum of ₦100,000.🤣🤣🤣

Dtruthspeaker:
If you did not lose then why did you open this thread? It is exactly like a person who has lost a case in court going to another court to make that same case in that other court. It is still invalid and punitive action would follow.

Same thing here
The thread shows that you are re-trying to make your lost case.
Meanwhile, you lost that case because EVERYTHING YOU CLAIMED WAS INVALID FOR ONE REASON OR THE OTHER.

No Argument Can Proceed On An Invalidity that is the meaning and purpose of Fallacy.

fallacy
/ˈfaləsi/
A fallacy is a flaw in reasoning or an error in an argument that makes it logically invalid, unsound, or deceptive.

So, you are trying to deceive people. (You atheists always trying to deceive people and always arguing illogically and fallaciously)

And this thread is already screaming "FALLACY", exactly like the last 2 ...and the future ones you are going to make. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

A CASE OF BAD THINKING, BAD PRODUCT!

AI Overview
In formal logic and argumentation, arguments based on invalidity cannot continue because an invalid argument contains a structural flaw that completely breaks the chain of reasoning.

And your threads show that your reasonings are completely flawed and perfectly broken! 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

So, you are not being logical here but trying to be manipulative and and appeal to people's illogical mind thereby committing the fallacy of argumentum ad passiones.

AI Overview
The appeal to emotion fallacy (Latin: argumentum ad passiones) occurs when someone tries to win an argument by manipulating feelings—such as fear, pity, anger,-instead of using proper evidence and logical reasoning

No Road friend! 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Case expunged, thread closed with vexatious costs made against the op in the sum of ₦100,000.🤣🤣🤣

.
You could have simply answered the questions instead of writing this epistle 😂

Roycemadeit:
You could have simply answered the questions instead of writing this epistle 😂

Are these not the questions you asked in your threads which was pointed out to you that they are fallacious and invalid and illogical?

So, this schooling is meant to teach you that "You can't place nothing and expect that something should be placed on it. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

So, now you cannot proceed, you want to illegally argue thereby committing the fallacy of circular argument.
No Road!!!
🤣🤣🤣🤣

Dtruthspeaker:
Are these not the questions you asked in your threads which was pointed out to you that they are fallacious and invalid and illogical?

So, this schooling is meant to teach you that "You can't place nothing and expect that something should be placed on it. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

So, now you cannot proceed, you want to illegally argue thereby committing the fallacy of circular argument.
No Road!!!
🤣🤣🤣🤣

.
.
Pele,
Defender of Confusion

Roycemadeit:
.
.
Pele,
Defender of Confusion

Says the advocate of deceits, fallacying and illogicality. 🤣🤣🤣

Instead of arguing aimlessly about what you don't understand i've told you several times to first consider the standard humans in ancient times use to acquire lands.
Today the world has agreed that there should be boundaries and if any nation decides to take over the land of another then other nations will look into the matter before taking sides.
Back then it wasn't like that each nation acquires wherever they like through warfare.
Centuries after God secured the land of Canaan for the Israelites the system still persists down to the 16th-18th century so i don't know why you keep on flogging a dead horse.

God chose only the land of Canaan and warned the Israelites never to going further which is understandable unlike nations like Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome and England. All these nations went as far as leaving their own territory to go fighting over lands they don't need.

So your being atheist can't change the fact that the Israelites needed to settle somewhere and the Almighty God chose the best land for His people to declare throughout the earth that He is the Almighty God. After acquiring the land of Canaan God didn't ask the Israelites to leave that place and go fighting other nations over lands.

I'm just glad that you continue to read God's word now seeking an excuse to criticize it where there is none!🥱